Content uploaded by S.Pradeep Kumar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by S.Pradeep Kumar on Dec 23, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Detecting Distraction in Drivers using
Electroencephalogram (EEG) Signals
S. P radeep Kumar, Jerritta Selvaraj*, R. Krishnakumar, Arun Sahayadhas
Artific ial Inte llige nc e Re sea rch La b, Ve ls Institute of Sc ie nc e Te chnology and Advanced Studies, Chennai
E- ma il: jerritta.s e@ velsu niv.ac.in
Abstract
Driver distraction i s considered as major factors in most
of the traffic accidents. Driving errors may arise due to
the distraction of the drivers. The aim of this paper is to
analyze the EEG signals to detect distractive driving.
Data from 10 different subjects were obtained and
categorised into different frequency bands. Distractive
driving i s related with Theta band, so the Theta
fr eque n cy ban d we re dec om pos e d u si ng Dis crete Wa vele t
Transform (DWT) and 17 different features were
extracted. By enabling Principle Component Analysis
(PCA) the accuracy rate was found for Cognitive
Distraction and Visual Distraction using different
machine learning algorithms. K Nearest Neighbour
(KNN) performed well when compared to other machine
le arni ng algorithms with a bette r accuracy rate of 71.1%.
Keywords: Electroencephalogram, Distraction, Cognitive,
Visual, Theta band.
I. Introduction
Dis t rac t ed d riving is d riv ing wh ile p e rfor ming
secondary which leads to the chance of a motor vehicle
crash[1]. To understand the driver behaviour it is
significant to monitor their states [2]. A statistics
indicates that there were 34,439 fatal crashes happened
in US involved by 51,914 drivers, and 37,461 peoples
lost their life’s in the year 2016[3]. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had taken a
necessary effort to save lives by prevent ing this
dangerous behaviour [4]. Driver’s inattention can be
categorized into Distraction and Fatigue in [5]. Five
types of driver distraction was considered in a study by
American Automobile Association Foundation for
Traffic Safety (AAAFTS) [6] namely attentive,
Distracted, Looked but did not see, sleepy and
unknown. In this paper, two categories of distraction
namely Cognitive Distraction, which is looked but did
not see and Visual Distraction is analysed using EEG
signals.
Generally, distraction of the drivers is detected using
Vehicular measures (pedal movement, braking, and
lane deviation). Behavioural measures (Face
Movement, Head
Movement, Eye Movement, and Mouth Movement). In
case of behavioural measures, and Physiological
measures such as Electrooculogram EOG),
Electrocardiogram (ECG), Electroencephalogram
(EEG) etc. The percentage of eye closure measures the
alert level of the drivers and the eye position was
classified as open and close using classifiers such as
support vector machine[7]. In[8] a stereo camera was
used to monitor the driver distraction in real time by
analysing the face gaze of a driver. The current driving
state of the driver was indicated using an android-based
Smartphone apps which receives physiological and
facial data via wireless sensor network[9]. The
alertness of the driver was continuously monitored and
determined using the visual analysis of eye behaviour
and head posture[10]. An innovative driver assistance
system was proposed to find the alert state of the
drivers which can measure the physiological signals
and eye-blinking activities in a single device[11].
In[12] the eye and head tracking data were applied
through advanced data processing methods. As an
alternative of focussing the individual parts of the body
by studying the upper body posture and motion as a
whole overcomes the limitations of general purpose
tracking algorithms[13].
II. Related Work s
One challenge in the study of distraction driving is the
wide range of distraction exposed to drivers. These
distraction can induced the drivers to perform the
secondary task such as using mobile, interacting with
passengers, seeing ad boards, listening music etc[14].
To build up a real time approach for cognitive
detection using driver’s eye blink and driver’s
performance data were applied to Support Vector
Machines (SVM) mode ls and the result indicates that
an accuracy rate of 81% was obtained for detecting the
driver distraction[15]. A new framework by map
viewing to predict the starting and ending time of a
distraction was executed in[16], and the overall
accuracy values were 81% and 70%, respectively for
24 s ubjects. Most researchers focussed on vehicular
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication (ICCMC 2020)
IEEE Xplore Part Number:CFP20K25-ART; ISBN:978-1-7281-4889-2
978-1-7281-4889-2/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 635
2020 Fourth International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication (ICCMC) 978-1-7281-4889-2/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 10.1109/ICCMC48092.2020.ICCMC-000118
and behavioural based prediction for distraction
detection. So in this study we are focussing on EEG
based method to predict distraction.
