Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102824

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

Assessment of construction workers’ perceived risk using physiological data

from wearable sensors: A machine learning approach
By Gaang Lee a, Byungjoo Choi b, *, Houtan Jebelli c, SangHyun Lee d
a PhD Candidate, Tishman Construction Management Program, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, 2350 Hayward St., G.G. Brown
Building, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States
b Assistant Professor, Department of Architect, Ajou University, 206 World Cup-ro, Suwon Si, Gyeonggi-do, 16499, South Korea
c Assistant Professor, Department. of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, 104 Engineering Unit A, University Park, PA, 16802, United States
d Professor, Tishman Construction Management Program, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, 2350 Hayward St., G.G. Brown

Building, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Considering that workers' safe or unsafe behaviors are responses to their perceived risk when working, under-
Construction safety standing workers' perceived risk is vital for safety management in the construction industry. Existing tools for
Perceived risk measuring workers' perceived levels of risk mainly rely on post-hoc survey-based assessments, which are limited
Wearable sensor
by their lack of continuous monitoring ability, lack of objectivity, and high cost. To address these limitations, this
Physiological signals
study develops an automatic method to recognize construction workers’ perceived levels of risk by using physio-
Machine learning
logical signals acquired from wristband-type wearable biosensors in conjunction with a supervised-learning al-
gorithm. The performance of the model was examined with physiological signals acquired from eight construc-
tion workers performing their daily work. The model achieved a validation accuracy of 81.2% for distinguishing
between low and high levels of perceived risk. This study provides a new means of continuous, objective, and
non-invasive method for monitoring construction workers' perceived levels of risk.

1. Introduction
Despite significant advances in construction technologies, construc-
tion safety records have not improved significantly [1]. Unacceptable
injury rates in the construction industry have been a worldwide phe-
nomenon for a long time [2]. In the US, the construction industry has
reported the highest number of fatalities among all industries for
decades. The US construction industry reported 971 and 1008 fatalities
in 2017 and 2018, respectively (US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2019),
which accounted for more than 20% of all work-related deaths in the
country [3]. The rate of fatal injuries was 2.7 times higher than the all-
industry average rate of 3.5 [4]. Given that the construction industry
accounts for only 4.3% of the US workforce [5], this disproportionate
rate of incidents is one of the primary concerns in the US construction
industry. Severe construction-related accidents occur in other countries
as well. In 2017, for example, 579 fatal occupational injuries were
recorded in the Korean construction industry, amounting to almost 30%
of all fatalities across all industries in the country [6]. Moreover, the fa-
tal injury rate was 1.8 times higher than the average of all industries
[6]. Similar patterns have been observed in many other countries, in-
cluding EU countries [7,8], Canada [9], China [10,11], and Australia
[12,13].
Studies have reported that the vast majority of accidents can be at-
tributed to workers' unsafe behaviors [14–16]. Based on an investiga-
tion of 75,000 accident cases, Heinrich et al. [17] reported that more
than 80% of occupational accidents could be attributed mainly to hu-
man errors. Haslam et al. [18] conducted a focus group study on 100
construction accidents and found that more than 70% of these accidents
could be attributed to human factors. Suraji et al. [19] examined more
than 500 construction accidents recorded by the Health and Safety Ex-
ecutive (HSE) of the United Kingdom and reported that approximately
80% of the construction accidents were mainly caused by workers’ un-
safe behaviors. Workers' safety behaviors can be understood as the re-
sult of interactions between workers' decision-making processes and
unsafe work conditions [20]. Workers exposed to a potential hazard
perceive the risk and determine their response to that risk. If a worker
believes that the perceived risk has a great potential to cause significant
harm, the worker may select an appropriate proactive behavior (i.e.,
risk compensation behavior). If not, they ignore the potential hazard
and may commit unsafe acts. As such, risk perception is a key process

