Classification of Driver Cognitive Load based on Physiological Data: Exploring Recurrent Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In-vehicle systems can lead to high cognitive load that impairs driving performance. Interfaces that can detect and adapt to cognitive load accordingly may alleviate these effects. Previous research explored machine learning models to classify drivers’ cognitive load based on physiological signals but most conducted training and testing on data from the same participants (i.e., within-driver partitioning), which raises generalizability and practical feasibility concerns. In this paper, we explored the performance of widely-used models by training and testing them on data from different subjects (i.e., across-drivers partitioning), and further compared them with a more recent model that is effective for time-series data, the recurrent neural network (RNN). A driving simulator dataset was used to classify 2 levels of cognitive load (external cognitive secondary task vs. no task). All models performed better with within-driver partitioning. RNN outperformed other models with mean accuracies of 88.1% and 85.6% with within-driver and across-drivers partitioning, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".