| Literature DB >> 34062944 |
Olivia Vargas-Lopez1, Carlos A Perez-Ramirez2, Martin Valtierra-Rodriguez1, Jesus J Yanez-Borjas3, Juan P Amezquita-Sanchez1.
Abstract
The economic and personal consequences that a car accident generates for society have been increasing in recent years. One of the causes that can generate a car accident is the stress level the driver has; consequently, the detection of stress events is a highly desirable task. In this article, the efficacy that statistical time features (STFs), such as root mean square, mean, variance, and standard deviation, among others, can reach in detecting stress events using electromyographical signals in drivers is investigated, since they can measure subtle changes that a signal can have. The obtained results show that the variance and standard deviation coupled with a support vector machine classifier with a cubic kernel are effective for detecting stress events where an AUC of 0.97 is reached. In this sense, since SVM has different kernels that can be trained, they are used to find out which one has the best efficacy using the STFs as feature inputs and a training strategy; thus, information about model explain ability can be determined. The explainability of the machine learning algorithm allows generating a deeper comprehension about the model efficacy and what model should be selected depending on the features used to its development.Entities:
Keywords: EMG signals; statistical time features; stress detection; support vector machine
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34062944 PMCID: PMC8125327 DOI: 10.3390/s21093155
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Machine learning framework for designing data-driven classifier schemes.
EMG signals duration for each participant.
| Participant | Duration (Hours: Minutes: Seconds) |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1:24:15.9 |
| 2 | 1:20:46.6 |
| 3 | 1:28:38.8 |
| 4 | 1:21:11.5 |
| 5 | 1:10:52.3 |
| 6 | 1:21:16.9 |
| 7 | 1:21:13.1 |
| 8 | 1:23:04.3 |
| 9 | 1:20:28.1 |
| 10 | 1:04:57.9 |
Figure 2Description of the driving path.
Figure 3Localization of the EMG sensor in subjects.
Figure 4Extracted EMG signal segments for each scenario.
Figure 5Schematic diagram of the proposed methodology.
Types of SVM and their kernels [51].
| Type | Kernel Used |
|---|---|
| Linear | - |
| Quadratic | Quadratic |
| Cubic | Cubic |
| Fine Gaussian | RBF scale set to
|
| Medium Gaussian | RBF scale set to
|
| Coarse Gaussian | RBF scale set to
|
Figure 6Box diagrams of the 17 STFs of the three periods without normalization.
Figure 7Box diagrams of the 17 STFs of the three periods with the normalized segments.
Figure 8Box diagrams of the 17 STFs of no stress condition (NSC) and stress condition (SC).
p-values obtained using KWM.
| Statistical Feature | |
|---|---|
| Mode | 0.0013 |
| Median | 7.04 × 10−6 |
| RMS | 6.21 × 10−4 |
| SMR | 6.37 × 10−7 |
| Range | 0.0017 |
| Mean | 2.61 × 10−6 |
| Variance | 1.11 × 10−6 |
| Standard deviation | 1.11 × 10−6 |
| Skewness | 0.42 |
| Kurtosis | 0.55 |
| 5th Moment | 0.16 |
| 6th Moment | 0.42 |
| Shape factor w/RMS | 0.91 |
| Shape factor w/SMR | 0.02 |
| Crest factor | 0.23 |
| Impulse factor | 0.39 |
| Latitude factor | 0.55 |
Obtained accuracy for each kernel.
| SVM Kernel | Accuracy (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Min | 2 Min | 3 Min | 4 Min | 5 Min | |
| Linear | 66.7 | 56.7 | 70 | 73.3 | 80 |
| Quadratic | 63.3 | 63.3 | 70 | 76.7 | 78 |
| Cubic | 73.3 | 66.7 | 90 | 90 | 96 |
| Fine Gaussian | 60 | 56.7 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 80 |
| Medium Gaussian | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 80 |
| Coarse Gaussian | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 80 |
Figure 9Accuracy for each window length for the SVM classifier.
Comparison between classifiers.
| Classifier | Accuracy | AUC |
|---|---|---|
| SVM | 96% | 0.97 |
| MLP | 83.3% | 0.84 |
Comparison with similar works.
| Author | Signals | Methodology | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Katsis et al. (2008) [ | EMG, ECG, EDA and Respiration |
Two statistical features were extracted as mean value and root mean square. 10-fold-cross validation and SVM classifier was used. | 79.3% |
| Fu and Wang (2014) [ | EMG and ECG |
A preprocessing step was headed with the Fast Independent Component Analysis from both signals. Two nonlinear measurements were obtained from the windows (peak factor and maximum of cross-relation curve). 10-fold-cross validation and Mahalanobis distance used as classifier. | 86.7% |
| Wang and Guo (2020) [ | EMG |
Pseudoinverse Learning Algorithm based Autoencoder (PILAE) was used for the representation learning of signals and AdaBoost classifier was used as the final step. Leave-One-Out-cross validation was employed. | 58% |
| Rastgoo et al. [ | ECG, vehicle and environmental data |
Fusion of the CNN and LSTM models to develop the classifier. CNN is used to fuse the information obtained from ECG, vehicle, and environmental data. LSTM is used as classifier. | 92.8% |
| El Haouij et al. [ | EDA |
4-level Discrete Wavelet Decomposition is performed to the right-hand EDA signal. Haar Wavelet is used as mother wavelet. Random Forest classifier is used. | 81% |
| Proposal | EMG |
Statistical Properties are used as features. Support Vector Machine is used as the classifier. 10-fold-cross validation is employed. | 96% |