The two-level fusion CNN model outperformed alternative models in classifying metro drivers' distractions, with 54.1% of fNIRS features showing significant differences across distraction levels.
Does a two-level fusion CNN model using ECG and fNIRS features improve the identification of cognitive distractions in metro drivers compared to alternative fusion or non-fusion models?
A two-level fusion CNN model combining ECG and fNIRS features provides superior performance in identifying cognitive distractions in metro drivers compared to simpler models.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
This study develops a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) -based two-level fusion model to identify cognitive distractions of metro drivers using their Electrocardiography (ECG) features and three types of functional near-infra-red spectroscopy (fNIRS) features (ΔOxyHb, ΔDeoxyHb, and ΔTotalHb). The model incorporates feature-level and decision-level fusions. Feature-level fusion combines ECG and fNIRS features to create a unified feature set, while decision-level fusion applies independent classifiers for ECG, fNIRS, and combined data to make final identification. For comparison, several alternative models are developed. Results indicate that the proposed two-level fusion model outperforms the non-fusion, feature-level fusion, and decision-level fusion models. Among the alternative models, those incorporating feature-level fusion outperform decision-level or non-fusion models. The feature-level fusion model that combines three types of fNIRS features demonstrates superior performance. Furthermore, all ECG features and 54.1% of fNIRS features show significant differences across the distraction levels. Drivers' prefrontal cortex is more active during cognitive distractions.
Liu et al. (Tue,) reported a other. The two-level fusion CNN model outperformed alternative models in classifying metro drivers' distractions, with 54.1% of fNIRS features showing significant differences across distraction levels.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: