4.6 Article

Using Wearable ECG/PPG Sensors for Driver Drowsiness Detection Based on Distinguishable Pattern of Recurrence Plots

期刊

ELECTRONICS
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/electronics8020192

关键词

drowsiness detection; smart band; electrocardiogram (ECG); photoplethysmogram (PPG); recurrence plot (RP); convolutional neural network (CNN)

资金

  1. MSIT (Ministry of Science, ICT), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center) support program [IITP-2018-2016-0-00313]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper aims to investigate the robust and distinguishable pattern of heart rate variability (HRV) signals, acquired from wearable electrocardiogram (ECG) or photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensors, for driver drowsiness detection. As wearable sensors are so vulnerable to slight movement, they often produce more noise in signals. Thus, from noisy HRV signals, we need to find good traits that differentiate well between drowsy and awake states. To this end, we explored three types of recurrence plots (RPs) generated from the R-R intervals (RRIs) of heartbeats: Bin-RP, Cont-RP, and ReLU-RP. Here Bin-RP is a binary recurrence plot, Cont-RP is a continuous recurrence plot, and ReLU-RP is a thresholded recurrence plot obtained by filtering Cont-RP with a modified rectified linear unit (ReLU) function. By utilizing each of these RPs as input features to a convolutional neural network (CNN), we examined their usefulness for drowsy/awake classification. For experiments, we collected RRIs at drowsy and awake conditions with an ECG sensor of the Polar H7 strap and a PPG sensor of the Microsoft (MS) band 2 in a virtual driving environment. The results showed that ReLU-RP is the most distinct and reliable pattern for drowsiness detection, regardless of sensor types (i.e., ECG or PPG). In particular, the ReLU-RP based CNN models showed their superiority to other conventional models, providing approximately 6-17% better accuracy for ECG and 4-14% for PPG in drowsy/awake classification.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据