Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Estimation of driver sleepiness based on EEG analysis

AI-generated Abstract

This study evaluates two methods for assessing driver sleepiness through EEG analysis: one identifying microsleep events via machine learning and the other detecting alpha burst activity through spectral rules. Both methods were tested using driving simulations on 10 participants, correlating EEG patterns with subjective and objective measures of sleepiness. Results indicate that while microsleep detection shows strong correlations with sleepiness metrics, alpha bursts present challenges due to variability and reliance on delicate parameters.

Estimation of driver sleepiness based on EEG analysis M. Golz, Faculty of Computer Science, University of Applied Sciences Schmalkalden, Germany, [email protected] D. Sommer, Faculty of Computer Science, University of Applied Sciences Schmalkalden, Germany, [email protected] Introduction Recently, two different methods were introduced to assess driver sleepiness based on pattern recognition in the EEG. One aims at machine learning to represent patterns occurring during microsleep events. Within the recall process the entire EEG is searched for microsleep-like patterns. The second method aims at detecting alpha burst activity, defined through several rules in spectral domain. We compare both methods in terms of pattern frequency and duration and report on correlations to independent variables of driver sleepiness. Methods 10 young adults performed overnight driving simulations (7x40min) after at least 14 hours time since sleep. Standard deviation of the vehicle position in lane (SdLat) and self-ratings of sleepiness on standardized scales (KSS) were utilized as independent objective and subjective variables, respectively. Both pattern recognition methods are distinguished by high temporal resolution, approaches for signal-noise-separation, and robustness. Their outcome is the ratio between accumulated pattern duration and length of the accumulation interval (e.g. 2min). We call this ratio the strong fatigue percentage (SFP). Results Microsleep SFP correlated strongly to KSS (0.97) and to SdLat (0.88). Both, a strong time on task effect as well as a time-since-sleep effect was observed. The authors were faced to several problems in detecting alpha burst activity, mainly due to sensitive threshold variables and to missing parameter definitions. Relatively large intra-individual variations of alpha burst SFP have been observed. Correlations of alpha burst SFP to KSS (0.84) and to SdLat (0.78) were lower. Conclusion Alpha bursts are a catchy concept. Nonetheless, visual EEG inspection reveales many dubious patterns which might be an alpha burst or not. Their recognition by a very limited set of rules and the fixing of sensitive parameters are precarious. Microsleep detection requires higher computational load, but handles inter- and intra-individual pattern variability much better.