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gaang@umich.edu (B.G. Lee), bchoi@ajou.ac.kr (B. Choi), hjebelli@psu.edu (H. Jebelli), shdpm@umich.edu (S. Lee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102824
Received 4 March 2021; Received in revised form 10 May 2021; Accepted 31 May 2021
Available online 7 June 2021
2352-7102/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B.G. Lee et al.
through which workers' cognitive processes interact with unsafe work
conditions, and these interactions determine their safety behaviors.
Given the significance of perceived risk for understanding safety be-
haviors, sustained efforts have been made to measure workers' per-
ceived risk levels at construction sites. These efforts have mainly relied
on the behavioral psychology perspective. In other words, self-
reporting perception surveys are commonly administered to measure
workers' perceived risk levels [21,22]. Although psychological data are
easy to work with, they suffer from several limitations in terms of con-
tinuous monitoring, objectivity, and high cost [23–25]. Survey-based
methods have several limitations in terms of assessing the dynamic
changes in perceived risk during work. Moreover, the volatility of an in-
dividual's memory may degrade the reliability of self-reported measure-
ments. In this sense, there has been increasing interest in continuous
and objective methods to assess construction workers' perceived risk
levels without interfering with their work [26]. To address these limita-
tions, this study attempts to use a new data source, physiological signals
acquired from wearable biosensors, to assess construction workers' per-
ceived risk levels. With this background, the present study aims to de-
velop and test a viable method to assess workers' perceived risk levels
by using physiological signals collected from wearable biosensors.
2. Research background
2.1. Risk perception and construction safety
Risk perception generally refers to one's subjective judgment and
evaluation of the probability and severity of adverse outcomes owing to
a hazard that one is exposed to Refs. [27–29]. Because subjective as-
sessment (i.e., risk perception) determines workers' responses to haz-
ards (i.e., safety behaviors), risk perception is the key to understanding
workers' safety behaviors [30,31]. In the same vein, risk perception has
been mentioned in multiple theoretical models of safety behaviors.
Wickens [32] presented an information-processing model that included
four cognitive phases, namely sensory processing, perception, response
selection, and response execution, to explain how individuals respond
to their environment. Similarly, Endsley [33] suggested a model of situ-
ation awareness (SA) that comprised three steps of “perception of ele-
ments in the environment, comprehension of the current situation, and
projection of future status” to demonstrate an individual's decision-
making process in dynamic situations. The SA model has been widely
used in various domains to represent an individual's decision-making
process in hazardous environments [34,35]. Albert et al. [36] presented
an injury-prevention model that performs hazard recognition, risk per-
ception, risk management, and injury prevention. Moreover, Choi and
Lee [37] developed an agent-based model of construction workers'
safety behaviors that considers three major steps in the safety decision-
making process: risk perception, risk assessment, and safety behaviors.
In addition to construction workers' safety behaviors, risk perception
has been studied in various contexts such as drivers' [38,39], bicyclists'
[40], pedestrians' [41] safety behaviors, as well as airline pilots' [42]
safety and evacuation behaviors [43,44]. The relationship between risk
perception and safety behaviors is supported by multiple studies in the
literature [35,45–50].
According to the dual-processing theory, there are two different
modes of decision-making processes: System 1 and System 2 [51–53].
System 1 refers to a rapid, unconscious, and automatic way of thinking
that requires little or no effort on the part of an individual to arrive at a
conclusion. On the other hand, in System 2, thinking is slow, conscious,
and deliberate, demanding a high level of mental effort [51,54]. While
a multiple names have been suggested for the two systems, there is a
consensus on the distinction between the two systems [55]. Both sys-
tems play different roles in the decision-making process. System 1 runs
automatically and continuously provides suggestions to System 2. Sys-
tem 2 generally adopts the suggestions provided by System 1 without
2
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102824
significant modifications. However, System 2 (i.e., conscious process
system) plays a major role in the decision-making process when System
1 (i.e., automatic activation) encounters a difficulty [56]. As such, both
systems should be considered to understand the risk perception process.
Especially, System 1 (i.e., automatic activation) may play a pivotal role
in the risk perception of construction workers given that risk perception
is an immediate response to potential hazards encountered during
work.
However, the post hoc survey-based method, which is the prevalent
method for measuring risk perception, may not be capable of capturing
the response of System 1 (i.e., automatic activation) in the risk percep-
tion process. Studies have measured risk perception based on workers'
subjective assessments of the probability and severity of potential inci-
dents at the construction sites where they work [29]. The respondents
were asked to provide an overall assessment of the risk levels based on
their memory of work. In this process, it was suggested that the respon-
dents should recall their work experiences and analyze them to deter-
mine the overall risk of the project. Although these approaches are use-
ful for assessing the overall risk perceptions of the workers at a site from
the perspective of System 2, they are ineffective for measuring immedi-
ate and automatic responses (i.e., the response from System 1) to haz-
ards during the work. Moreover, considering the dynamic and uncon-
trolled nature of construction environments, an overall assessment of
the hazards of a project by using the survey-based method may not be
adequate for understanding the changes in construction workers' risk
perceptions over time as they work at the site. Therefore, it is necessary
to develop a new method to continuously measure workers' immediate
responses (i.e., the response of System 1) to the hazards encountered
during work. Furthermore, asking workers to respond to the question-
naire during work hours may interfere with their ongoing work (Jebelli
et al., 2019c), and the reliability of the responses strongly depends on
the accuracy of the respondents’ memories and reconstruction of their
experiences, which are not uniform across the respondents [23,57].
Therefore, any new risk perception assessment method should be non-
invasive and objective, in addition to being capable of continuously
monitoring the responses of System 1 (i.e., automatic activation).
2.2. Risk perception and physiological signals
An individual's automatic and unconscious response to a hazard
(i.e., the response of System 1) stimulates the sympathetic part of the
autonomic nervous system [58,59]. When the sympathetic nervous sys-
tem is aroused by a perceived risk, it induces physiological changes in
the body, such as heightened cardiovascular system activity, sweat
gland innervation, and thermoregulatory changes [60–62]. Expanding
on the aforementioned physiological processes, changes in the patterns
of physiological signals related to the activities of the sympathetic ner-
vous systems can provide useful information on individuals' risk per-
ceptions. Several studies have reported the potential for measuring
physiological responses to assess individuals' perceived risk levels
[63,64].
Among various physiological signals, this study focused on electro-
dermal activity (EDA), photoplethysmogram (PPG), and skin tempera-
ture (ST), which can be obtained using wristband-type wearable biosen-
sors. Wristband-type wearable biosensors were used in this study owing
to their mobility, non-invasiveness, and ease of wearing [65]. EDA
refers to “the variations in the electrical properties of the skin in re-
sponse to sweat secretion” [66]. The changes in skin conductance or
skin potential are continuously measured by applying a low, constant
voltage to the skin through two electrodes to non-invasively measure
EDA (Braithwaite et al., 2013). When an individual perceives risk, the
sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system triggers the post-
