MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Drowsiness Detection Through Yawning and Eye Blinking Models Using Convolutional Neural Networks and Transfer Learning

2024· article· en· W4404688984 on OpenAlexaff
Noémie Cabot, Dorra Lamouchi, Yacine Yaddaden, Raef Chérif

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkTransfer of learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driver drowsiness is one of the main causes of road traffic accidents because it reduces cognitive capabilities and reflexes. Therefore, different artificial intelligence-based methods have been developed for monitoring the driver's state in real time. However, these methods still need improvement because identifying signs of fatigue, such as yawning and eye blinking, remains a significant challenge. The main objective of this paper is to create two models using pretrained Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) to detect yawning and eye blinking, which should help prevent road traffic accidents. Different datasets were used, including YawDD and MRL Eye, to train various pretrained models based on well-known architectures such as MobileNet, Xception, Inception-V3, and VGG-16, using transfer learning. These generated models demonstrated high efficiency, with MobileNet achieving the best overall performance with an accuracy ranging from 97.64% to 99.52%, depending on the dataset used for training and validation. The results indicate that pretrained CNN models fine-tuned with transfer learning are highly effective in detecting signs of drowsiness, which is promising for real-world applications in Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) to ensure the driver's safety.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207