| Literature DB >> 29750113 |
Junli Xu1, Jianliang Min1, Jianfeng Hu1.
Abstract
Eye-tracking is an important approach to collect evidence regarding some participants' driving fatigue. In this contribution, the authors present a non-intrusive system for evaluating driver fatigue by tracking eye movement behaviours. A real-time eye-tracker was used to monitor participants' eye state for collecting eye-movement data. These data are useful to get insights into assessing participants' fatigue state during monotonous driving. Ten healthy subjects performed continuous simulated driving for 1-2 h with eye state monitoring on a driving simulator in this study, and these measured features of the fixation time and the pupil area were recorded via using eye movement tracking device. For achieving a good cost-performance ratio and fast computation time, the fuzzy K-nearest neighbour was employed to evaluate and analyse the influence of different participants on the variations in the fixation duration and pupil area of drivers. The findings of this study indicated that there are significant differences in domain value distribution of the pupil area under the condition with normal and fatigue driving state. Result also suggests that the recognition accuracy by jackknife validation reaches to about 89% in average, implying that show a significant potential of real-time applicability of the proposed approach and is capable of detecting driver fatigue.Entities:
Keywords: computerised monitoring; driver fatigue assessment; driving simulator; eye state monitoring; eye-movement data collection; fuzzy k-nearest neighbour; fuzzy systems; gaze tracking; jackknife validation; pupil area recording; real-time eye movement tracking device; sensors; time 1 h to 2 h
Year: 2018 PMID: 29750113 PMCID: PMC5933402 DOI: 10.1049/htl.2017.0020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthc Technol Lett ISSN: 2053-3713
Fig. 1System overview
Fig. 2Usage of D-Lab surveillance system
Fig. 3Comparison of the fixation time of No. 1 subject in AOI area under the condition of normal and fatigue state
Fig. 4Comparison diagram of the difference of pupil area under the condition of normal and fatigue state
a For normal state from No. 1 subject
b For normal state from No. 2 subject
c For fatigue state from No. 1 subject
d For fatigue state from No. 2 subject
Fig. 5Comparison of the pupil area of No. 1 subject under the condition of normal and fatigue state
Fig. 6Comparison of the probability of pupil area in the five regions of No. 1 subject under the condition of normal and fatigue state
Fig. 7Flowchart to show the operation process of eye-based fatigue detection system
Fig. 8Comparison classification average accuracy of using single feature and combined feature (*p < 0.05)
Test results given by jackknife cross validation
| Subject no. | Accuracy, % |
|---|---|
| 1 | 88.56 |
| 2 | 88.91 |
| 3 | 88.49 |
| 4 | 89.01 |
| 5 | 88.52 |
| 6 | 88.32 |
| 7 | 87.82 |
| 8 | 88.86 |
| 9 | 88.70 |
| 10 | 88.59 |
| mean ± variance | 88.75 ± 0.116 |
Performance comparison of the previous works
| Author | Classifier | Accuracy, % |
|---|---|---|
| Punitha [ | SVM | 93.50 |
| Mbouna [ | SVM | 87.58 |
| Hemadri [ | Harr | 80.00 |
| Fan [ | Adaboost | 80.19 |
| Mandal [ | SVM | 85.02 |
| this paper | FKNN | 88.75 |