ganglionic sudomotor fibers that innervate the sweat glands [67,68].
Therefore, changes in EDA signals have been widely measured to un-
derstand individuals' risk perception in various contexts [26,69–71].
B.G. Lee et al.
The composite EDA signals can be decomposed into Electrodermal
Level (i.e., EDL, tonic component) and Electrodermal Response (i.e.,
EDR, phasic component) which have different time scales (Braithwaite
et al., 2013, [72]. The tonic components represent the baseline drift of
EDA signals while the phasic components reflect short-term fluctua-
tions which are the results of immediate response to the external stimuli
[73,74].
PPG provides information on activities of the cardiovascular system
by detecting variations of blood volume in the microvascular tissues
[75]. PPG sensor measures changes in the intensity of infrared lights
emitted from the sensor via reflection or transmission through the mi-
crovascular tissue [76]. The reflection or transmission rate is associated
with the blood volume of the microvascular tissues which is affected by
cardiovascular system [77]. Electrocardiography (ECG) has also been
used to monitor cardiac activity, but the PPG sensor is commonly used
in wristband-type wearable biosensors because of the simplicity and
convenience of the technology [78]. If the sympathetic division of the
autonomic nervous system is aroused by perceived risk, it innervates
the heart-related activities [65]. The changes in the heart-related activi-
ties bring variations of blood volume in microvascular vessels which
can be monitored by PPG sensors. Therefore, previous studies calcu-
lated metrics related to the cardiovascular system [e.g., heart rate (HR)
and heart rate variability (HRV)] using PPG data [79]. Also, previous
researchers have shown significant relationship between metrics from
activities of cardiovascular system (HR, HRV, etc.) and individuals’ risk
perception [41,80–83]. Also, the peripheral skin temperature (ST) is af-
fected by changes in the blood volumes in microvascular tissues
[84,85]. As such, ST could be indicative of cardiac activities induced by
the aroused sympathetic nervous system [86–88].
3. Knowledge gaps and research objectives
The measurement of physiological signals enables us to overcome
the aforementioned limitations of the post hoc survey-based assessment
to understand construction workers' risk perception. First of all, the
physiological signals can provide more meaningful information about
construction workers' risk perception because they are indicative of the
response of System 1 (i.e., automatic activation) [41,89] which is in
line with the mechanism of construction workers’ risk perception
process but not well understood by previous methods. Also, various
sensors that continuously measure these physiological signals help us
capture the changes in workers' risk perceptions over time due to the
dynamic nature of their work environments. Such continuous measure-
ment allows us to avoid the pitfalls of the snapshot approaches. Third,
since the signal processing schemes and analysis methods are built
upon objective algorithms, there is no room for deterioration of the
analysis results owing to self-reporting bias.
Despite the advantages of physiological signals in terms of address-
ing the limitations of the existing measurement methods, the hardware
limitations of traditional sensors make it very challenging to use physi-
ological signals in construction sites [65]. Wired connections to palms
or fingers for measuring the physiological signals may interfere with
the tasks of construction workers. Most previous studies on the mea-
surement of physiological signals to understand risk perception have
been conducted in controlled lab environments [90]. Recently, owing
to recent advancement of wearable biosensors, they can possibly over-
come the limitations of traditional sensors. Wireless, portable, and af-
fordable sensors can facilitate the noninvasive and continuous collec-
tion of physiological signal data from construction workers since the
use of these sensors do not require the interruption of construction
workers' ongoing work [89,91]. Moreover, there has been a dramatic
growth in research related to the use of wearable sensors for developing
safety insights. Such studies have mainly focused on collecting data on
physical or kinematic movements to recognize workers' unsafe postures
[92–99] and unsafe work conditions [100–102]. A few studies have col-
3
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102824
lected physiological data and attempted to understand construction
workers' physical status, such as physical workload [79,103] and fa-
tigue [85]. While these studies have extended the potential of using
wearable sensors to improve construction safety, few attempts have
been made to understand workers' mental status related to safety in
construction projects. Although a few studies have focused on under-
standing mental statuses such as mental workload [104–106], vigilance
[25,107], and hazard recognition [108], they have used wearable EEG
sensors or portable eye-tracking glasses, which have some limitations in
the applicability of ongoing work. There has been a notable paucity of
research on assessing construction workers' perceived risk from physio-
logical signals collected using least invasive means such as the use of
wristband-type wearable biosensors, which have high applicability in
practice. Although our earlier work investigated the feasibility of using
EDA signals to assess the risk perceptions of workers [26], a statistically
significant correlation between EDR and perceived risk may not be di-
rectly applicable for determining construction workers' perceived risk
during their work. Moreover, the quality of the physiological signals
collected from on-site construction workers by using wearable biosen-
sors may be lower than that of the signals collected using traditional
sensors in controlled laboratory environments because of the lower
sampling frequency and the higher proportion of artifacts [65,77].
Therefore, the present study aimed to develop and test an automatic
method to recognize workers' risk perceptions by using wristband-type
wearable biosensors that can continuously capture workers' physiologi-
cal signals without interrupting their on-site tasks. The developed
method is expected to contribute to the existing body of knowledge on
construction safety by providing a new means to overcome the limita-
tions of survey-based methods used for measuring the perceived risk.
Survey-based methods used in previous studies to measure workers'
perceived risk have limitations in terms of continuous monitoring, reli-
ability of measurement, and interruption of ongoing work. Further-
more, the use of the survey-based method is limited to capturing work-
ers' responses of System 1 (i.e., automatic activation), which plays a
pivotal role in the safety decision-making process. An in-depth under-
standing of construction workers’ perceived risk acquired through the
developed method will pave the way for the identification and manage-
ment of risks in construction projects. To achieve the research objec-
tive, a supervised machine learning model is trained and validated us-
ing a broad range of features extracted from EDA, PPG, and ST to recog-
nize workers' risk perceptions. Moreover, several filtering methods
(e.g., high-pass filter, band-pass filter, hamper filter, and moving aver-
age filter) are employed to improve the quality of the collected physio-
logical signals.
4. Methods
Fig. 1 represents an overview of the process for assessing construc-
tion workers' perceived risks by using the physiological signals col-
lected from wearable biosensors. First, PPG, EDA, and ST signals are
collected using wristband-type biosensors worn by on-site construc-
tion workers. Moreover, the authors simultaneously video-recorded
the workers' activities. The collected signals were labeled low- and
high-risk activities based on the recorded videos. After eliminating ar-
tifacts in the signals by using several filtering methods and decompos-
ing the EDA into EDL and EDR, signal features that represent the char-
acteristics of the physiological signal patterns were extracted in the
time and frequency domains. Thereafter, a machine learning model
for assessing the construction workers' perceived risk was trained and
tested by applying supervised learning algorithms.
4.1. Data collection
To develop a machine learning model for recognizing on-site con-
struction workers' risk perceptions, physiological data (i.e., EDA, PPG,
B.G. Lee et al. Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102824

Fig. 1. Overview of process for recognizing construction workers' risk perceptions.

and ST) were collected from eight construction workers (two carpen- participate in our study. The consent form provided information about
ters, one floor finisher, four electricians, and one foreman). The data the subjects’ rights, our research objective, and the data collection pro-
collection procedure was approved by the Institutional Review Board of cedure. The subjects were told that they could withdraw from the study
the University of Michigan. The subjects' ages ranged between 20 and at any point in time. Moreover, all subjects were asked whether they
50 years (M = 32.37, SD = 8.57), and their job experience ranged have any clinical issues that could affect their on-site work. None of the
from 3 to 25 years (M = 10.25 SD = 6.72). Table 1 summarizes the de- subjects reported such problems.
mographic information of the subjects. Before collecting the physiologi- The physiological data were collected from the workers by using E4
cal data, the research team members distributed informed consent wristband-type biosensors (manufactured by Empatica, Cambridge,
forms to all subjects and asked them to sign the form if they agreed to Massachusetts), which can simultaneously collect EDA, PPG, and ST
data. These sensors recorded EDA and ST with sampling rates of 4 Hz
and measured PPG data with a sampling frequency of 64 Hz. Each sub-
Table 1 ject was asked to wear the sensor and perform their daily on-site tasks
Summary of subjects’ information. for half of the workday (i.e., about 4 h per worker). Before starting the
Age (years) Job Experience (Years) Height (cm) Weight (kg) data collection, each participant was given adequate time to familiarize
themselves with wearing the sensor. In the meantime, a member of the
Mean 32.37 10.25 181.5 88.88
SD 8.57 6.72 7.14 12.92
research team ascertained whether the sensor was properly located and
Min 20 3 163 66 operational. The placement of the cameras was carefully selected to
Max 50 25 189 109 minimize interruption of the ongoing work, and at least 3 m of distance

