Classification of Driver Cognitive Load: Exploring the Benefits of Fusing Eye-Tracking and Physiological Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In-vehicle infotainment systems can increase cognitive load and impair driving performance. These effects can be alleviated through interfaces that can assess cognitive load and adapt accordingly. Eye-tracking and physiological measures that are sensitive to cognitive load, such as pupil diameter, gaze dispersion, heart rate (HR), and galvanic skin response (GSR), can enable cognitive load estimation. The advancement in cost-effective and nonintrusive sensors in wearable devices provides an opportunity to enhance driver state detection by fusing eye-tracking and physiological measures. As a preliminary investigation of the added benefits of utilizing physiological data along with eye-tracking data in driver cognitive load detection, this paper explores the performance of several machine learning models in classifying three levels of cognitive load imposed on 33 drivers in a driving simulator study: no external load, lower difficulty 1-back task, and higher difficulty 2-back task. We built five machine learning models, including k-nearest neighbor, support vector machine, feedforward neural network, recurrent neural network, and random forest (RF) on (1) eye-tracking data only, (2) HR and GSR, (3) eye-tracking and HR, (4) eye-tracking and GSR, and (5) eye-tracking, HR, and GSR. Although physiological data provided 1%–15% lower classification accuracies compared with eye-tracking data, adding physiological data to eye-tracking data increased model accuracies, with an RF classifier achieving 97.8% accuracy. GSR led to a larger boost in accuracy (29.3%) over HR (17.9%), with the combination of the two factors boosting accuracy by 34.5%. Overall, utilizing both physiological and eye-tracking measures shows promise for driver state detection applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".