Eye blink detection for different driver states in conditionally automated driving and manual driving using EOG and a driver camera
In this article, we examine the performance of different eye blink detection algorithms under various constraints. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the performance of an electrooculogram- and camera-based blink detection process in both manually and conditionally automated driving phase...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Behavior Research Methods 2018-06, Vol.50 (3), p.1088-1101 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1101 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 1088 |
container_title | Behavior Research Methods |
container_volume | 50 |
creator | Schmidt, Jürgen Laarousi, Rihab Stolzmann, Wolfgang Karrer-Gauß, Katja |
description | In this article, we examine the performance of different eye blink detection algorithms under various constraints. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the performance of an electrooculogram- and camera-based blink detection process in both manually and conditionally automated driving phases. A further comparison between alert and drowsy drivers was performed in order to evaluate the impact of drowsiness on the performance of blink detection algorithms in both driving modes. Data snippets from 14 monotonous manually driven sessions (mean 2 h 46 min) and 16 monotonous conditionally automated driven sessions (mean 2 h 45 min) were used. In addition to comparing two data-sampling frequencies for the electrooculogram measures (50 vs. 25 Hz) and four different signal-processing algorithms for the camera videos, we compared the blink detection performance of 24 reference groups. The analysis of the videos was based on very detailed definitions of eyelid closure events. The correct detection rates for the alert and manual driving phases (maximum 94%) decreased significantly in the drowsy (minus 2% or more) and conditionally automated (minus 9% or more) phases. Blinking behavior is therefore significantly impacted by drowsiness as well as by automated driving, resulting in less accurate blink detection. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3758/s13428-017-0928-0 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1921129217</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A714174159</galeid><sourcerecordid>A714174159</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-acff61681fc9fefe32f66398c834cc563d182e21defd24166fd8772b7c1b72b43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UU1v3CAQRVWrJk37A3qpOPbixAPY4GMUbdNKkXJpz4iFYUVq4xRwpT33jwfHSdRThDQzmvch4BHyGdpzLjt1kYELppoWZNMO6_CGnELXiYZ3TL39bz4hH3K-a1uuGIj35IQpCapVwyn5tzsi3Y8h_qYOC9oS5kj9nKgL3mPCWKhL4S8mmospmGmI1M7RhZVoxvFIzVLmqULukRjigZro6GTiYsaX1ZLXuru9fgTNs6c1EybzkbzzZsz46amfkV_fdj-vvjc3t9c_ri5vGis6URpjve-hV-Dt4NEjZ77v-aCs4sLarucOFEMGDr1jAvreOyUl20sL-9oEPyNfN9_7NP9ZMBc9hWxxHE3EeckaBgbAapGVer5RD2ZEHaKfSzK2HodTqO9HH-r-UoIAKaAbqgA2gU1zzgm9vk9hMumoodVrWHoLS9ew9BqWbqvmy9N9lv2E7kXxnE4lsI2QKxQPmPTdvKT67fkV1wdLFqFG</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1921129217</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Eye blink detection for different driver states in conditionally automated driving and manual driving using EOG and a driver camera</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Schmidt, Jürgen ; Laarousi, Rihab ; Stolzmann, Wolfgang ; Karrer-Gauß, Katja</creator><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, Jürgen ; Laarousi, Rihab ; Stolzmann, Wolfgang ; Karrer-Gauß, Katja</creatorcontrib><description>In this article, we examine the performance of different eye blink detection algorithms under various constraints. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the performance of an electrooculogram- and camera-based blink detection process in both manually and conditionally automated driving phases. A further comparison between alert and drowsy drivers was performed in order to evaluate the impact of drowsiness on the performance of blink detection algorithms in both driving modes. Data snippets from 14 monotonous manually driven sessions (mean 2 h 46 min) and 16 monotonous conditionally automated driven sessions (mean 2 h 45 min) were used. In addition to comparing two data-sampling frequencies for the electrooculogram measures (50 vs. 25 Hz) and four different signal-processing algorithms for the camera videos, we compared the blink detection performance of 24 reference groups. The analysis of the videos was based on very detailed definitions of eyelid closure events. The correct detection rates for the alert and manual driving phases (maximum 94%) decreased significantly in the drowsy (minus 2% or more) and conditionally automated (minus 9% or more) phases. Blinking behavior is therefore significantly impacted by drowsiness as well as by automated driving, resulting in less accurate blink detection.