4
B.G. Lee et al.
between the subjects and the cameras were ensured to minimize any
emotional influence of the subjects caused by cameras. Additionally,
through a consent form, all subjects were informed that the collected
data would be used only for research purposes and would not be shared
with others. As a result, the subjects exhibited a natural response during
the session, even though they were aware of the cameras at the begin-
ning of the data collection. Furthermore, the data collected during the
first 10 min of the session were excluded in the analysis to minimize the
effects of the subjects' awareness of the video recording. To prevent any
discontinuity in data collection, the research team member checked the
status of each sensor after every hour. Moreover, each subject's activi-
ties were video-recorded using GoPro Hero + handheld cameras for la-
beling the data.
4.2. Data preprocessing
After the field data collection, the authors labeled the collected
physiological signals into two classes—low and high perceived risk—by
using the recorded videos; this step was essential for training and vali-
dating the classification models for recognizing the perceived risk. It is
almost impractical to ascertain the ground truth about workers' per-
ceived risk from the data collected as they perform their tasks. There-
fore, the authors used the collected data that clearly corresponded to
low and high risks under the assumption that workers would perceive
low and high risk in such obvious moments. First, two data sources (i.e.,
the physiological signals and the video recordings) were synchronized
based on the time recorded by the wearable biosensors and videos. Two
research team members with more than 5 years of field experience on
construction sites separately watched the videos and assessed the risks
in the subjects' activities at every second (i.e., 1 Hz) based on their ex-
perience and knowledge. Activities that require additional actions to
protect workers (e.g., work at height, wearing glasses) were labeled as
high-risk activities. Next, data corresponding to inconsistent labeling
results by these two team members were excluded from the subsequent
analysis. The most common high-risk activity was working on a ladder
to complete tasks such as installing lights or attaching plasterboard to
the ceiling. Moreover, tasks involving the use of dangerous tools (e.g.,
plasterboard saw and electric cutter) were labeled as high-risk (Fig. 2).
In contrast, the data collected during the activities in which the workers
performed ordinary jobs on the ground, walked and talked with
coworkers, or rested were labeled as low-risk (Fig. 2). Consequently, a
total of 47,544 labeled data were used to train and validate the classifi-
cation model. Also, Cohen's Kappa was calculated to determine if there
was an agreement between the two team members' assessment of the
risk levels of the activities. There was a substantial agreement between
the two team members' risk assessment with a κ = 0.869 (95% CI,
0.864 to 0.874).
One notable hurdle in the analysis of the physiological signals col-
lected using wearable biosensors from uncontrolled fields is the signifi-
cant noise contained in the signals [109]. Because noise can consider-
ably distort the measurement of perceived risk by skewing the features
extracted from the signals, several denoising techniques were applied to
Fig. 2. Example of high and low-risk.
5
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102824
the collected physiological signals. To attenuate noises in the EDA sig-
nals, a high-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of 0.05 Hz was applied to
suppress low-frequency noises resulting from variations in the imped-
ance of the EDA sensor electrodes or environmental conditions such as
temperature and humidity [26,110]. A moving average filter with a six-
data-point window was additionally applied to alleviate the high-
frequency noises introduced due to users’ motions and electromagnetic
interference [111]. For PPG, a band-pass filter was used in the range of
0.5–4.0 Hz to attenuate both low-frequency (e.g., flicker noise) and
high-frequency (e.g., LED shot noise and ambient light noises) noises
[112]. To suppress noise in the ST signals, which can be mainly as-
cribed to unstable contact between the infrared thermopile temperature
reader and human skin, the authors applied a hamper filter (Jebelli et
al., 2018a).
4.3. Feature extraction
After labeling the physiological signals and suppressing noise, the
authors extracted different features to understand the patterns in the
signals corresponding to different levels of workers' perceived risk. As
the first step in feature extraction, EDA was decomposed into EDL and
EDR. EDL represents changes in the baseline, while EDR reflects sponta-
neous fluctuations in EDA [73]. In general, EDL is considered to show
the trend in sympathetic activity [113]. EDR typically manifests as a
steep incline toward the peak and a gradual decline toward the base-
line, and it well reflects the short-term sympathetic response to an ex-
ternal stimulus [114]. Both EDL and EDR are important for understand-
ing people's perceived risk levels because people can perceive risk by
inferring potential risks from underlying conditions as well as by actu-
ally observing attention-grabbing events [115], which might be re-
flected in EDL and EDR, respectively. For example, in the case that a
worker performs a task at a height, they can perceive risk by being at
the elevated position owing to their anticipation of the accidents that
can occur from that position, without the occurrence of any actual spe-
cific event. Moreover, workers can feel at risk owing specific events
happening on or around them, such as a misstep, falling of an object,
and vibration of a ladder. Therefore, the authors extracted features
from both EDL and EDR.
Then, the continuous EDL, EDR, PPG, and ST signals were seg-
mented with a moving window with 25% shift (i.e., 75% overlap). To
determine the optimal length of the window to recognize the level of
perceived risk, different window lengths were tested from 10 s to 300 s.
From the segmented signal data points, the authors extracted a total of
52 features (i.e., eight features from EDL, 19 features from EDR, 21 fea-
tures from PPG, and four features from ST). Since the main underlying
mechanism bridging the perceived risk and the variations in the col-
lected physiological signals is the sympathetic arousal in the autonomic
nervous system [60–62], this study selected 52 features that have
demonstrably been useful for understanding the stimulation of the sym-
pathetic part of the autonomic nervous system [116–118]. Table 2 sum-
marizes the extracted features. Specifically, 20 time-domain features
and 7 frequency-domain features from EDL and EDR, 16 time-domain
B.G. Lee et al.
Table 2
Features extracted from EDA, PPG, and ST signals.
Signal Feature Features
Type
EDA Time From EDL: Mean, Standard deviation, Median, Maximum,
Domain Cumulative maximum, Cumulative minimum, Minimum-to-
maximum, Peak-to-root mean square, Kurtosis,
From EDR: Standard deviation, Median, Maximum, Cumulative
maximum, Cumulative minimum, Minimum-to-maximum,
Peak-to-root mean square, Kurtosis, Integral, Normalized
average power, Normalized root mean square
Frequency From EDL: Mean frequency, Median frequency
Domain From EDR: Mean frequency, Median frequency, Spectral power
between 0.1 and 0.2 Hz, Spectral power between 0.2 and
