| Literature DB >> 31075920 |
Olga Vl Bitkina1, Jungyoon Kim2, Jangwoon Park3, Jaehyun Park4, Hyun K Kim5.
Abstract
Many previous studies have identified that physiological responses of a driver are significantly associated with driving stress. However, research is limited to identifying the effects of traffic conditions (low vs. high traffic) and road types (highway vs. city) on driving stress. The objective of this study is to quantify the relationship between driving stress and traffic conditions, and driving stress and road types, respectively. In this study, electrodermal activity (EDA) signals for a male driver were collected in real road driving conditions for 60 min a day for 21 days. To classify the levels of driving stress (low vs. high), two separate models were developed by incorporating the statistical features of the EDA signals, one for traffic conditions and the other for road types. Both models were based on the application of EDA features with the logistic regression analysis. City driving turned out to be more stressful than highway driving. Traffic conditions, defined as traffic jam also significantly affected the stress level of the driver, when using the criteria of the vehicle speed of 40 km/h and standard deviation of the speed of 20 km/h. Relevance to industry: The classification results of the two models indicate that the traffic conditions and the road types are important features for driving stress and its related applications.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; driving stress; electrodermal activity; road traffic; road types
Year: 2019 PMID: 31075920 PMCID: PMC6539244 DOI: 10.3390/s19092152
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Speed as an indicator of traffic congestion [24,25,26,27,28].
| References | Brief Description |
|---|---|
| Pattara-Aticom et al. [ | Authors classified three levels of traffic congestion based on GPS speed data using threshold technique. It was shown that vehicle velocity is an important characteristic of traffic congestion. |
| Palubinskas et al. [ | Authors introduced the traffic congestion detection approach for image time series and found that average velocity is main the traffic parameter. |
| Thianniwet et al. [ | Authors proposed a technique to identify road traffic congestion levels using velocity data from a GPS device. Vehicle moving pattern as an important element was extracted through the sliding window technique. |
| Xing et al. [ | Authors studied the road tunnel traffic safety and built up the traffic assessment model contained the parameter of speed variance. It was shown that speed variance is an important element of traffic evaluation. |
| He et al. | Authors analyzed traffic congestion in urban road networks using speed data. The speed performance index was found as the indicator of road state for congested or smooth traffic. |
Figure 1Relationship between driving stress and studied factors.
Previous studies on driving stress.
| References | Collected Mental and Physical Data | Studied Factors | Analysis Methods |
|---|---|---|---|
| Xing et al. [ | ECG, eye movement, flicker value, face image, self-reported emotional state | Road conditions (three different highways), traffic conditions, driving environment, vehicle behavior | Questionnaire, detection and processing of low/ high-frequency ratio of heart rate variability |
| Matthews et al. [ | Self-reported emotional state | Age, type of road (city road, intercity road), frequency of car use, driving conditions (pre-drive, post-drive, weekend), accident involvement, speeding convictions | Questionnaire, factor analysis, ANOVA |
| Singh et al. [ | GSR, PPG | Urban driving scenarios (pre-driving, relax driving, busy driving, return driving, rost-driving) | Detection and processing the GSR/PPG signals |
| Keshan et al. [ | ECG | Type of road (city road, highway) | Detection and processing the ECG signal |
| Goel et al. [ | ECG | Real-time driving in normal road conditions | Detection and processing the ECG signal |
| Riener [ | ECG, self-reported emotional state | Specific route, fixed daytime | Post-experiment interview, Detection and processing of low/ high frequency ratio of heart rate variability |
| Lee et al. | ECG, PPG | Real-time driving in a busy narrow street | Detection and processing the ECG signal |
| Mundell et al. [ | GSR | Alternation of rest and driving periods | Detection and processing the GSR signal |
| Kurniawan et al. [ | Speech signal, GSR | Real-time driving in usual road conditions | Detection and processing the Speech and GSR signals |
Figure 2Experiment on the driving route between Incheon and Seoul (captured by Google Earth).
Figure 3Line plot of the collected speed and electrodermal activity (EDA) data in the same time series for an evening session.