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1554-3528</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1554-3528</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3758/s13428-017-0928-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28718089</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adult ; Algorithms ; Automobile drivers ; Automobile Driving - standards ; Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Blinking - physiology ; Cognitive Psychology ; Displays (Marketing) ; Distracted Driving - prevention & control ; Electrooculography - methods ; Humans ; Psychology ; Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted ; Sleep Stages ; Sleepiness ; Traffic safety</subject><ispartof>Behavior Research Methods, 2018-06, Vol.50 (3), p.1088-1101</ispartof><rights>Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Springer</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-acff61681fc9fefe32f66398c834cc563d182e21defd24166fd8772b7c1b72b43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-acff61681fc9fefe32f66398c834cc563d182e21defd24166fd8772b7c1b72b43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/s13428-017-0928-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.3758/s13428-017-0928-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28718089$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, Jürgen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laarousi, Rihab</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stolzmann, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karrer-Gauß, Katja</creatorcontrib><title>Eye blink detection for different driver states in conditionally automated driving and manual driving using EOG and a driver camera</title><title>Behavior Research Methods</title><addtitle>Behav Res</addtitle><addtitle>Behav Res Methods</addtitle><description>In this article, we examine the performance of different eye blink detection algorithms under various constraints. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the performance of an electrooculogram- and camera-based blink detection process in both manually and conditionally automated driving phases. A further comparison between alert and drowsy drivers was performed in order to evaluate the impact of drowsiness on the performance of blink detection algorithms in both driving modes. Data snippets from 14 monotonous manually driven sessions (mean 2 h 46 min) and 16 monotonous conditionally automated driven sessions (mean 2 h 45 min) were used. In addition to comparing two data-sampling frequencies for the electrooculogram measures (50 vs. 25 Hz) and four different signal-processing algorithms for the camera videos, we compared the blink detection performance of 24 reference groups. The analysis of the videos was based on very detailed definitions of eyelid closure events. The correct detection rates for the alert and manual driving phases (maximum 94%) decreased significantly in the drowsy (minus 2% or more) and conditionally automated (minus 9% or more) phases. Blinking behavior is therefore significantly impacted by drowsiness as well as by automated driving, resulting in less accurate blink detection.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Automobile drivers</subject><subject>Automobile Driving - standards</subject><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Blinking - physiology</subject><subject>Cognitive Psychology</subject><subject>Displays (Marketing)</subject><subject>Distracted Driving - prevention & control</subject><subject>Electrooculography - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Sleep Stages</subject><subject>Sleepiness</subject><subject>Traffic safety</subject><issn>1554-3528</issn><issn>1554-3528</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UU1v3CAQRVWrJk37A3qpOPbixAPY4GMUbdNKkXJpz4iFYUVq4xRwpT33jwfHSdRThDQzmvch4BHyGdpzLjt1kYELppoWZNMO6_CGnELXiYZ3TL39bz4hH3K-a1uuGIj35IQpCapVwyn5tzsi3Y8h_qYOC9oS5kj9nKgL3mPCWKhL4S8mmospmGmI1M7RhZVoxvFIzVLmqULukRjigZro6GTiYsaX1ZLXuru9fgTNs6c1EybzkbzzZsz46amfkV_fdj-vvjc3t9c_ri5vGis6URpjve-hV-Dt4NEjZ77v-aCs4sLarucOFEMGDr1jAvreOyUl20sL-9oEPyNfN9_7NP9ZMBc9hWxxHE3EeckaBgbAapGVer5RD2ZEHaKfSzK2HodTqO9HH-r-UoIAKaAbqgA2gU1zzgm9vk9hMumoodVrWHoLS9ew9BqWbqvmy9N9lv2E7kXxnE4lsI2QKxQPmPTdvKT67fkV1wdLFqFG</recordid><startdate>20180601</startdate><enddate>20180601</enddate><creator>Schmidt, Jürgen</creator><creator>Laarousi, Rihab</creator><creator>Stolzmann, Wolfgang</creator><creator>Karrer-Gauß, Katja</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IAO</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180601</creationdate><title>Eye blink