MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4364383234 · doi:10.1109/tits.2023.3345846

Multimodal Brain–Computer Interface for In-Vehicle Driver Cognitive Load Measurement: Dataset and Baselines

2024· article· en· W4364383234 on OpenAlexafffund
Prithila Angkan, Behnam Behinaein, Zunayed Mahmud, Anubhav Bhatti, Dirk Rodenburg, Paul Hungler, Ali Etemad

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersMinistère de la Défense Nationale
KeywordsCognitive loadComputer scienceCognitionBenchmark (surveying)Ground truthArtificial intelligenceDriving simulatorElectroencephalographyInterface (matter)Brain–computer interfaceBinary classificationSimulationMachine learningSupport vector machinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through this paper, we introduce a novel driver cognitive load assessment dataset, CL-Drive, which contains Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals along with other physiological signals such as Electrocardiography (ECG) and Electrodermal Activity (EDA) as well as eye tracking data. The data was collected from 21 subjects while driving in an immersive vehicle simulator, in various driving conditions, to induce different levels of cognitive load in the subjects. The tasks consisted of 9 complexity levels for 3 minutes each. Each driver reported their subjective cognitive load every 10 seconds throughout the experiment. The dataset contains the subjective cognitive load recorded as ground truth. In this paper, we also provide benchmark classification results for different machine learning and deep learning models for both binary and ternary label distributions. We followed 2 evaluation criteria namely 10-fold and leave-one-subject-out (LOSO). We have trained our models on both hand-crafted features as well as on raw data. We make our dataset public to contribute to the field.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations49
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation SystemsSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207