Analysis of Driver Gaze and Attention to Traffic Signs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A driver’s actions and intent can be factors in enabling advance driver assistance systems (ADASs) to assist drivers and avoid accidents. A driver’s gaze can provide insight into the driver’s intent or awareness of situations. Knowing that a driver gazed at a traffic sign or missed a traffic could provide indications of whether the driver is alert to impending changes in the driving environment, such as curves and stop signs. For ADASs to determine the importance of a driver seeing or missing a sign, it is important to understand the driving environment and situation. A first step is to understand what signs drivers do see or miss while driving. This contribution presents the results of analyzing driving sequences to assess traffic signs that drivers may or may not have gazed upon. The results suggest that drivers may miss 20% of traffic signs though the percentage varies depending on the type of sign. The analysis uses image sequences of the driving environment and gazes data captured during driving. The methods used in our analysis included determining whether a driver’s gaze has fallen on the image of a traffic sign or not and subsequently determining signs missed during driving. The methods presented can be useful in other scenarios involving the analysis of driver gaze and have implications for the design of future ADASs and for understanding of driver gaze and awareness.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".