A New Method for Classification of Hazardous Driver States Based on Vehicle Kinematics and Physiological Signals

  • Mickael AghajarianEmail author
  • Ali Darzi
  • John E. McInroy
  • Domen Novak
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 903)


Hazardous driver states are the cause of many traffic accidents, and there is therefore a great need for accurate detection of such states. This study proposes a new classification method that is evaluated on a previously collected driving dataset that includes combinations of four causes of hazardous driver states: drowsiness, high traffic density, adverse weather, and cell phone usage. The previous study consisted of four sessions and eight scenarios within each session. Four physiological signals (e.g. electrocardiogram) and eight vehicle kinematics signals (e.g. throttle, road offset) were recorded during each scenario. In both previous and present studies, the presence or absence of the different causes of hazardous driver states was classified. In this study, a new classifier based on principal component analysis and artificial neural networks is proposed. The obtained results show improvement across all classification accuracies, especially when only vehicle kinematics data are used (mean of 12.7%).


Hazardous driving state Artificial intelligence Driving performance Physiological measurements Affective computing 



Research supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. 1717705 as well as by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under grant no. P20GM103432.


  1. 1.
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): 2015 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang, L., et al.: Cognitive load measurement in a virtual reality-based driving system for autism intervention. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 8, 176–189 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Healey, J.A., Picard, R.W.: Detecting stress during real-world driving tasks using physiological sensors. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 6, 156–166 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Recarte, M.A., Nunes, L.M.: Mental workload while driving: effects on visual search, discrimination, and decision making. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 9, 119–137 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hwang, Y., Yoon, D., Kim, H.S., Kim, K.H.: A validation study on a subjective driving workload prediction tool. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 15, 1835–1843 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lu, Z., Coster, X., de Winter, J.: How much time do drivers need to obtain situation awareness? A laboratory-based study of automated driving. Appl. Ergon. 60, 293–304 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chuang, C.-H., Cao, Z., King, J.-T., Wu, B.-S., Wang, Y.-K., Lin, C.-T.: Brain electrodynamic and hemodynamic signatures against fatigue during driving. Front. Neurosci. 12 (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guo, M., Li, S., Wang, L., Chai, M., Chen, F., Wei, Y.: Research on the relationship between reaction ability and mental state for online assessment of driving fatigue. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 13, 1174 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jung, S.-J., Shin, H.-S., Chung, W.-Y.: Driver fatigue and drowsiness monitoring system with embedded electrocardiogram sensor on steering wheel. IET Intell. Transp. Syst. 8, 43–50 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Collet, C., Clarion, A., Morel, M., Chapon, A., Petit, C.: Physiological and behavioural changes associated to the management of secondary tasks while driving. Appl. Ergon. 40, 1041–1046 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Darzi, A., Gaweesh, S.M., Ahmed, M.M., Novak, D.: Identifying the causes of drivers’ hazardous states using driver characteristics, vehicle kinematics, and physiological measurements. Front. Neurosci. 12 (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Darzi, A., Gorsic, M., Novak, D.: Difficulty adaptation in a competitive arm rehabilitation game using real-time control of arm electromyogram and respiration. In: 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 857–862. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kajiwara, S.: Evaluation of driver’s mental workload by facial temperature and electrodermal activity under simulated driving conditions. Int. J. Automot. Technol. 15, 65–70 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jun, J., Guensler, R., Ogle, J.: Differences in observed speed patterns between crash-involved and crash-not-involved drivers: application of in-vehicle monitoring technology. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 19, 569–578 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zheng, Y., Hansen, J.H.L.: Lane-change detection from steering signal using spectral segmentation and learning-based classification. IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. 8858, 1 (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sun, R., Ochieng, W.Y., Feng, S.: An integrated solution for lane level irregular driving detection on highways. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 56, 61–79 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kordani, A.A., Molan, A.M., Monajjem, S.: New formulas of side friction factor based on three-dimensional model in horizontal curves for various vehicles. In: T&DI Congress 2014, pp. 592–601. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Turk, M., Pentland, A.: Eigenfaces for recognition. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 3, 71–86 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mickael Aghajarian
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ali Darzi
    • 1
  • John E. McInroy
    • 1
  • Domen Novak
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA

Personalised recommendations