DETECTION AND PREDICTION OF

DRIVER’S MICROSLEEP EVENTS

Martin Golz, David Sommer, Markus Holzbrecher, Thomas Schnupp
University of Applied Sciences Schmalkalden
D - 98 573 SCHMALKALDEN Germany
Phone: +49 3683 688 4107 Fax: +49 3683 688 4499 E-mail: m.golz@fh-sm.de

ABSTRACT
The detection of spontaneous behavioral events like short episodes of unintentional sleep
onset during driving, which are usually called microsleep events, still poses a challenge. The
analysis of only a small number of signals seems to be useful to detect such events on a
second-by-second basis. Here we present an experimental investigation of 22 young drivers in
our real car driving simulation lab. The experimental design was chosen to raise many micro-
sleep events. A framework for adaptive signal processing and subsequent discriminant analy-
sis was applied. In addition to the common estimation of Power Spectral Densities, the recent-
ly introduced method of Delay Vector Variance is utilized in order to get an estimate if the
signal has undergone a modality change or not during the microsleep event under analysis.
The fusion of the outcomes of both methods applied to three different types of signals, to the
Electroencephalogram, the Electrooculogram and to Eyetracking signals, by modern methods
of Computational Intelligence, namely the Support Vector Machine, leads to high classifica-
tion accuracies with mean errors down to 9% for all subjects. It turned out that such low
errors are only achievable in a relatively small temporal window around the onset of micro-
sleep. Their prediction is feasible but with much higher errors. The signal processing frame-
work has the potential to establish a reference standard for drowsiness and microsleep
detection.

1 INTRODUCTION
The detection of short-time brain states from ongoing biosignals is a challenging task not only
in the area of clinical applications but also for e.g. future human-machine-interaction. As a
special type of such an interface one can consider a system for detection of short intrusions of
sleep into sustained wakefulness. In case of automobile drivers such events are believed to be
a major factor in accident causation. During the recent years this topic has received broad
attention from authorities, from the public and as well as from the research community. Most
research projects in this area, e.g. the EU projects AWAKE (2001–2004) and SENSATION
(2004–2007), are engaged in developing sensors to monitor driving impairments due to fati-
gue and drowsiness. These impairments arise on a time scale of some ten seconds and are
typically developing as waxing and waning patterns. Some doubts still exist about the
feasibility of detecting short sleep intrusions under demands of attentiveness in ongoing
biosignals on a time scale of, say, one to five seconds [Sagberg et al. 2004].
Many biosignals which are more or less coupled to drowsiness do not fulfill these temporal
requirements. For example, electrodermal activity and galvanic skin resistance are too slow in
their dynamics to detect such suddenly occurring events. The EEG is a relatively fast and
direct functional reflection of mainly cortical and to some low degree also of subcortical acti-
vities. Therefore, it should be the most promising signal for microsleep detection. The electro-
oculogram (EOG) is a measurement of mainly eye and eyelid movements. Their endogenous
components are coupled to the autonomic nervous system which is affected during drowsiness
and wake-sleep transitions. Disadvantageously, the electrophysiological measurements of
brain electric and of eye movement activity are non-contactless and are corrupted by large
noise which is originated by other simultaneously ongoing processes. This leads to more or
less extensive signal processing and pattern recognition. Another signal type is the contactless
working eyetracking which is also featured by high temporal resolution. It comes out with
time series of the pupil diameter and of the eyegaze location.
We suppose that there should be characteristic short-time-stationary patterns in all three
signal sources, perhaps reflecting brain microstates associated to microsleep. Using machine
learning algorithms it should be possible to detect these patterns whereby it is a priori not
clear how stable and how affected by disturbances they are.
The main concern of this contribution is to find out which signal is most valuable for MSE
detection and prediction. Furthermore, it will be investigated if combinations of these signals
can lead to better results or not.

