Detection of Driver Cognitive Distraction Using Machine Learning Methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driver distraction is one of the primary causes of crashes. As a result, there is a great need to continuously observe driver state and provide appropriate interventions to distracted drivers. Cognitive distraction refers to the “look but not see” situations when the drivers’ eyes are focused on the forward roadway, but their mind is not. Typically, cognitive distractions can result from fatigue, conversation with a co-passenger, listening to the radio, or other similarly loading secondary tasks that do not necessarily take a driver’s eyes off the roadway. This makes it one of the hardest distractions to detect as there are no visible clues of driver distraction. In this study, we have identified features from different sources including eye-tracking, physiological, and vehicle kinematics data that are relevant towards the classification of distracted and non-distracted drivers via the analysis of data collected from a driving simulator study involving 40 drivers across multiple driving scenarios. The key classification algorithms implemented include Random Forest, Decision Trees and Support Vector Machines. A reduced feature set including pupil area, pupil vertical and horizontal motion was found to be predictive of driver distraction while maintaining an average accuracy of 90% across various road types. Additionally, the impact of road types on driver behaviour was also identified. The findings of the study has practical application towards the design of driver distraction monitoring systems.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it