0.3 Hz, and Spectral power between 0.3 and 0.4 Hz
PPG Time Maximum, Cumulative maximum, Cumulative minimum,
Domain Minimum-to-maximum, Peak-to-root mean square, Kurtosis of
PPG, Mean of rise time, Pulse height minimum, Pulse height
maximum, Heart rate, Respiration rate, Average of NN
intervals, Standard deviation of NN Intervals, Root mean
square of the sequential differences of intervals, Proportion of
NN intervals over 20 ms, Proportion of NN intervals over
50 ms
Frequency Low-frequency power, High-frequency power, Low frequency
Domain to high frequency ratio, Mean frequency, Median frequency of
PPG
ST Time Mean, Standard deviation of ST
Domain
Frequency Mean frequency, Median frequency of ST
Domain
features and 5 frequency-domain features from PPG, and 2 time-
domain features and 2 frequency-domain features from ST signals were
extracted.
After feature extraction, the authors selected the most meaningful
features out of the 52 extracted features. Feature selection is required to
not only reduce the computational cost and the time required to mea-
sure risk perception, which is important in practice, but also to improve
reliability by reducing the risk of overfitting [119]. As the feature selec-
tion method, the binary particle swarm optimization method, a type of
wrapper method, was applied [120]. While filter methods evaluate the
usefulness of features individually, wrapper methods can evaluate a
subset of features in a task [121]. Since understanding sympathetic-
arousal-related psychophysiological responses such as risk perception
requires multiple features from different physiological signals, not an
individual feature, wrapper methods could provide better performance
in this study. Specifically, the authors applied the binary particle swarm
optimization method because this method has shown better perfor-
mance than the other wrapper methods (e.g., forward selection and
backward elimination methods), especially when the number of test
features is large as in the case of this study, by overcoming the limita-
tions of the latter, such as high computational cost, long duration, and
stagnation in local optima in the case of the evolutionary computation
technique [119]. The parameters of the binary particle swarm opti-
mization method were set following previous studies [120,122] that
have analyzed biosignals to understand different status of human body
(population size: 30, maximum number of iterations: 100, cognitive
learning factor: 2, social learning factor: 2, maximum inertia weight:
0.9, minimum inertia weight: 0.4, and maximum velocity: 6).
4.4. Perceived risk classification
With the extracted and selected features, the authors trained classifi-
cation models to recognize the level of perceived risk by applying su-
pervised learning algorithms. To select the appropriate supervised
learning algorithms, the authors tested a wide range of algorithms (e.g.,
linear, quadratic, and Gaussian discriminant analysis; logistic regres-
sion; Gaussian naïve Bayes; and linear, quadratic, and cubic support
vector machine) on 25% of the entire dataset and compared their per-
6
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102824
formance. From the results of the preliminary analysis, four algorithms
(i.e., Gaussian support vector machine (GSVM), K-nearest neighbors
(KNN), decision tree (DT), and bagging tree (BT)) were selected. These
algorithms have been widely used and have shown good performance
for physiological-signal-based monitoring of sympathetic-arousal-
related human responses such as stress [123–125]. These supervised
machine learning algorithms optimize the classification model in the
training phase by minimizing their own objective functions, which rep-
resent how many errors the model generates with the training labeled
data [126]. The process of minimizing the objective functions is differ-
ent in every machine learning algorithm. To validate the performance
of the trained classification models, 10-fold cross-validation was per-
formed because this validation method has been widely used to mea-
sure the performance of the classification models in previous studies on
measuring human psychophysiological variables, such as stress, emo-
tions, and physical exertion, by using physiological signals
[123,124,127]. In the 10-fold cross-validation, the dataset was first di-
vided into 10 equal-sized subsets. Nine of the 10 subsets were used to
train a model, and the remaining subset was used to validate the perfor-
mance of the trained model. The training and validation were repeated
10 times so that all subsets were used for validation. Furthermore, since
the number of low-risk data points (i.e., 33,860) was greater than that
of high-risk data points, the low-risk data points were first randomly
undersampled to balance the two classes before conducting the ten-fold
cross-validation. To ensure that the resultant validation accuracy
showed the general performance, not the performance in a randomly
undersampled data set, this undersampling-cross validation procedure
was repeated ten times, and the averaged accuracy is reported.
Specifically, this study applied the 10-fold cross-validation method
without shuffling to minimize the dependency between the training and
the validation sessions, even though the 10-fold cross-validation
method with shuffling is more widely used to validate supervised ma-
chine learning models (Fig. 3). The physiological signals considered in
this study were time-series data, in which the neighboring data points
are not clearly independent of each other [128–131] because features
in the data points do not vary drastically between neighboring data
points in time-series data. Therefore, if training and validation sessions
are conducted without consideration of the temporal sequence by shuf-
fling before session division (X ̃_t: arranged in the validation session, X ̃_
(t±1): arranged in the training session), the validation session is not
truly unseen when training classification models (a in Fig. 3). In this
setup, where training and validation sessions are not clearly indepen-
dent of each other, the performance of the trained model in the valida-
tion session might be considerably superior to that in a general setup,
where training and validation sessions are clearly independent. This
performance overestimation due to the dependency between the train-
ing and validation sessions reduces the reliability of the test of general-
ization ability of the model [129,131].
5. Results
To test the performance of the classifiers and find the optimal win-
dow length, the authors trained and validated multiple classifiers by
changing the window length from 10 s to 300 s in increments of 10 s.
Fig. 4 displays the changes in the validation accuracy of the classifiers
with changes in window length. GSVM outperformed the other algo-
rithms across window lengths and at the maximum point of validation
accuracy (GSVM: 0.812, KNN: 0.788, DT: 0.707, and BT: 0.771). This
result is consistent with those of previous studies on detecting the sym-
pathetic-arousal-inducing human responses by using physiological sig-
nals [65,110,132]. Regardless of learning algorithms, the validation ac-
curacy remains rather low (0.627–0.680) when the window length is
smaller than 60 s. Then, it gradually increases as the window length in-
creases up to 210 s, which is the maximum point of validation accu-
racy. After the maximum point, the validation accuracy decreases
B.G. Lee et al. Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102824

