MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204985716 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.646406

Evaluation of Mental Load of Drivers in Long Highway Tunnel Based on Electroencephalograph

2021· article· en· W3204985716 on OpenAlexaff
Yanqun Yang, Yang Feng, Said M. Easa, Xinyi Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersFuzhou UniversityU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsAlertnessSpeed limitDriving simulatorTransport engineeringSimulationEngineeringComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the mileage of the tunnels has substantially increased with the rapid highway construction that led to increasing highway tunnels. Most studies on tunnel accidents have mainly focused on the external environments, such as tunnel structure, traffic volume, and lighting. In addition, although many studies on mental load of drivers have been conducted for public roads, such studies for highway tunnels have been limited. In this study, three scenarios with different front vehicle speeds (60, 45, and 30 km/h) in a two-lane long tunnel (one lane in each travel direction) were evaluated using a driving simulator. The experiment involved 24 participants (14 men and 10 women) with an average age of 25.8 years and an average experience of 3.2 years. The electroencephalogram (EEG) technology was used to collect the leading EEG indicators during the driving simulation of the scenarios: α, β, and θ waves and the wave ratio, (α + θ)/β. According to the β-wave energy measurements, the alertness of drivers was the lowest at 45 km/h after adapting to the tunnel environment, indicating that the drivers were more comfortable at this speed. This preliminary finding should help in determining the speed limit in this type of tunnel.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207