Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28326009›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2017

Improving EEG-Based Driver Fatigue Classification Using Sparse-Deep Belief Networks.

Rifai Chai, Sai Ho Ling, Phyo Phyo San, Ganesh R Naik, Tuan N Nguyen, Yvonne Tran, Ashley Craig, Hung T Nguyen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Rifai ChaiFaculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Centre for Health Technologies, University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sai Ho LingFaculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Centre for Health Technologies, University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Phyo Phyo SanData Analytic Department, Institute for Infocomm Research ASTAR, Singapore, Singapore.
Ganesh R NaikFaculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Centre for Health Technologies, University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tuan N NguyenFaculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Centre for Health Technologies, University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Yvonne TranFaculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Centre for Health Technologies, University of TechnologySydney, NSW, Australia; Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Sydney Medical School, The University of SydneySydney, NSW, Australia.
Ashley CraigKolling Institute of Medical Research, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Hung T NguyenFaculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Centre for Health Technologies, University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents an improvement of classification performance for electroencephalography (EEG)-based driver fatigue classification between fatigue and alert states with the data collected from 43 participants. The system employs autoregressive (AR) modeling as the features extraction algorithm, and sparse-deep belief networks (sparse-DBN) as the classification algorithm. Compared to other classifiers, sparse-DBN is a semi supervised learning method which combines unsupervised learning for modeling features in the pre-training layer and supervised learning for classification in the following layer. The sparsity in sparse-DBN is achieved with a regularization term that penalizes a deviation of the expected activation of hidden units from a fixed low-level prevents the network from overfitting and is able to learn low-level structures as well as high-level structures. For comparison, the artificial neural networks (ANN), Bayesian neural networks (BNN), and original deep belief networks (DBN) classifiers are used. The classification results show that using AR feature extractor and DBN classifiers, the classification performance achieves an improved classification performance with a of sensitivity of 90.8%, a specificity of 90.4%, an accuracy of 90.6%, and an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.94 compared to ANN (sensitivity at 80.8%, specificity at 77.8%, accuracy at 79.3% with AUC-ROC of 0.83) and BNN classifiers (sensitivity at 84.3%, specificity at 83%, accuracy at 83.6% with AUROC of 0.87). Using the sparse-DBN classifier, the classification performance improved further with sensitivity of 93.9%, a specificity of 92.3%, and an accuracy of 93.1% with AUROC of 0.96. Overall, the sparse-DBN classifier improved accuracy by 13.8, 9.5, and 2.5% over ANN, BNN, and DBN classifiers, respectively.

Indexed as

autoregressive modeldeep belief networksdriver fatigueelectroencephalographysparse-deep belief networks

Identifiers

PMID28326009
PMCPMC5339284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.