2 EXPERIMENTS
2.1 Participants
Subjects were recruited by roundmail to all students of our university. A donation of 50 Euros
for participation was announced. Students got free access to a registration web page where
they got further information about the procedures and their aims. In case of interest, they had
to give in initial personal data, e.g. information on general sleep-wake rhythm and health sta-
tus. From all students fulfilling the requirements to participate in the study (ca. 86%) twenty-
six healthy subjects were selected randomly (21 male, 5 female; mean age 24.4 ± 3.1 years,
range 19-28 years).
In addition, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) [Buysse et al. 1989] was administe-
red. The mean PSQI score was 3.8 ± 1.6. No subject reported PSQI larger than 5.0 and no one
reported chronic or current major medical illness or injury, medication or drug consumption,
shift work or transmeridian travel within the last three months prior to the study. During the
week preceding the study subjects had to keep a sleep diary to assess sleep habits. They were
instructed not to take daytime naps during that time, i.e. to go to sleep only once a day and to
refrain from excessive physical activity, caffeine, and alcohol consumption. Finally, they were
told not to consume alcoholic or caffeine beverages during the day before the experiment.

2.2 Subject preparations

Three days before the experimental night subjects were familiarized with the lab equipment
and had to drive on a 20 min training course in the driving simulator. Two female subjects
complained about simulator sickness and were excluded from further investigations. During
the experimental nights one further subject has quitted because of simulator sickness and one
because of back pain. Therefore, twenty-two subjects finished experiments completely. All
subjects gave written informed consent and gave a written declaration on their transfer home
after experiments. Only driving as passenger or, in case of campus residents, walking was
allowed.
In addition, subjects had to carry a wrist actometer during the three days and nights prece-
ding the experiments. Actograms were checked immediately after arrival of the subject to the
experimental night, normally at 11 pm. Primarily, we checked total sleep length (6 … 10 hrs),
time-since-sleep (14 … 16 hrs) and if the subject accomplished the demand of no nap.

2.3 Equipment
Experiments were conducted in our driving simulation lab consisting of an operator room and
a fully dark, temperature controlled simulator room (Fig. 1). Subjects had to drive a real small

2
city car (GM Opel “Corsa”) on a slightly winding main road under conditions of night vision.
No oncoming traffic is simulated in order to maintain a high level of monotony. The driving
scene is projected on a projection plane 2.6 m in front of the subject; maximal visual angle is
56 deg. In case of complete road departures a force feedback to the steering wheel is genera-
ted which is in nearly all cases effective enough to awaken drowsy subjects.

Figure 1: Real car driving simulation lab which is specialized for recording of overnight-
driving simulations. A real small city car in conjunction with an interactive 3D driving simu-
lation software is utilized to present a monotonic lane tracking task to the subjects. Subject
behavior is recorded by infrared video cameras. In addition, driving performance and biosig-
nals of the subject are recorded.

Measured variables of the driving simulator are lane deviation, velocity, steering angle,
and pedal movements; sampling rate is 10 sec-1. Furthermore, electropolygraphy is derived.
Seven signals of EEG (C3, Cz, C4, O1, O2, A1, A2, common average reference), two of EOG
(vertical, horizontal), one of ECG, and one of EMG (m. submentalis) were sampled at a rate
of 128 sec-1. Further six signals were recorded by an eye tracking system (ETS, binocular) at a
rate of 250 sec-1. For each eye the pupil size and the two coordinates of eye gaze on the plane
of projection are measured.
In addition, three video camera streams are recorded: (i) of subjects left eye region, (ii) of
her/his head and of upper part of the body, and (iii) of driving scene. Video recordings are
used for online and offline scoring as explained later.

2.4 Experimental Design

Driving started at 1:00 am after a day of normal activity and a time since sleep of at least 16
hours. In all, subjects had to complete seven driving sessions lasting 35 min, each preceded
and followed by vigilance tests and responding to sleepiness questionnaires. The vigilance
tests consisted of two visuomotoric tasks and of one electrophysiological test; reports on their
methodology and of their results will be given in another paper. Before the next driving ses-
sion a 10 min long break was inserted for subjects needs and for motivational conversation.
Experiments ended at 8:00 am (Figure 2).
On the one hand, our design has the disadvantage of non-continuous driving due to
questionnaires, vigilance tests and breaks. But on the other hand a large total time on duty is
gained and time of day effect due to passing through the circadian trough can be observed.
We experienced earlier that it is hard to motivate a subject for continuous driving in a

3
simulator for longer than two or three hours; most of them are willing to give up when the
first microsleep episodes (MSE) arise. We believe that our design results in much more
examples of MSE than in continuous driving. This way we have found 3,573 MSE (per
subject: mean number 162 ± 91, range 11 - 399).

