Evaluating Driver Features for Cognitive Distraction Detection and Validation in Manual and Level 2 Automated Driving

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the impacts of feature selection on driver cognitive distraction (CD) detection and validation in real-world nonautomated and Level 2 automated driving scenarios.

Background

Real-time driver state monitoring is critical to promote road user safety.

Method

Twenty-four participants were recruited to drive a Tesla Model S in manual and Autopilot modes on the highway while engaging in the N-back task. In each driving mode, CD was classified by the random forest algorithm built on three “hand-crafted” glance features (i.e., percent road center [PRC], the standard deviation of gaze pitch, and yaw angles), or through a large number of features that were transformed from the output of a driver monitoring system (DMS) and other sensing systems.

Results

In manual driving, the small set of glance features was as effective as the large set of machine-generated features in terms of classification accuracy. Whereas in Level 2 automated driving, both glance and vehicle features were less sensitive to CD. The glance features also revealed that the misclassified driver state was the result of the dynamic fluctuations and individual differences of cognitive loads under CD.

Conclusion

Glance metrics are critical for the detection and validation of CD in on-road driving.

Applications

The paper suggests the practical value of human factors domain knowledge in feature selection and ground truth validation for the development of driver monitoring technologies.

Keywords

driver state monitoring cognitive distraction feature selection ground truth validation automated driving

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aghaei

Donmez

Liu

C. C.

Liu

Plataniotis

K. N.

Chen

H.-Y. W.

Sojoudi

. (2016). Smart driver monitoring: When signal processing meets human factors: In the driver’s seat. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 33, 35–48.doi:10.1109/MSP.2016.2602379

Bishop

C. M

. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning (pp. 33–38). Springer.

Christ

Braun

Neuffer

Kempa-Liehr

A. W

. (2018). Time series feature extraction on basis of scalable hypothesis tests (tsfresh – a python package). Neurocomputing, 307, 72–77.doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2018.03.067

Dietterich

T. G

. (1998). Approximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Computation, 10, 1895–1923.doi:10.1162/089976698300017197

Engström

Markkula

Victor

Merat

. (2017). Effects of cognitive load on driving performance: The cognitive control hypothesis. Human Factors, 59, 734–764.doi:10.1177/0018720817690639

Fridman

Reimer

Mehler

Freeman

W. T

. (2018). Cognitive load estimation in the wild

[Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,

1–9.

Jin

Niu

Hou

Xian

Wang

Shi

. (2012). Driver cognitive distraction detection using driving performance measures. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2012, 1–12.doi:10.1155/2012/432634

Liang

Lee

J. D

. (2014). A hybrid Bayesian network approach to detect driver cognitive distraction. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 38, 146–155.doi:10.1016/j.trc.2013.10.004

Liang

Lee

J. D.

Reyes

M. L

. (2007). Nonintrusive detection of driver cognitive distraction in real time using Bayesian networks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2018, 1–8.doi:10.3141/2018-01

10.

Liang

Reyes

M. L.

Lee

J. D

. (2007). Real-Time detection of driver cognitive distraction using support vector machines. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 8, 340–350.doi:10.1109/TITS.2007.895298

11.

Mars

Navarro

. (2012). Where we look when we drive with or without active steering wheel control. PLoS One, 7, e43858.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043858

12.

Martens

M. H.

Van Winsum

. (2000). Measuring distraction: The peripheral detection task. Soesterberg, Netherlands: TNO Human Factors.

13.

McDonald

A. D.

Ferris

T. K.

Wiener

T. A

. (2020). Classification of driver distraction: A comprehensive analysis of feature generation, machine learning, and input measures. Human Factors, 62, 1019–1035.doi:10.1177/0018720819856454

14.

Mehler

Reimer

Dusek

J. A

. (2011). Mit AgeLab delayed digit recall task (n-back). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

15.

Navarro

François

Mars

. (2016). Obstacle avoidance under automated steering: Impact on driving and gaze behaviours. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 43, 315–324.doi:10.1016/j.trf.2016.09.007

16.

Pedregosa

Varoquaux

Gramfort

Michel

Thirion

Grisel

Vanderplas

. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830.

17.

Reimer

. (2009). Impact of cognitive task complexity on drivers’ visual tunneling. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2138, 13–19.doi:10.3141/2138-03

18.

Solovey

E. T.

Zec

Garcia Perez

E. A.

Reimer

Mehler

. (2014). Classifying driver workload using physiological and driving performance data: Two field studies

[Conference session]. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,

4057–4066.

19.

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) On-Road Automated Vehicle Standards Committee . (2018). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE International.

20.

TomTom . (2019). Canberra traffic report. https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/canberra-traffic/

21.

Wang

Reimer

Dobres

Mehler

. (2014). The sensitivity of different methodologies for characterizing drivers’ gaze concentration under increased cognitive demand. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 26, 227–237.doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.08.003

22.

Wijayaratna

K. P.

Cunningham

M. L.

Regan

M. A.

Jian

Chand

Dixit

. (2019). Mobile phone conversation distraction: Understanding differences in impact between simulator and naturalistic driving studies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 129, 108–118.doi:10.1016/j.aap.2019.04.017

23.

Yang

Ferris

T. K

. (2018). Cognitive efficiency in human–machine systems: Metrics of display effectiveness for supporting multitask performance. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 12, 153–169.doi:10.1177/1555343417712464

24.

Yang

Kuo

Lenné

M. G

. (2018). Analysis of gaze behavior to measure cognitive distraction in real-world driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62, 1944–1948.doi:10.1177/1541931218621441

25.

Yang

Kuo

Lenné

M. G

. (2019). Patterns of sequential off-road glances indicate levels of distraction in automated driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63, 2056–2060.doi:10.1177/1071181319631204

26.

Young

. (2012). Cognitive distraction while driving: A critical review of definitions and prevalence in crashes. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars - Electronic and Electrical Systems, 5, 326–342.doi:10.4271/2012-01-0967