MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285151415 · doi:10.1109/tmech.2022.3175774

Eye-Gaze Metrics for Cognitive Load Detection on a Driving Simulator

2022· article· en· W4285151415 on OpenAlexafffund
Prarthana Pillai, Balakumar Balasingam, Yong Hoon Kim, Chris Lee, Francesco Biondi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPupillary responseDriving simulatorWorkloadCognitive loadPupillometryGazeComputer scienceEye trackingSimulationPupilCognitionHuman–computer interactionComputer visionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated driving systems (ADSs) are becoming ubiquitous to reduce the workload of drivers and improve road safety. However, present-day ADS lacks accurate and effective driver monitoring systems. Driver monitoring systems use physiological measurements, such as pupil dilation, eye-gaze, and eye-blinks, in order to monitor the cognitive load experienced by the drivers. With advances in eye-tracking technology, pupil dilation is emerging as a reliable measure of cognitive load in ADS. However, pupil dilation as a measure of cognitive load suffers from many factors, such as confounding effects, noise, and personal attributes, to name a few. Hence, in order to improve cognitive load estimation in ADS, other noninvasive measures must be studied and incorporated. In this article, various eye-gaze metrics are studied and evaluated as a measure of cognitive load based on data collected from 16 drivers in a simulated driving scenario using a driving simulator.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.323 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations33
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ASME Transactions on MechatronicsSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207