MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307642445 · doi:10.1155/2022/3837509

Driver’s Attention Allocation and Mental Workload at Different Random Hazard Points on Prairie Highway

2022· article· en· W4307642445 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhen Lyu, QI Chun-hua

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsOvertakingGazeWorkloadHazardTransport engineeringFixation (population genetics)PerceptionComputer scienceEye trackingStatisticsSimulationPsychologyMathematicsEngineeringDemographyArtificial intelligencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To identify the characteristics of driver’s visual perception and measure the mental workload at different random hazard points on prairie highway, an on-road study was conducted with 28 drivers. The I view X HED eye tracker and MP150 multichannel physiological recorder were used to collect the driver’s eye movement and ECG data at different hazard scenarios synchronously. The gaze transfer theory and statistical methods were used to make comparative analysis of typical visual and mental workload evaluation indicators of drivers at different random risk points. The results show that no matter what kind of random risk is confronted, the percentage of drivers’ fixation duration to the current lane drops, where random risk belongs to increase. The distribution of eye glance transition proportions shows that drivers highly bias their scanning attention by only focusing on transferring between forward and the areas where the random belongs to. Compared with off-road risk points, the driver’s gaze transfer is more frequent when facing on-road risk points, and the gaze transfer path is fixed, indicating that on-road risks have higher requirements for drivers’ perception and greater information processing load. There are obvious differences in the degree of influence of the types of random risk points on driver’s psychology. The heart rate growth rate is the largest when drivers were confronted with overtaking cut-in (37.9%) and forward parking (38%), whereas the index RMSSD changes in the opposite way. It reaches the minimum value when the random risks are overtaking cut-in (22.679 ms) and forward parking (22.907 ms). Meanwhile, the driving speed shows larger fluctuation at risk points on the road. This study reveals that on-road hazards pose greater threats to drivers, and it can contribute to a better understanding of the potential hazards on the prairie highways and provide suggestions for future application of advanced driver assistance systems which can warn drivers about potential hazards.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207