Figure 2: Chronology of one experimental night from 11 pm to 8 am. Each subject

had to complete seven driving sessions, three vigilance tasks (VT 1 - 3), and had to
respond to the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Thayer’s Activation-Deactivation
Adjective Checklist (ADACL).

2.5 Scoring of microsleep events

Driving tasks were chosen intentionally monotonous and with time-since-sleep up to 24 hours
to support drowsiness and occurrence of MSE. The latter are defined as short intrusions of
sleep into wakefulness under demands of attention. They were detected online by two opera-
tors who observed the subject utilizing three video camera streams (section 2.3). Typical signs
of MSE are e.g. prolonged eyelid closures, roving eye movements, head noddings, major
driving incidents and drift-out-of-lane accidents.
This step of online scoring is critical, because there are no unique signs of MSE, and their
exact beginning is sometimes hardly to define. Therefore, all events were checked offline by
an independent expert and were corrected if necessary. Unclear MSE characterized by e.g.
short phases with extremely small eyelid gap, inertia of eyelid opening or slow head down
movements were excluded from further analysis. Non-MSEs were selected at all times outside
of clear and of unclear MSE. We have picked out the same amount of non-MSE as of MSE in
order to have a balanced data set. Our intention was to design a detection system for clear
MSE versus clear Non-MSE classification, assuming that such a system can not only detect
the MSE recognized by human experts, but would also offer a possibility to detect unclear
MSE cases which are not easily recognizable by experts.
Most of the recorded signals are useful for fatigue evaluation by a temporal resolution of
say 3 or 5 minutes. We believe that for MSE detection the EEG, eye movements (EOG, ETS)
and the pupil diameter may be useful, but other variables, like e.g. EMG, ECG, lane devia-
tion, or steering angle are not sensitive enough for detections on a second-by-second basis
needed for MSE detection. Results of fatigue evaluation will be published elsewhere. In the
following, data analysis of EEG, EOG, and ETS is presented.

3 DATA ANALYSIS
Processing of the above mentioned biosignals in order to detect spontaneous events like MSE
is primarily a task of discriminant analysis which typically comprises of pre-processing,
feature extraction, classification, and validation.
In pre-processing mainly three steps have to be performed: signal segmentation, artefact
removal and missing data substitution. Segmentation of all signals was done with respect to
the observed temporal starting points of MSE / Non-MSE using two free parameters, the

4
segment length and the temporal offset between first sample point of the segment and starting
point of the event. The first parameter adjusts the trade-off between temporal and spectral
resolution whereas the second parameter controls the location of the region-of-interest on the
time axis. Therefore, both parameters are of high importance and have to be optimized
(section 4).
Artifacts in the EEG are signal components which are presumably originated extracere-
brally and often exhibit as transient, high-amplitude voltages. For their detection a sliding
double data window was applied, in order to compare the power spectral densities in both
windows. When the mean squared difference of them is higher than a thoroughly defined
threshold value, then the condition of stationarity should be evidently violated and as a
consequence this example of MSE or NMSE is excluded from further analysis. In all, 14 MSE
and 223 NMSE were excluded; the latter were all exchanged by new examples drawn from
the original data set.
Missing data problem occurred in all six eyetracking signals during every eyelid closures.
This is caused by the measuring principle. They are substituted by data generated by an
autoregressive model which is fitted to the signal immediately before the eyelid closure. This
way, artificial data replace missing data under the assumption of stationarity. Nevertheless,
this problem should be not important enough to give more insight. For instance, periods of
missing data are in the size of 150 msec which is small compared to the segment length of 8
sec (section 4).
In the stage of feature extraction two completely different methods were applied. First, we
utilized the common periodogram as a direct method to estimate logarithmic power spectral
densities (PSD) [cf. Percival & Walden 1994]. This method assumes that the signal is station-
nary and their generating system is linear. PSD values were afterwards summed in spectral
bands. As it was shown recently, this step of feature reduction has potential to optimize
detection performance [Sommer & Golz 2007]. It was found empirically that for quantitative
EEG analysis the summation of PSD values in equidistant band is much more optimal than
the common summation in the delta, theta, alpha and beta band. The lower and upper cut-off
frequencies have been found to be 0.5 Hz and 23.0 Hz, respectively, and the width of the
spectral bands has been found to be 1.0 Hz [Sommer & Golz 2007].
The second applied method was the recently introduced method of Delay Vector Variance
(DVV) [Gautama et al. 2004a]. DVV transforms the signal to the state space using time delay
embedding [cf. Kantz & Schreiber 2004]. This has the advantage that signals which show a
high degree of irregularity in the time domain are mapped on relatively simple trajectories in
the state space if their generating system can be described by coupled, ordinary differential
equations. Simple statistical tests, like the unpaired t-test, in the state space can then be
utilized to estimate to which degree the signal may be generated by a nonlinear system and to
estimate how large may be the amount of stochasticity in the signal. Both features are
important and are dependent on one free parameter which controls the degree of similarity in
the sate space. Therefore, two feature sets are generated by DVV. They may vary over time if
the signal generating process alters as it might by when a MSE is oncoming. In this line, DVV
may be better suited to detect signal alterations than PSD estimation.
Two modern Soft Computing methods were utilized for the stage of classification, namely
Optimized Learning Vector Quantization (OLVQ1) [Kohonen 2001] and Support Vector
Machines (SVM) [Cortes & Vapnik 1995]. Both are stochastic learning methods and have the
ability to adapt a discriminant function without any presumptions on the data distribution. In
order to gain good adaptivity and also high generalizability several internal parameters have
to be optimized which is much more computational time consuming than in basic statistical
testing procedures. Further inside into this topic can be found elsewhere [Golz et al. 2001,
Sommer et al. 2005, Golz et al. 2007].

