Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32728917›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2021

Does agreement mean accuracy? Evaluating glance annotation in naturalistic driving data.

Reinier J Jansen, Sander T van der Kint, Frouke Hermens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Reinier J JansenSWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, P.O. Box 93113, 2509, AC, The Hague, The Netherlands. reinier.jansen@swov.nl.
Sander T van der KintSWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, P.O. Box 93113, 2509, AC, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Frouke HermensSWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, P.O. Box 93113, 2509, AC, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Naturalistic driving studies often make use of cameras to monitor driver behavior. To analyze the resulting video images, human annotation is often adopted. These annotations then serve as the 'gold standard' to train and evaluate automated computer vision algorithms, even though it is uncertain how accurate human annotation is. In this study, we provide a first evaluation of glance direction annotation by comparing instructed, actual glance direction of truck drivers with annotated direction. Findings indicate that while for some locations high annotation accuracy is achieved, for most locations accuracy is well below 50%. Higher accuracy can be obtained by clustering these locations, but this also leads to reduced detail of the annotation, suggesting that decisions to use clustering should take into account the purpose of the annotation. The data also show that high agreement between annotators does not guarantee high accuracy. We argue that the accuracy of annotation needs to be verified experimentally more often.

Indexed as

Automobile DrivingAlgorithmsHumansAccuracyAnnotationGlance perceptionNaturalistic drivingReliability

Identifiers

PMID32728917
PMCPMC7390446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.