ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024
Evaluation method of Driver's olfactory preferences: a machine learning model based on multimodal physiological signals.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Augmented State-Space Modeling and Control of Latent Arousal States Under Inhibitory and Excitatory Conditions.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Investigating the impact of different road scenarios on the induction intensity of motion sickness in electric vehicle passengers.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Assessing the olfactory preferences of drivers can help improve the odor environment and enhance comfort during driving. However, the current evaluation methods have limited availability, including subjective evaluation, electroencephalogram, and behavioral action methods. Therefore, this study explores the potential of autonomic response signals for assessing the olfactory preferences. Methods: This paper develops a machine learning model that classifies the olfactory preferences of drivers based on physiological signals. The dataset used for training in this study comprises 132 olfactory preference samples collected from 33 drivers in real driving environments. The dataset includes features related to heart rate variability, electrodermal activity, and respiratory signals which are baseline processed to eliminate the effects of environmental and individual differences. Six types of machine learning models (Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, Random Forest, K-Nearest Neighbors, and Naive Bayes) are trained and evaluated on this dataset. Results: The results demonstrate that all models can effectively classify driver olfactory preferences, and the decision tree model achieves the highest classification accuracy (88%) and F1-score (0.87). Additionally, compared with the dataset without baseline processing, the model's accuracy increases by 3.50%, and the F1-score increases by 6.33% on the dataset after baseline processing. Conclusions: The combination of physiological signals and machine learning models can effectively classify drivers' olfactory preferences. Results of this study can provide a comprehensive understanding on the olfactory preferences of drivers, ultimately enhancing driving comfort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.