Understanding and Modeling the Effects of Task and Context on Drivers’ Gaze Allocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To further advance driver monitoring and assistance systems, it is important to understand how drivers allocate their attention, in other words, where do they tend to look and why. Traditionally, factors affecting human visual attention have been divided into bottom-up (involuntary attraction to salient regions) and top-down (driven by the demands of the task being performed). Although both play a role in directing drivers’ gaze, most of the existing models for drivers’ gaze prediction apply techniques developed for bottom-up saliency and do not consider influences of the drivers’ actions explicitly. Likewise, common driving attention benchmarks lack relevant annotations for drivers’ actions and the context in which they are performed. Therefore, to enable analysis and modeling of these factors for drivers’ gaze prediction, we propose the following: 1) we correct the data processing pipeline used in DR(eye)VE to reduce noise in the recorded gaze data; 2) we then add per-frame labels for driving task and context; 3) we benchmark a number of baseline and SOTA models for saliency and driver gaze prediction and use new annotations to analyze how their performance changes in scenarios involving different tasks; and, lastly, 4) we develop a novel model that modulates drivers’ gaze prediction with explicit action and context information. While reducing noise in the DR(eye)VE gaze data improves results of all models, we show that using task information in our proposed model boosts performance even further compared to bottom-up models on the cleaned up data, both overall (by 24% KLD and 89% NSS) and on scenarios that involve performing safety-critical maneuvers and crossing intersections (by up to 10–30% KLD). Extended annotations and code are available at https://github.com/ykotseruba/SCOUT.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".