5
 The last stage of discriminant analysis comprises validation in order to estimate the true
error of classification. The expectation value of the classification error based on the training
data set has been shown to be biased [cf. Joachims 2002]. This error is called training set error
and is a useful measure to check how good the adaptation of the discriminant function has
been working. Several cross validation methods have been developed in order to get a second
measure, the test set error. One cross validation method, the so-called “leave-one-out” sche-
me, is an almost unbiased estimator of the true classification error, but is computationally
much more expensive than e.g. the “multiple-hold-out” scheme. For the latter case it has been
shown numerically to perform also well in case of two practical biosignals applications [Som-
mer & Golz 2006]. Therefore, we will use the “multiple-hold-out” scheme when OLVQ1 is
applied and will use the “leave-one-out” scheme when SVM is applied because in case of
SVM a computational efficient implementation exists [Joachims 2002].

mse vs. non-mse5

45 mse vs. non-mse4
mse vs. non-mse3
40 mse vs. non-mse2
mse vs. non-mse1
35
Test Error [%]

30

25

20

15

10

0
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Offset [s]
Figure 3: Mean test set errors versus temporal offset of the biosignals segments.
For all five different data sets compared the optimal offset value is around -3 sec.

4 RESULTS
4.1 Ability of detection and prediction of microsleep
Our data set consists of a total of 3,559 clear-cut MSE and of the same amount of Non-
MSE. As mentioned above, Non-MSE has been picked out at all times outside of clear and of
unclear MSE. Five different types of Non-MSE were selected to show their influence on the
detection accuracy:
- Non-MSE1: only episodes of the first driving session (from 1:00 am to 1:35 am),
- Non-MSE2: episodes of the first driving session and only during eyelid closures,
- Non-MSE3: episodes in the first five minutes of each driving session,
- Non-MSE4: only episodes between MSE where subject is drowsy,