III. Propose d Methodolog y
The proposed methodology using EEG for driver
distraction detection is shown in Figure 1. The EEG
data is acquired from different subjects are splitted into
sub bands. Theta band which is suitable for distraction
detection was pre-processed; features were extracted
and classified as Visual and Cognitive Distraction.
Figure 1: Proposed Methodology
A. Experimental Setup
A Virtual Reality based driving environment setup was
installed in AI Research Lab at VISTAS. A speed
dreams game was installed to ma ke a feel of real road
driving environment and the speed of the vehicle was
set at a maximum of 60 Km/hr. A 21 channel EEG
electrodes was used to obtain the data from 10 subjects
in 3 different timings.Each participant has to
participate the experiments in 3 different timings
(midnight (01.00 am to 2.00 a m); early mo rning (4.00
am to 5.00 am) and afternoon (2.00 p m to 4.00 pm).
The experiments were held for 90- 120 minutes. An
Infrared ( I R) ca mera was us ed t o capture the
behavioural measures of the drivers. The subjects will
be interrupted both visually (through messages) and
cognitively (by phone call) while driving and the
corresponding EEG data are recorded. The wall of the
experimental area was covered with black cloth to have
a feel of driving in night time. Figure 2 & Figure 3
represents the image taken during Cognitive
Dis traction & Visual Distraction
Figure2: Image taken during Cognitive Figure 3: Image taken during Visual
distraction distraction
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication (ICCMC 2020)
IEEE Xplore Part Number:CFP20K25-ART; ISBN:978-1-7281-4889-2
978-1-7281-4889-2/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 636
IV. S i g nal Proc es s ing and Analys i s
A band pass filter was set at a range of 0.5 Hz to 49 Hz
to remove the noises and other artifacts like power line
interference; eye move ment etc from the raw EEG
data. The filtered EEG data were categorized into
different bands such as Delta (δ), Theta (θ), Alpha (α),
Beta (β), and Ga mma (γ). The distraction was related to
Theta band (8-13 Hz), so only the theta band was used
for fu rther proces s . A wav elet analys is for the EEG
was done and the Daubechies (DB4) fourth order
Discrete Wavelet Transform was used to decompose
the Theta band signals. The linear and nonlinear
features such as Mean, Median, Maximu m, Minimu m,
Standard Deviation, Kurtosis, Hurst, Root Mean
Square, Trim Mean, Harmonic Mean, Nan Mean,
Sample Entropy, Power, Energy, Mode and Variance
were extracted for the theta band. Principle Component
Analysis was enabled for features reduction. By using
the classification learner tool the classifier accuracy for
identifying the d istraction type (Cognitive and Visual)
was found using the following machine learning
alg orith ms su ch as SVM an d KNN.
V. Results and Discussion
A two class comparison between cognitive distraction
and visual distraction was made using SVM and KNN
algorith ms. Table1 shows the accuracy rate of 21 EEG
channels for both cognitive and visual distraction using
SVM and KNN.
