MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998985924 · doi:10.1109/crv.2010.37

Thermal Imaging as a Way to Classify Cognitive Workload

2010· article· en· W1998985924 on OpenAlexaff
John Stemberger, Robert S. Allison, Thomas Schnell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)AvionicsArtificial intelligenceClassifier (UML)CognitionFacial recognition systemComputer visionHuman–computer interactionMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As epitomized in DARPA's 'Augmented Cognition' program, next generation avionics suites are envisioned as sensing, inferring, responding to and ultimately enhancing the cognitive state and capabilities of the pilot. Inferring such complex behavioural states from imagery of the face is a challenging task and multimodal approaches have been favoured for robustness. We have developed and evaluated the feasibility of a system for estimation of cognitive workload levels based on analysis of facial skin temperature. The system is based on thermal infrared imaging of the face, head pose estimation, measurement of the temperature variation across regions of the face and an artificial neural network classifier. The technique was evaluated in a controlled laboratory experiment using subjective measures of workload across tasks as a standard. The system was capable of accurately classifying mental workload into high, medium and low workload levels 81% of the time. The suitability of facial thermography for integration into a multimodal augmented cognition sensor suite is discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207