6
 - Non-MSE5: like Non-MSE4, but only during eyelid closures.
Variation of the segment offset as a free parameter has led to a relatively steep error func-
tion (Fig. 3). An optimal offset value was found to be around -3 sec. In the same way an opti-
mal segment length of 8 sec was found. Both optimal parameter settings mean that classifica-
tion is working best when biosignals from 3 sec immediately before MSE to 5 sec after MSE
onset are analyzed.
Classification of MSE versus Non-MSE1 resulted best because it is easiest to discriminate
between MSE, which are always ongoing under a high level of fatigue, and Non-MSE of the
first driving session, which are at a relatively low level of fatigue. The biosignals of both clas-
ses must have characteristic differences and therefore a relatively good discrimination is
possible with mean errors down to 5 %. Classification of MSE versus Non-MSE3 is always at
higher errors because a lot of Non-MSE segments are like MSE segments of higher levels of
fatigue. That’s why it is more complicate to find a good discrimination function. When
segments of Non-MSE5 are processed then this task is much more difficult because segments
of both classes, MSE and Non-MSE5, are of the same highest level of fatigue. Therefore the
minimum of the error function is by 10% higher than for the easiest case when segments of
Non-MSE1 are processed.
One could argue that mostly MSE are starting at eyelid closures and, therefore, we did
perhaps nothing else than a simple detection of eyelid closures. But this was clearly not the
case, because eyelid closures of MSE versus eyelid closures of Non-MSE (type 4) were
discriminated with nearly equal test errors than Non-MSE without eyelid-closures (type 5).
Only the first mentioned case, MSE against Non-MSE of the first session, was slightly more
difficult to discriminate if both comprise eyelid closures (type 2). In the following, all results
presented were obtained from the most difficult types of Non-MSE (Non-MSE4 and Non-
MSE5), because this is of highest interest for sensor applications.

4.2 Best signals

Next, we pursued the question if one type of measurement (EEG, EOG, ETS) contains
enough discriminatory information and which single signal inside of one type is most success-
ful. Our empirical results suggest that the vertical EOG signal is very important (Fig. 4)
leading to the assumption that modifications in eye and eyelid movements have high
importance, which is in accordance to results of other authors [Galley et al. 1999]. In contrast
to the results of EOG, processing of ETS signals has led to lower errors for the horizontal than
for the vertical component. This can be explained by the reduced amount of information in
ETS signals compared to EOG. Rooted in the measurement principle, the ETS measures
eyegaze movements and pupil size changes, but cannot acquire signals during eye closures
and cannot represent information of eyelid movements. Both aspects seem to have a large
importance for the detection task, because errors were lower in EOG than in ETS. It turns out
that also the pupil diameter (D) is an important signal for microsleep detection.
The performance of ETS signals for microsleep detection was in the same shape as of EEG
signals. This is noticeable because ETS suffers from the problem of missing data. Compared
to the EOG, the EEG signals performed inferior, among them the Cz signal performed best.
Relatively low errors were also found for other central (C3, C4) and for occipital (O1, O2)
electrode locations, whereas both mastoid electrodes (A1, A2), which are considered as least
electrically active sites, show lowest classification accuracies (highest errors), as expected.
Similarities in performance between symmetrically located electrodes (A1-A2, C3-C4, O1-
O2) meets also expectancy and supports reliance on the chosen way of signal analysis.
DVV features alone turned out to lead to relatively high classification errors (Fig. 4) des-
pite additional numerical effort in optimizing the internal DVV parameters. This is surprising
because DVV was successfully applied to sleep EEG [Gautama et al. 2004b]. Processing EEG

7
during microsleep and drowsy states and, moreover, processing of shorter segments seems to
be another issue. The performance of PSD was much better. The fusion of DVV and PSD
features (DVV+PSD) gained slight improvements, especially when SVM with Gaussian ker-
nel function was utilized to find a discriminant function. OLVQ1 was always outperformed
by SVM (Fig. 4), but only if Gaussian kernel functions were utilized and if a regularization
parameter and a kernel parameter has been optimized which takes considerable computational
costs.

Figure 4: Mean and standard deviation of test set errors for different
single signals. Two different feature sets (DVV, PSD), their fusion
(DVV+PSD) and two different classification methods (OLVQ1, SVM)
are compared.

4.3 Data fusion

A pronounced improvement of the classification accuracies was achieved by feature fusion of
all three signal sources (Fig. 5). Compared to the best single channel of each signal type (three
leftmost groups of bars in fig. 5), the feature fusion of vertical EOG and central EEG gained a
more accurate classification, and was also more successful than the fusion of features of both
EOG (EOG all) or of all seven EEG signals (EEG all). Feature fusion of nine signals (EOG +
EEG all) and feature fusion of all fifteen signals (all ETS + EOG + EEG) resulted in slightly
higher accuracies when OLVQ1 was applied for discriminant analysis. But, classification
errors were considerably lowered if SVM was utilized.
For the latter mentioned case best results were achieved; the fusion of features of both
types (PSD + DVV) and of all 7 EEG, of both EOG, and of all 6 ETS signals utilizing SVM
resulted in test errors lower than 10%. A comparison of more classification methods and a
report of some more details on discriminant analysis, their parameters and their computational
costs can be found elsewhere [Golz et al. 2007]. All different types of signal sources, namely
brain activity reflected by the EEG, eye and eyelid movements reflected by the EOG as well
as by the ETS and pupil size changes reflected by the ETS are meaningful for fusion of their
features in order to get an optimal detection of MSE.

