Attention for Vision-Based Assistive and Automated Driving: A Review of Algorithms and Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driving safety has been a concern since the first cars appeared on the streets. Driver inattention has been singled out as a major cause of accidents early on. This is hardly surprising, as drivers routinely perform other tasks in addition to controlling the vehicle. Decades of research into what causes lapses or misdirection of drivers’ attention resulted in improvements in road safety through better design of infrastructure, driver training programs, in- vehicle interfaces, and, more recently, the development of driving assistance systems (ADAS) and driving automation. This review focuses on the methods for modeling and detecting spatio-temporal aspects of drivers’ attention, i. e. where and when they look, for the two latter categories of applications. We start with a brief theoretical background on human visual attention, methods for recording and measuring attention in the driving context, types of driver inattention, and factors causing it. We then discuss machine learning approaches for 1) modeling gaze for assistive and self-driving applications and 2) detecting gaze for driver monitoring. Following the overview of state-of-the-art models, we provide an extensive list of publicly available datasets that feature recordings of drivers’ gaze and other attention-related annotations. We conclude with a general overview of the remaining challenges, such as data availability and quality, evaluation methods, and the limited scope of attention modeling, and outline steps toward rectifying some of these issues. Categorized and annotated lists of the reviewed models and datasets are available athttps://github.com/ykotseruba/attention_and_driving
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".