Models with various averages and standard deviations of vehicle speed.
| Average Speed (km/h) | Standard Deviation (km/h) | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Predictive Value (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 10 | 77.3 | 78 | 77 | 64 |
| 15 | 78.7 | 68 | 81 | 40 | |
| 20 | 85.8 | 50 | 87 | 15 | |
| 25 | 92.9 | 0 | 93 | 0 | |
| 30 | 97.2 | 0 | 97 | 0 | |
| 30 | 10 | 70.9 | 74 | 68 | 67 |
| 15 | 78 | 81 | 76 | 64 | |
| 20 | 73 | 67 | 75 | 38 | |
| 25 | 87.1 | 82 | 88 | 36 | |
| 30 | 88.6 | 80 | 89 | 36 | |
|
| 10 | 71.6 | 73 | 69 | 75 |
| 15 | 72.3 | 75 | 71 | 65 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 25 | 76.6 | 70 | 78 | 43 | |
| 30 | 79.4 | 72 | 81 | 41 | |
| 50 | 10 | 75.9 | 79 | 71 | 79 |
| 15 | 70.9 | 73 | 68 | 74 | |
| 20 | 73.8 | 76 | 72 | 66 | |
| 25 | 79.4 | 82 | 78 | 68 | |
| 30 | 75.9 | 70 | 78 | 53 |
Figure 4EDA signal processing for January 11, 2018 morning session (peaks and valleys are marked by ○ and ×, respectively).
Figure 5Stepwise development and application of the models.
Specification of classification models.
| Classification Model | EDA Signal Features | Driving Conditions Features | Analytical Method | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Road type prediction | amplitude and duration (min, max, mean, SD, sum, N) | Separation of city and highway section of the path | Logistic regression | 82.9% |
| Traffic jam prediction | amplitude and duration (min, max, mean, SD, sum, N) | Determination of traffic jam criteria using vehicle speed and speed SD | Logistic regression | 80.3% |
Model based on traffic conditions (low vs. high traffic).
| Predictor | Coefficient | |
|---|---|---|
| N | −0.117 | 0.046 |
| Mean OM | −657.549 | 0.040 |
| Max OM | 66.019 | 0.047 |
| Min OM | 1586.879 | 0.075 |
| Sum OM | 7.747 | 0.063 |
| SD OM | 71.514 | 0.678 |
| Max OD | 0.001 | 0.727 |
| Min OD | −0.005 | 0.219 |
| Sum OD | 0.000 | 0.487 |
| Mean OD | −0.001 | 0.941 |
| Constant | 5.444 | 0.198 |
Figure 6Confusion matrix of the model using the traffic condition datasets.
Model based on different types of road segments.
| Predictor | Coefficient | |
|---|---|---|
| Min OD | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Max OD | 0.000 | 0.977 |
| Sum OD | 0.000 | 0.378 |
| Mean OD | −0.009 | 0.240 |
| Mean OM | −128.868 | 0.604 |
| Max OM | −1.864 | 0.918 |
| Min OM | 18.381 | 0.976 |
| Sum OM | 4.682 | 0.176 |
| SD OM | 94.897 | 0.383 |
| N | −0.062 | 0.145 |
| Constant | 3.740 | 0.218 |
Figure 7Confusion matrix of the model using the road type datasets.
Comparison of two developed methods.
| Method | A (%) | Sn (%) | Sp (%) | PPV (%) | Cox & Snell R2 | Nagelkerke R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traffic conditions | 80.3 | 85 | 78 | 70 | 0.323 | 0.432 |
| Road Type | 82.9 | 81 | 84 | 65 | 0.374 | 0.518 |
(a) 10-fold cross-validation.
| 10-Fold Cross-Validation | ROAD TYPE | Traffic Condition | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sn | Sp | PPV | AUC | Sn | Sp | PPV | AUC | |
| RF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AB | 62.70 | 90.60 | 80.00 |
| 57.80 | 88.00 | 80.40 | 68.90 |
| NB | 52.90 | 95.30 | 87.10 | 84.70 | 53.10 | 86.70 | 77.30 | 75.60 |
| SVM | 56.90 | 89.40 | 76.30 | 73.10 | 70.30 | 65.30 | 63.40 | 67.80 |
| MLP | 54.90 | 83.50 | 66.70 | 75.50 | 57.80 | 80.00 | 71.20 | 73.80 |
(b) Training 70% and testing 30%.
| Testing (30%) | Road Type | Traffic Condition | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sn | Sp | PPV | AUC | Sn | Sp | PPV | AUC | |
| RF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AB | 76.47 | 83.33 | 76.47 | 83.46 | 68.75 | 57.69 | 50.00 | 62.74 |
| NB | 47.06 | 91.67 | 80.00 | 83.09 | 68.75 | 61.54 | 52.38 | 73.80 |
| SVM | 52.90 | 91.70 | 81.80 | 72.30 | 12.50 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 59.62 |
| MLP | 52.94 | 62.50 | 50.00 | 64.22 | 52.20 | 57.90 | 60.00 | 54.33 |
* Random forest (RF), adaBoost (AB), naïve Bayes (NB), support vector machine (SVM), multi-layered perceptron (MLP).