| Literature DB >> 31396270 |
Yuliang Ma1, Bin Chen1,2, Rihui Li2, Chushan Wang3, Jun Wang3, Qingshan She1, Zhizeng Luo1, Yingchun Zhang2.
Abstract
The rapid development of the automotive industry has brought great convenience to our life, which also leads to a dramatic increase in the amount of traffic accidents. A large proportion of traffic accidents were caused by driving fatigue. EEG is considered as a direct, effective, and promising modality to detect driving fatigue. In this study, we presented a novel feature extraction strategy based on a deep learning model to achieve high classification accuracy and efficiency in using EEG for driving fatigue detection. EEG signals were recorded from six healthy volunteers in a simulated driving experiment. The feature extraction strategy was developed by integrating the principal component analysis (PCA) and a deep learning model called PCA network (PCANet). In particular, the principal component analysis (PCA) was used to preprocess EEG data to reduce its dimension in order to overcome the limitation of dimension explosion caused by PCANet, making this approach feasible for EEG-based driving fatigue detection. Results demonstrated high and robust performance of the proposed modified PCANet method with classification accuracy up to 95%, which outperformed the conventional feature extraction strategies in the field. We also identified that the parietal and occipital lobes of the brain were strongly associated with driving fatigue. This is the first study, to the best of our knowledge, to practically apply the modified PCANet technique for EEG-based driving fatigue detection.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31396270 PMCID: PMC6664732 DOI: 10.1155/2019/4721863
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1The overall schematic for the proposed EEG-based driving fatigue classification.
Figure 2The setup of the experiment, including the driving platform and EEG recording system.
Figure 3The PCANet network structure.
Figure 4PSD distributions of alpha and beta bands for awake (a, b) and fatigue (c, d) states.
Figure 5The classification performance of different PCA filter numbers when using SVM.
Figure 6The average accuracies obtained by SVM (a) and KNN (b) when using different features extracted through WPD, PSD, modified PCANet, and PCANet. “∗∗” denotes significantly different from controls (p < 0.005). “∗∗∗” denotes significantly different from controls (p < 0.0001).
The classification performance using different feature extraction approaches.
| Methods | Classifiers | Classification performance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | AUC | ||
| WPD | SVM | 55.42 ± 5.09 | 0.51 ± 0.11 |
| KNN | 54.00 ± 5.00 | 0.46 ± 0.08 | |
|
| |||
| PSD | SVM | 64.44 ± 15.06 | 0.55 ± 0.12 |
| KNN | 76.00 ± 13.00 | 0.55 ± 0.08 | |
|
| |||
| Modified-PCANet | SVM | 95.14 ± 4.87 | 0.97 ± 0.04 |
| KNN | 89.00 ± 10.00 | 0.89 ± 0.12 | |
|
| |||
| PCANet | SVM | 96.00 ± 4.00 | 0.98 ± 0.03 |
| KNN | 87.00 ± 15.00 | 0.91 ± 0.10 | |
The summary of the statistical analysis (t-test) of the classification performance between all feature extraction methods.
| Methods | Classifiers |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | AUC | ||
| Modified-PCANet-WPD | SVM | 1.36 | 1.02 |
| KNN | 6.15 | 5.18 | |
|
| |||
| Modified-PCANet-PSD | SVM | 0.0023 | 2.24 |
| KNN | 0.0018 | 3.10 | |
|
| |||
| Modified-PCANet-PCANet | SVM | 0.3541 | 0.6612 |
| KNN | 0.6823 | 0.2884 | |
The average time (seconds) used in the feature extraction, model training, and testing between the traditional PCANet and the proposed modified PCANet method.
| Steps | Methods | Number of PCA filters | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 | |||
| Features extraction | Modified-PCANet | 0.89 | 1.46 | 2.18 | 2.91 | 4.22 | 7.71 | |
| PCANet | 125.43 | 219.94 | 320.39 | 449.50 | 651.95 | 1202.40 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Model training | Modified-PCANet | SVM | 0.05 | 0.70 | 5.67 | 10.34 | 13.25 | 15.65 |
| KNN | 0.02 | 0.30 | 2.20 | 4.10 | 5.12 | 6.15 | ||
| PCANet | SVM | 7.02 | 126.66 | 302.52 | 736.79 | 1813.40 | 3606.80 | |
| KNN | 2.70 | 49.01 | 118.60 | 285.04 | 697.46 | 1387.23 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Model testing | Modified-PCANet | SVM | 0.25 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.34 | 0.39 |
| KNN | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.16 | ||
| PCANet | SVM | 1.16 | 2.94 | 5.34 | 11.10 | 20.84 | 35.75 | |
| KNN | 0.45 | 1.14 | 2.10 | 4.22 | 8.02 | 14.06 | ||