Drowsiness Mitigation Through Driver State Monitoring Systems: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the scope of available research and to identify research gaps on in-vehicle interventions for drowsiness that utilize driver monitoring systems (DMS). BACKGROUND: DMS are gaining popularity as a countermeasure against drowsiness. However, how these systems can be best utilized to guide driver attention is unclear. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in adherence to PRISMA guidelines. Five electronic databases (ACM Digital Library, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, TRID, and SAE Mobilus) were systematically searched in April 2022. Original studies examining in-vehicle drowsiness interventions that use DMS in a driving context (e.g., driving simulator and driver interviews) passed the screening. Data on study details, state detection methods, and interventions were extracted. RESULTS: = 12) first cautioned the driver, then urged them to take an action, or initiated an automation takeover. Overall, interventions had a positive impact on sleepiness levels, driving performance, and user evaluations. Whether interventions effective for one type of sleepiness (e.g., passive vs. active fatigue) will perform well for another type is unclear. CONCLUSION: Literature mainly focused on developing sensors and improving the accuracy of DMS, but not on the driver interactions with these technologies. More intervention studies are needed in general and for investigating their long-term effects. APPLICATION: We list gaps and limitations in the DMS literature to guide researchers and practitioners in designing and evaluating effective safety systems for drowsy 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 | 0.017 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".