Abstract

This paper presents an improvement of classification performance for electroencephalography (EEG)-based driver fatigue classification between fatigue and alert states with the data collected from 43 participants. The system employs autoregressive (AR) modeling as the features extraction algorithm, and sparse-deep belief networks (sparse-DBN) as the classification algorithm. Compared to other classifiers, sparse-DBN is a semi supervised learning method which combines unsupervised learning for modeling features in the pre-training layer and supervised learning for classification in the following layer. The sparsity in sparse-DBN is achieved with a regularization term that penalizes a deviation of the expected activation of hidden units from a fixed low-level prevents the network from overfitting and is able to learn low-level structures as well as high-level structures. For comparison, the artificial neural networks (ANN), Bayesian neural networks (BNN), and original deep belief networks (DBN) classifiers are used. The classification results show that using AR feature extractor and DBN classifiers, the classification performance achieves an improved classification performance with a of sensitivity of 90.8%, a specificity of 90.4%, an accuracy of 90.6%, and an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.94 compared to ANN (sensitivity at 80.8%, specificity at 77.8%, accuracy at 79.3% with AUC-ROC of 0.83) and BNN classifiers (sensitivity at 84.3%, specificity at 83%, accuracy at 83.6% with AUROC of 0.87). Using the sparse-DBN classifier, the classification performance improved further with sensitivity of 93.9%, a specificity of 92.3%, and an accuracy of 93.1% with AUROC of 0.96. Overall, the sparse-DBN classifier improved accuracy by 13.8, 9.5, and 2.5% over ANN, BNN, and DBN classifiers, respectively.

Highlights

  • Fatigue during driving is a major cause of road accidents in transportation, and poses a significant risk of injury and fatality, to the drivers themselves and to other road users such as passengers, motorbike users, other drivers, and pedestrians (Matthews et al, 2012)

  • The general structure for the EEG-based driver fatigue classification used in this paper is shown in Figure 1 which is divided into four components: (i) the first component involves EEG data collection in a simulated driver fatigue environment; (ii) the second component involves data pre-processing for removing EEG artifact and the moving window segmentation; (iii) the third component involves the features extraction module that converts the signals into useful features; (iv) the fourth component involves the classification module to process the feature and which translates into output via training and classification procedures

  • The findings presented in this paper, strongly suggests that the use of an AR feature extractor provides superior results compared to Power spectral density (PSD) method, and extends further the study by improving the reliability including the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy using sparseDBN classifier in combination with the AR feature extractor, even without the need to include the independent component analysis (ICA) pre-processing component

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Fatigue during driving is a major cause of road accidents in transportation, and poses a significant risk of injury and fatality, to the drivers themselves and to other road users such as passengers, motorbike users, other drivers, and pedestrians (Matthews et al, 2012). As a result an automated countermeasure for a driver fatigue system with reliable and improved fatigue classification/detection accuracy is needed to overcome the risk of driver fatigue in transportation (Lal et al, 2003; Vanlaar et al, 2008; Touryan et al, 2013, 2014; Chai et al, 2016). The outcome of classification algorithms is to predict the target class, such as the classification between fatigue and non-fatigue/alert states (Lin et al, 2010; Zhang et al, 2014; Chai et al, 2016; Xiong et al, 2016). The participants were required to respond to a target number that appeared in any of the four corners of the computer screen in front of the participants when they were driving in the experiment, so as to record reaction time

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call