| Literature DB >> 29401688 |
Angel Jimenez-Molina1, Cristian Retamal2, Hernan Lira3.
Abstract
Knowledge of the mental workload induced by a Web page is essential for improving users' browsing experience. However, continuously assessing the mental workload during a browsing task is challenging. To address this issue, this paper leverages the correlation between stimuli and physiological responses, which are measured with high-frequency, non-invasive psychophysiological sensors during very short span windows. An experiment was conducted to identify levels of mental workload through the analysis of pupil dilation measured by an eye-tracking sensor. In addition, a method was developed to classify mental workload by appropriately combining different signals (electrodermal activity (EDA), electrocardiogram, photoplethysmo-graphy (PPG), electroencephalogram (EEG), temperature and pupil dilation) obtained with non-invasive psychophysiological sensors. The results show that the Web browsing task involves four levels of mental workload. Also, by combining all the sensors, the efficiency of the classification reaches 93.7%.Entities:
Keywords: Web browsing tasks; machine learning; mental workload; psychophysiological sensors
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29401688 PMCID: PMC5855035 DOI: 10.3390/s18020458
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The 10–20 system of electroencephalogram electrodes. Highlighted the 14 electrodes used in this paper.
Related work analysis.
| Reference | Small Time Windows | Real Time | Web Browsing Tasks | Multiple Psychophysiological Sensors |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Partially. | Yes | No. | Yes. |
| [ | Partially. | Yes | No. | Yes. |
| [ | Partially. | Yes | No. | Yes. |
| [ | No. | Yes | No. | Yes. |
| [ | No. | Yes | No. | Yes. |
| [ | Yes. | Yes | Partially. | No. |
| [ | Not applicable. | No | Yes | No. |
| [ | No. | Yes | Yes | No. |
| [ | Yes. | Yes | Yes | No. |
Figure 2Participant with the sensors runs the experiment. The sensors are: (1) ECG, (2) axillary temperature, (3) EEG, (4) EDA, (5) PPG and (6) eye tracker.
Figure 3Example of a dummy Web page used for the experiment.
Figure 4Brightness of the Web page for each frame during a experimental session.
Figure 5Example of active window and transition window.
Features extracted by each signal.
| Signals | Extracted Features |
|---|---|
| Pupil | mean of area |
| EDA | Accumulated data, average as a function of time and spectral power |
| Phasic | Average, absolute value of the maximum, number of peaks |
| ECG | Mean, median, variance of ECGMAD (average absolute deviation) |
| PPG(HR) | Mean, standard deviation, RMS of HR |
| T | Mean, median |
| EEG | Power and phase of the analytical signal obtained with the Transf. of Hilbert |
Figure 6Optimal number of clusters according to the intersection method of CH and WSS curves for all participants.
Figure 7Optimal grouping of time windows according to their level of cognitive load considering all participants.
Selected features with the RFE method for all participants.
| Signal | Selected features |
|---|---|
| EDA | Accumulated data |
| Temperature | Mean |
| PPG | Mean HR |
| EEG | Power channel 5(T7) |
Standardized means of pupillary diameter for transition and active windows.
| Factor | Mean | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|
| Transition | −0.0201 | 0.951 |
| Active | 0.0629 | 1.115 |
Results of classification using different models.
| Model | Accuracy (%) | Recall (%) | Precision (%) | Kappa (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| m-LR | 51.42 | 48.71 | 46.86 | 5.92 |
| m-SVM | 66.48 | 63.21 | 66.71 | 57.49 |
| m-SVM + RFE | 70.03 | 65.99 | 68.79 | 65.14 |
| MLP | 93.7 | 95.28 | 92.06 | 91.24 |
Summary of per sensor classification results for MLP with 1000 neurons in each hidden layer and 500 epochs.
| Sensors | Accuracy (%) | Recall (%) | Precision (%) | Kappa (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 93.7 | 95.28 | 92.06 | 91.24 |
| EDA | 35.7 | 41.5 | 26.62 | 2.31 |
| T | 35.66 | 21.27 | 25.02 | 0.04 |
| ECG | 34.75 | 26.48 | 25.39 | 0.617 |
| PPG | 34.71 | 20.70 | 25.13 | 0.3 |
| EEG | 70.91 | 82.03 | 65.09 | 58.36 |
| EDA + PPG | 37.11 | 54.48 | 28.39 | 5.23 |
| EDA + EEG | 80.95 | 87.34 | 77.23 | 73.07 |
| PPG + EEG | 77.72 | 85.49 | 72.9 | 68.36 |
| EDA + PPG + EEG | 86.27 | 90.4 | 83.65 | 80.72 |
Testing time for models.
| Model and Sensor Combination | Mean [sec] | Standard Deviation [sec] |
|---|---|---|
| m-LR | 0.00073 | 0.0010 |
| m-SVM | 0.00668 | 0.0025 |
| M-SVM + RFE | 0.00124 | 0.0048 |
| MLP | 1.47667 | 0.6091 |
| MLP EEG | 1.12334 | 0.0057 |
| MLP EDA + PPG | 1.10667 | 0.0057 |
| MLP EDA + EEG | 1.14667 | 0.0115 |
| MLP PPG + EEG | 1.13667 | 0.0057 |
| MLP EDA + PPG + EEG | 1.11667 | 0.0115 |