Fig. 3. Comparison between 10-fold cross-validation with and without shuffling.

Table 4
Features selected by the binary particle swarm optimization.
Signal Feature Selected Features
Type

EDA Time From EDL: Mean, Median, Maximum, Cumulative maximum,

Fig. 4. Validation accuracy of the classifier for different window lengths.
rapidly relative to its slow incline from 60 to 210 s. The highest valida-
tion accuracy (0.812 with GSVM at 210 s) is comparable to the results
of other similar studies involving the detection of sympathetic-arousal-
inducing human responses (e.g., stress) by using physiological signals
[110,123,124]. Moreover, given that the authors applied a more rigor-
ous validation method (i.e., cross-validation without shuffling) than the
traditional methods, this result can be more promising than those of the
previous studies.
Tables 3 and 4 are the confusion matrix of the classification model
trained with GSVM at the optimal window length (210 s) and the list of
the 29 features selected by the binary particle swarm optimization, re-
Domain Cumulative minimum, Minimum-to-maximum, Peak-to-root
mean square
From EDR: Median, Cumulative maximum, Cumulative
minimum, Minimum-to-maximum, Peak-to-root mean square,
Integral, Normalized root mean square
Frequency From EDL: Mean frequency
Domain From EDR: Mean frequency,
PPG Time Cumulative maximum, Cumulative minimum, Kurtosis of PPG,
Domain Mean of rise time, Pulse height minimum, Pulse height
maximum, Standard deviation of NN Intervals, Root mean
square of the sequential differences of intervals, Proportion of
NN intervals over 20 ms
Frequency High-frequency power, Mean frequency of PPG
Domain
ST Time Mean, Standard deviation of ST
Domain
spectively. The precision of a class indicates the proportion of correctly
classified data points in the total data points classified into the class.
The recall of a class refers to the proportion of correctly classified data
points in the number of actual data points of the class. The trained clas-
sifier has a higher precision for high perceived risk than that for low
perceived risk and a lower recall for high perceived risk than that for
low perceived risk. This means that the trained classifier is pickier when
classifying data points under high perceived risk instead of low per-
ceived risk. Consequently, it classifies very few data points under high
perceived risk, but these points are mostly correctly classified.

Table 3 6. Discussion
Confusion matrix for distinguishing between low and high-stress levels.
Predicted Actual Risk Level Recent wearable biosensing technologies have the potential to con-
Risk Level tribute to construction safety because they can be used to assess con-
Low High Precision F-score struction workers' perceived risk levels during their work. However, the
lower sampling frequency and significant artifacts in the physiological
Low 0.425 0.113 0.790 0.819 signals collected using wearable biosensors in the field have limited
High 0.075 0.387 0.838 0.805
their application in construction sites. To address this gap, the authors
Recall 0.851 0.774 Accuracy = 0.812

