Classification of Driver Cognitive Load: Exploring the Benefits of Fusing Eye-Tracking and Physiological Measures. Issue 10 (October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: He, Dengbo; Wang, Ziquan; Khalil, Elias B.; Donmez, Birsen; Qiao, Guangkai; Kumar, Shekhar
• Is Part Of: Transportation research record. Volume 2676:Issue 10(2022)
• Page Start: 670
• Page End: 681
• Publication Date: 2022-10
• Subjects: cognitive load estimation -- machine learning -- heart rate -- Galvanic skin response -- eye measures; Transportation -- Periodicals; Roads; Transport -- Périodiques; Routes -- Périodiques; Routes -- Conception et construction -- Périodiques; Roads; Transportation; 388.05
• DOI: 10.1177/03611981221090937
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0361-1981

Abstract

In-vehicle infotainment systems can increase cognitive load and impair driving performance. These effects can be alleviated through interfaces that can assess cognitive load and adapt accordingly. Eye-tracking and physiological measures that are sensitive to cognitive load, such as pupil diameter, gaze dispersion, heart rate (HR), and galvanic skin response (GSR), can enable cognitive load estimation. The advancement in cost-effective and nonintrusive sensors in wearable devices provides an opportunity to enhance driver state detection by fusing eye-tracking and physiological measures. As a preliminary investigation of the added benefits of utilizing physiological data along with eye-tracking data in driver cognitive load detection, this paper explores the performance of several machine learning models in classifying three levels of cognitive load imposed on 33 drivers in a driving simulator study: no external load, lower difficulty 1-back task, and higher difficulty 2-back task. We built five machine learning models, including k -nearest neighbor, support vector machine, feedforward neural network, recurrent neural network, and random forest (RF) on (1) eye-tracking data only, (2) HR and GSR, (3) eye-tracking and HR, (4) eye-tracking and GSR, and (5) eye-tracking, HR, and GSR. Although physiological data provided 1%–15% lower classification accuracies compared with eye-tracking data, adding physiological data to eye-tracking data increased model accuracies, with an RF classifier achieving 97.8% accuracy. GSR led to a larger boost in accuracy (29.3%) over HR (17.9%), with the combination of the two factors boosting accuracy by 34.5%. Overall, utilizing both physiological and eye-tracking measures shows promise for driver state detection applications.