8
 Figure 5: Mean and standard deviation of test set errors for three single
signals and several examples of feature fusion, e.g. fusion of all EEG
channels (EEG all), of all six ETS signals (ETS all) and of both EOG
channels (EOG all). The rightmost group of bars shows the best perfor-
ming fusion of all signals available (all ETS + EOG + EEG). As in Fig. 4
two different feature sets, their fusion and two different classification
methods are compared.

5 CONCLUSIONS
A way to assess many examples of clear-cut microsleep events has been presented. Especially
young subjects suffer from unintentional and very abrupt ongoing MSE. If they are requested
for a monotonous lane tracking task then in most subjects a large amount of MSE are occur-
ring overnight. In addition, the cumulative time-on-task and the time-since-sleep were chosen
relatively long. Subject were selected such that all had to drive in the simulator at a time-of-
day when they are normally at sleep. All factors have contributed to get a relatively large data
set. This is an advantage of simulator studies compared to studies on the real roads. Never-
theless there are a lot of disadvantages. The subjects are for example aware that they do not
experience the real risk of accidents in a simulator. As a consequence the operators have to
look after if the subject is driving correctly between consecutive MSE, because Non-MSE re-
corded in between have to be assigned to fatigue but active driving.
The visual scoring of the behavioural events under interest is a critical point. There are
numerous states of the driver where it is not clear to say if she / he performs still sufficiently.
The video recordings as well as all biosignals recordings contain no unique signs of MSE and
of Non-MSE. Nevertheless, rating of the video recordings is an excellent tool [Lal & Craig
2002]. Please note that the operators are tracking all recordings (video, biosignals, vehicle
variables) the whole time online, are getting informed when the car drifts out-of-lane and stay
in contact with the subject when an accident has occurred or warnings have to be given in
case of bad driving. Therefore, it is not so much difficult to give a score if a clear MSE, a
clear Non-MSE, or an unclear episode actually happened. In addition we have checked all

9
events by two independent offline scorers. They seldomly found other scores, but had to
correct the temporal starting point of MSE due to delays of the online scorers.
The correct definition of the starting point is an important issue, because it turned out that the
detection of MSE is feasible in a very short temporal window. It is optimal when the biosig-
nals segment under analysis starts 3 sec before the onset of MSE and ends 5 sec afterwards. A
shift of, say, ± 4 sec already leads to much higher detection errors. The case of MSE predic-
tion, i.e. the temporal offset has to be lower equal -8 sec, leads to errors of about 34 % which
is not acceptable. Please notice that also a shift in the reverse direction shows the same de-
cline in detection; this suggests that the biosignals are not remarkably changed during the
seconds after MSE onset. Results support the hypothesis that MSE are spontaneous events
which the subject is not aware of some seconds before and after their onset. On the other
hand, is has to be considered that recently several authors [Ingre et al. 2006] found that seve-
ral biosignals during strong fatigue show high inter- and intra-individual variability which
give request to more experimental investigations to clarify this issue. Following this, we con-
clude that only in a small temporal window the large variability of the biosignals is dimini-
shed such that a relatively precise detection is possible for all subjects. Future research should
also be concerned about the large inter- and intra-individual variability in the characteristics
of all types of biosignals which we have observed also in our previous studies. To date, the
required amount of microsleep examples is not available to conduct such data analysis.
Our methodological framework for adaptive signal processing has turned out to perform
well also in more complex cases, e.g. when many feature sets of different types of biosignal
sources has to be fused. All signal sources had importance when seeking for an optimal solu-
tion, but no one was predominant. Even the contactless measured ETS variables showed good
utility, but unfortunately, the pupil diameter is largely influenced by other processes like am-
bient light adaptation which may complicate the detection in real driving situations.
Issues of future research should be a further diversification of feature extraction to include
a larger variety of features which is likely to improve accuracy and robustness of MSE detec-
tion. This could be a valuable contribution to future online driver monitoring technology, be-
cause for their improvement and validation it will be necessary to establish a reference stan-
dard of drowsiness and microsleep detection.

