Driving risk cognition of passengers in highly automated driving based on the prefrontal cortex activity via fNIRS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For high-level automated vehicles, the human being acts as the passenger instead of the driver and does not need to operate vehicles, it makes the brain-computer interface system of high-level automated vehicles depend on the brain state of passengers rather than that of drivers. Particularly when confronting challenging driving situations, how to implement the mental states of passengers into safe driving is a vital choice in the future. Quantifying the cognition of the driving risk of the passenger is a basic step in achieving this goal. In this paper, the passengers' mental activities in low-risk episode and high-risk episode were compared, the influences on passengers' mental activities caused by driving scenario risk was first explored via fNIRS. The results showed that the mental activities of passengers caused by driving scenario risk in the Brodmann area 10 are very active, which was verified by examining the real-driving data collected in corresponding challenging experiments, and there is a positive correlation between the cerebral oxygen and the driving risk field. This initial finding provides a possible solution to design a human-centred intelligent system to promise safe driving for high-level automated vehicles using passengers' driving risk cognition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".