Table 1: Accuracy rate of detecting distraction using SVM and KNN classifiers
Channels Classifiers
Visual Distraction
Cognitive
Distraction
Total
FP2
SVM
26
81.8
53.3
KNN
91.3
50
71.1
FP1
SVM
100
4
51.1
KNN
63.6
60.8
62.2
F7
SVM
100
4
53.3
KNN
56.5
45.4
51.1
F3
SVM
100
0
51.1
KNN
95.6
40.9
68.9
FZ
SVM
95.4
17.3
55.6
KNN
22.7
91.3
57.8
F4
SVM
100
4.5
53.3
KNN
100
9
55.6
F8
SVM
95.6
22.7
60
KNN
73.9
36.3
55.6
T3
SVM
40.9
78.2
60
KNN
95.4
8.6
51.1
C3
SVM
100
9
55.6
KNN
52.1
63.6
57.8
CZ
SVM
95.6
9
53.3
KNN
78.2
27.2
53.3
C4
SVM
100
4.3
51.1
KNN
72.7
34.7
53.3
T4
SVM
95.6
9
53.3
KNN
72.7
43.4
57.8
M2
SVM
91.3
18.1
55.6
KNN
13
100
55.6
M1
SVM
95.4
13
53.3
KNN
59
47.8
53.3
T5
SVM
9
100
55.6
KNN
54.5
52.1
53.3
P3
SVM
100
21.7
60
KNN
72.7
56.5
64.4
PZ
SVM
95.4
8.6
51.1
KNN
95.4
13
53.3
P4
SVM
100
8.6
53.3
KNN
59
56.5
57.8
T6
SVM
95.6
9
53.3
KNN
60.8
50
55.6
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication (ICCMC 2020)
IEEE Xplore Part Number:CFP20K25-ART; ISBN:978-1-7281-4889-2
978-1-7281-4889-2/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 637
O1
SVM
4
100
51.1
KNN
100
0
51.1
O2
SVM
45.4
73.9
60
KNN
90.9
17.3
53.3
Figure 4 shows the Accuracy rate of dis traction using
SVM and KNN classifier. It is clear that KNN
Classifier performs well when compared to SVM. FP2
channel has the highest accuracy of 71.1% when
compared with all other channels.
Figure 4: Total Accuracy rate of distraction using SVM and KNN classifier
The cognitive and visual distraction predicting
percentage was also performed as shown in Figure 5
and Figure 6 respectively. Channels FP1, F3, F4, F7,
C3, C4, P3 P4 and O1 has the accuracy rate of 100%
for visual distraction and ChannelsM2, T5 and O1 have
the highest accuracy rate of 100% for predicting
cognitive distraction.
Figure 5: Comparison of Visual distraction using SVM and KNN classifier
0
20
40
60
80
FP2 FP1 F7 F3 FZ F4 F8 T3 C3 CZ C4 T4 M2 M1 T5 P3 PZ P4 T6 O1 O2
SVM KNN
91.3
63.6
56.5
95.6
22.7
100
73.9
95.4
52.1
78.2
72.7
72.7
13
59
54.5
72.7
95.4
59
60.8
100
90.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
FP2 FP1 F7 F3 FZ F4 F8 T3 C3 CZ C4 T4 M2 M1 T5 P3 PZ P4 T 6 O1 O2
Visual Distraction
SVM KN N
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication (ICCMC 2020)
IEEE Xplore Part Number:CFP20K25-ART; ISBN:978-1-7281-4889-2
978-1-7281-4889-2/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 638
Figure 6: Comparison of Cognitive distraction using SVM and KNN classifier
In this study we imp lemented EEG based distraction
detection. Based on our result the channels C3, C4, P3,
P4, FP1, F7, F3, F4, and O1 has 100 % accuracy for
predicting the visual distraction. While the driver is
visually distracted he/she has to concentrate on the
secondary task also (messaging while driving). But
while in cognitive distraction the subjects view will not
be affected, as he/she can see the road while talking on
the phone. So the EEG signals will be more related to
visual distraction when compared to cognitive
distraction.
VI. Conc lus i on
In this paper, the results of both cognitive distraction
and visual Distraction are compared, and it is found
that channel FP2 has the highest accuracy rate of
71.1% fo r p redicting d is t rac t io n in d rivers . A n
accuracy rate of 100% was obtained for predicting
Visual distraction in 9 channels (FP1, F 3, F7, F4, C3,
C4, P3 P4 and O1). Similarly channels M2, T5 and O1
have the highest accuracy rate of 100% for predicting
cognitive distraction. In future, using channel reduction
techniques the channels can be reduced into a single
channel or two channel electrodes for providing a
compact model to alert the drivers from distraction.
Funding: This research was supported by Science &
Engineering Research Board (SERB),
[SERB/F/3759/2016-17, 2016] Depart ment of Science
and Technology (DST), Government of India.