REFERENCES
Buysse, D.J.; Reynolds, C.F.; Monk, T.H.; Berman, S.R.; Kupfer, D.J. (1989). The Pittsburgh
Sleep Quality Index: A New Instrument for Psychiatric Practice and Research. Psychiatry
Res., Vol. 28, pp. 193-213.
Cortes, C.; Vapnik, V.N. (1995). Support Vector Networks. Machine Learning, Vol. 20, pp.
273-297.
Gautama, T.; Mandic, D.; Van Hulle, M. (2004a). The Delay Vector Variance Method for De-
tecting Determinism and Nonlinearity in Time Series. Physica D, Vol. 190, pp. 167-176.
Gautama, T. ; Mandic, D. ; Van Hulle, M. (2004b). A Novel Method for Determining the
Nature of Time Series. IEEE Trans Biomed Engin, Vol. 51, pp. 728-736.
Galley, N.; Andrés, G.; Reitter, C. (1999). Driver Fatigue as Identified by Saccadic and Blink
Indicators. in Gale, A. (ed.) Vision in Vehicles - VII; pp. 49-59, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Golz, M.; Sommer, D.; Chen, M.; Trutschel, U.; Mandic, D. (2007). Feature Fusion for the
Detection of Microsleep Events. J VLSI Signal Proc Syst, in press.
Golz, M.; Sommer, D.; Seyfarth, A.; Trutschel, U.; Moore-Ede, M. (2001). Application of
Vector-Based Neural Networks for the Recognition of Beginning Microsleep Episodes with
an Eyetracking System. In: Kuncheva, L. (ed.) Comput Intell: Methods & Applic, 130-134.
Hammer, B.; Villmann, T. (2002). Generalized Relevance Learning Vector Quantization.
Neural Networks, Vol. 15 (8-9), pp. 1059-1068.

10
Ingre, M.; Akerstedt, T.; Peters, B.; Anund, A.; Kecklund, G. (2006). Subjective Sleepiness,
Simulated Driving Performance and Blink Duration: Examining Individual Differences. J
Sleep Res., Vol. 15, pp. 47-53.
Joachims, T (2002). Learning to Classify Text Using Support Vector Machines. Kluwer,
Boston.
Kantz, H.; Schreiber, T. (2004). Nonlinear Time Series Analysis. Second edn. Cambridge
University Press.
Kohonen, T. (2001). Self-Organizing Maps. 3rd ed., Springer, Berlin.
Lal, S.K.L.; Craig, A. (2002). Driver Fatigue: Electroencephalography and Psychological
Assessment. Psychophysiology, Vol. 39, pp. 313-321.
Percival, D. B.; Walden, A. T. (1993). Spectral Analysis for Physical Applications. University
Press, Cambridge.
Sagberg, F.; Jackson, P.; Krüger, H-P.; Muzet, A.; Williams, A.J. (2004). Fatigue, Sleepiness
and Reduced Alertness as Risk Factors in Driving. Project Report, Transport RTD.
Sommer, D.; Golz, M.; Trutschel, U.; Mandic, D. (2005). Fusion of State Space and Frequen-
cy-Domain Features for Improved Microsleep Detection. in Duch, W. et al. (eds.): Int Conf
Artificial Neural Networks (ICANN 2005); LNCS3697, 753-759, Springer, Berlin.
Sommer, D.; Golz, M. (2006); A Comparison of Validation Methods for Learning Vector
Quantization and for Support Vector Machines on Two Biomedical Data Sets; in
Spiliopoulou, M et al. (eds.): From Data and Information Analysis to Knowledge
Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp. 150-157.
Sommer, D.; Golz, M. (2007). Feature Reduction for Microsleep Detection. Proc. 52nd Int.
Sci. Koll., Technical Univ. of Ilmenau, Germany, to appear.
Trutschel, U.; Guttkuhn, R.; Ramsthaler, C.; Golz, M.; Moore-Ede, M. (1998). Automatic
Detection of Microsleep Events Using a Neuro-Fuzzy Hybrid System; Proc 6th Europ
Congr Intellig Techn Soft Comput (EUFIT98), Vol 3, 1762-66, Aachen, Germany.

11