detection for different driver states in conditionally automated driving and manual driving using EOG and a driver camera</title><author>Schmidt, Jürgen ; Laarousi, Rihab ; Stolzmann, Wolfgang ; Karrer-Gauß, Katja</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-acff61681fc9fefe32f66398c834cc563d182e21defd24166fd8772b7c1b72b43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Automobile drivers</topic><topic>Automobile Driving - standards</topic><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Blinking - physiology</topic><topic>Cognitive Psychology</topic><topic>Displays (Marketing)</topic><topic>Distracted Driving - prevention & control</topic><topic>Electrooculography - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Sleep Stages</topic><topic>Sleepiness</topic><topic>Traffic safety</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, Jürgen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laarousi, Rihab</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stolzmann, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karrer-Gauß, Katja</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Academic OneFile</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Behavior Research Methods</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schmidt, Jürgen</au><au>Laarousi, Rihab</au><au>Stolzmann, Wolfgang</au><au>Karrer-Gauß, Katja</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Eye blink detection for different driver states in conditionally automated driving and manual driving using EOG and a driver camera</atitle><jtitle>Behavior Research Methods</jtitle><stitle>Behav Res</stitle><addtitle>Behav Res Methods</addtitle><date>2018-06-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1088</spage><epage>1101</epage><pages>1088-1101</pages><issn>1554-3528</issn><eissn>1554-3528</eissn><abstract>In this article, we examine the performance of different eye blink detection algorithms under various constraints. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the performance of an electrooculogram- and camera-based blink detection process in both manually and conditionally automated driving phases. A further comparison between alert and drowsy drivers was performed in order to evaluate the impact of drowsiness on the performance of blink detection algorithms in both driving modes. Data snippets from 14 monotonous manually driven sessions (mean 2 h 46 min) and 16 monotonous conditionally automated driven sessions (mean 2 h 45 min) were used. In addition to comparing two data-sampling frequencies for the electrooculogram measures (50 vs. 25 Hz) and four different signal-processing algorithms for the camera videos, we compared the blink detection performance of 24 reference groups. The analysis of the videos was based on very detailed definitions of eyelid closure events. The correct detection rates for the alert and manual driving phases (maximum 94%) decreased significantly in the drowsy (minus 2% or more) and conditionally automated (minus 9% or more) phases. Blinking behavior is therefore significantly impacted by drowsiness as well as by automated driving, resulting in less accurate blink detection.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>28718089</pmid><doi>10.3758/s13428-017-0928-0</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1554-3528 |
ispartof | Behavior Research Methods, 2018-06, Vol.50 (3), p.1088-1101 |
issn | 1554-3528 1554-3528 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1921129217 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Adult Algorithms Automobile drivers Automobile Driving - standards Behavioral Science and Psychology Blinking - physiology Cognitive Psychology Displays (Marketing) Distracted Driving - prevention & control Electrooculography - methods Humans Psychology Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted Sleep Stages Sleepiness Traffic safety |
title | Eye blink detection for different driver states in conditionally automated driving and manual driving using EOG and a driver camera |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T09%3A29%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Eye%20blink%20detection%20for%20different%20driver%20states%20in%20conditionally%20automated%20driving%20and%20manual%20driving%20using%20EOG%20and%20a%20driver%20camera&rft.jtitle=Behavior%20Research%20Methods&rft.au=Schmidt,%20J%C3%BCrgen&rft.date=2018-06-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1088&rft.epage=1101&rft.pages=1088-1101&rft.issn=1554-3528&rft.eissn=1554-3528&rft_id=info:doi/10.3758/s13428-017-0928-0&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA714174159%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1921129217&rft_id=info:pmid/28718089&rft_galeid=A714174159&rfr_iscdi=true |