References
[1]N. C. for I. P. and C. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
“M otor Vehicle Safety , ” 2 019. [On line]. Ava il abl e:
ht t p s :/ /www. c dc . go v /m ot or v eh ic l es af et y / di st ra ct e d_d r iv in g/ i n dex .ht
ml.
[2]G. A. P. C, F. García, A. De Escalera, and J. M. Armingol,
“Driver Monitoring Based on Low-Cost 3-D Sensors,” vol. 15, no. 4,
pp. 1855–1860, 2014.
[3]D. O. T. Hs, “Research Note Distract ed Driving 2016,” no. April
2018, pp. 1–6, 2016.
[4]NHTSA, “Distracted Driving,” National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 2 017 . [Onlin e] . Av a i la ble :
h t t p s:/ /www. n h ts a. gov / ris ky - driv i ng/ dis t ra ct ed- dr iv in g.
[5]Y. Dong, Z. Hu, K. Uchim ura, and N. Murayama, “Driver
Inattention Monitoring Sy stem for Intelligent Veh icles : A Review,”
vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 596–614, 2011.
[6]J. C. St utts, D. W. Reinfurt, L. Staplin, and E. A. Rodgman, “THE
ROLE OF DRIVER DISTRACTI ON,” n o. May, 2001.
[7] A. Dasgupt a , A. Geor ge, S. L. Happ y, and A. Rout r ay, “A Vision -
Based Sy stem for Monitoring t he Loss of Attention in Automotive
Drivers,” vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1825–1838, 2013.
[8]P. Jiménez, L. M. Bergasa, J. Nuevo, N. Hernández, and I. G.
Daza, “ Gaze Fixation System for the Evaluat ion of Driver
Dist ractions Induced by IVIS,” vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1167–1178, 2012.
[9]B. Lee and W. Chung, “Driver Alertness Monitoring Using Fusio n
of Facial Features and Bio -Signals,” vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 2416–24 22,
2012.
[10]R. O. Mbouna, S. G. Kong, and M. G. Chun, “Visual analysis of
eye state and head pose for driver alertness monitoring,” IE EE T ran s .
Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1462–1469, 2013.
[11]Y. Sun, S. Member, and X. B. Yu, “An Innovative Nonintrusive
Driver Assistance System for Vital Signal Monitoring,” vol. 18, no.
6, pp. 1932–1939, 2014.
[12 ] C. Ahlstrom, T. Victor, C. Wege , and E. Ste inmet z , “Proce ssing
of Eye / Head-Tracking Data in Large-Scale Naturalistic Driving
Data Sets,” vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 553– 564, 2012.
[13]A. Kondyli, V. P. Sisiopiku, L. Zhao, and A. Barmpoutis,
“ Comp uter Assist ed Analysis o f Driv ers ’ Body Act ivit y Usin g a
Range Camera,” no. July, pp. 18–28, 2015.
[14 ]N . Li, S. Mem be r , C . Bus so , and S. M em ber, “Pr e di ct in g
Perceived Visual and Cognit ive Distractions of Drivers With
Multimodal Features,” vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 51–65, 2015.
[15]F. Tango and M. Bott a, “Real-Time Detection Syst em of Driver
Distr action Usin g Mac hin e Lear ning, ” vo l . 14, no . 2 , pp. 89 4 –9 05 ,
2013.
[16 ] S. Wan g, Y . Zh an g, C. W u, F. Da rv a s, W . A. Cha ov a l it won gse ,
and S. Member, “Online Prediction of Driver Distraction Based on
Brain Activity Patterns,” vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 136–150, 2015.
0
20
40
60
80
100
FP2 FP1 F7 F3 FZ F4 F8 T3 C3 CZ C4 T4 M2 M1 T5 P3 PZ P4 T6 O1 O2
81.8
4 4 0
17.3
4.5
22.7
78.2
9 9
4.3
9
18.1
13
100
21.7
8.6 8.6 9
100
73.9
50
60.8
45.4
40.9
91.3
9
36.3
8.6
63.6
27.2
34.7
43.4
100
47.8
52.1
56.5
13
56.5
50
0
17.3
SVM KN N
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication (ICCMC 2020)
IEEE Xplore Part Number:CFP20K25-ART; ISBN:978-1-7281-4889-2
978-1-7281-4889-2/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 639