7
B.G. Lee et al.
applied advanced signal processing and machine learning techniques in
conjunction with wearable biosensors to train and validate classifiers to
detect the level of perceived risk. The trained classifiers yielded an ac-
curacy of 0.812, which indicates that construction workers’ perceived
risk levels during work can be detected using wearable biosensors.
The authors validated the classifiers by using the cross-validation
method without shuffling. According to previous studies, the cross-
validation method without shuffling is considerably less accurate than
the traditional cross-validation method with shuffling for the same clas-
sifier, but the former has better validation performance in assessing the
generalization ability of the classifier when time-series data are used
[129,131,133]. To examine the difference in validation accuracy be-
tween the cross-validation methods with and without shuffling, the au-
thors validated the classifiers using both the cross-validation methods
by changing the window length. The results are shown in Fig. 5. The
validation accuracy continuously increases with small fluctuations as
the window length increases, which differs significantly from the result
obtained with the cross-validation method without shuffling. This is not
reasonable because every task that involves detecting a status has an
optimal window length, which is determined based on the duration for
which the status is reflected in the signals and the frequency with which
the status shows up [134]. This continuous increase in the validation
accuracy may be explained by the effect of overlap between the neigh-
boring data points that occurs when a moving window is employed. The
authors observed 75% overlap in the moving window, which means if
the window length was 100 s, the neighboring data points shared 75 s
of signals. In this regard, as the window length increases, the length of
overlap between the neighboring data points increases as well, thus
raising the dependency between the data points. As mentioned earlier,
the dependency between adjacent data points leads to overestimation
of the performance of the tested classifiers. This result indicates that the
traditional cross-validation method with shuffling can overestimate the
performance of the trained classifiers, especially when the indepen-
dence between neighboring data points is not guaranteed, as in the case
of time-series data.
The results of this study show that GSVM outperforms the other su-
pervised learning algorithms in recognizing risk perception by using
physiological signals. This might be because of the robust performance
of GSVM in controlling the overfitting and outlier issues that are com-
mon when using multiple physiological signals [110]. Moreover, 210 s
was found to be the optimal window length for recognizing the level of
perceived risk when applying GSVM to physiological signals. This win-
dow length is rather long given that the optimal length for the monitor-
ing of other psychophysiological variables, such as stress and physical
exertion, is 10–30 s [65,132]. This notable difference in optimum win-
dow length compared to those of other psychophysiological variables
might be ascribed to the fact that risk perception is a cognitive process
determined by interaction between workers' traits (e.g., prior knowl-
edge and experience) and the overall working conditions. Because
Fig. 5. Comparison of validation accuracy between the 10-fold cross-validation
methods with and without shuffling.
8
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102824
stress and physical exertion are phasic variables that change rapidly
even due to small external stimuli, such as sudden acoustic noises and
physical load on hands, the long window length might not be able to
capture their rapid fluctuations. By contrast, the level of perceived risk
tends to be sustained for a certain duration, and it usually changes at a
slower pace than stress and physical exertion because workers' traits
can be considered static within a relatively short period (e.g., a day and
a month) and the overall work conditions in construction contexts do
not rapidly change in general. This coincides with the authors’ observa-
tions during data collection. Once the subjects started a task under a
particular condition, they continued for at least a couple of minutes.
However, this result does not necessarily mean that 210 s is a context-
independent optimal window length for monitoring the perceived risk
level. Different contexts (e.g., other manufacturing jobsites and sports)
could have different optimal window lengths depending on their dis-
tinct work conditions.
Lastly, the authors trained the classifiers by using only one physio-
logical signal to investigate the usefulness of each signal for monitoring
the perceived risk. Because ST alone is insufficient for understanding
sympathetic arousal, which is the underlying mechanism for monitor-
ing perceived risk by using physiological signals [65,135], only EDA
and PPG were tested in this study. As a result, the performance of each
signal was comparable to the performance achieved when all the sig-
nals were used together (Fig. 6). This result is not consistent with those
of previous studies, in which the accuracy was notably higher when
multiple physiological signals were used at once (e.g., EDA and PPG)
than when one signal was used [65,125]. The results of previous studies
are supported by the fact that different physiological signals contain
noise from different sources based on the recording mechanisms used
and the related body organs [125]. Although a substantial amount of
noise was alleviated by the denoising process, residual noise can signifi-
cantly distort the signal in several time frames. Thus, dependence on
one signal alone cannot guarantee the performance of the trained classi-
fiers, whereas multiple signals can complement each other because it is
unlikely that different noise factors of multiple signals occur simultane-
ously. By contrast, owing to the relatively long window length for de-
tecting the perceived risk, the effects of residual noise on each data
point can be minor in this study, even when using only one physiologi-
cal signal. Although several seconds of a signal are distorted by the
residual noise not filtered out by the denoising process, the features ex-
tracted from the long window length might not be affected considerably
by the relatively minor distortion. This intersection between the num-
ber of signals and the window length is observed in Fig. 6. When the
window length is relatively short, shorter than 50 s, the models trained
using only one single signal (i.e., EDA or PPG) yield a notably lower val-
idation accuracy than those trained using all the signals together.
Meanwhile, when the window length is longer than 50 s, the difference
in validation accuracy between the models trained using only one sig-
Fig. 6. Validation accuracy when using only EDA and PPG, separately.
B.G. Lee et al.
nal and those trained using all signals together is considerably smaller.
This implies that if the long window length is applied, the perceived
risk can be successfully detected with only a reasonable unimodal wear-
able biosensor without the need for advanced multimodal sensors.
In this study, the authors found that workers' perceived risk levels
could be monitored even as they worked, through the combination of
wearable biosensing and advanced signal processing and machine
learning techniques. However, a couple of limitations also should be ac-
knowledged. First, the data collected in this study may not adequately
reflect the environmental variability (e.g., temperature, humidity, and
radiation) because the data collection process lasted only two days.
Give that environmental variability is essential to generalize the trained
model, especially in the construction context where people work under
diverse environmental conditions, future studies should adequately in-
corporate environmental variability in the data collection process.
Moreover, owing to the individuals' uniqueness in terms of their physio-
logical response, the proposed risk perception recognition method
could be subject-dependent. However, this study attempted to collect
data in naturalistic work environments in construction projects. The
data were collected from diverse types of workers in terms of trade,
field experience, age, etc., to extend the generalizability of the results.
The demographic variables of subjects did not show any significant re-
lationship with the proportion of high-risk activities and the patterns of
physiological signals, implying that the demographic characteristics of
each participant may not reduce the significance of the results of this
study. However, since workers' personal characteristics other than the
demographic characteristics (e.g., psychological and physiological
traits) can induce individual variability in their physiological responses
to a perceived risk, it is important for future studies to apply advanced
transfer learning algorithms to computationally buffer individual dif-
ferences in physiological responses, thereby improving the generaliz-
ability of the model. Finally, the labeling methods applied in this study
may be limited in fully measuring a worker's subjective assessment of
risk at each moment. It is possible that a worker may not show signifi-
cant changes in the patterns of physiological signals in high-risk activi-
ties if he/she is used to working in high-risk situations. Surveys or inter-
views regarding a worker's subjective assessment of the risk levels of
his/her activities can be a data collection method to study the effects of
adaptation on perceived risk. However, it is impractical to record each
worker's subjective assessment of the risk level at every second. Addi-
tionally, a subjective assessment of the risks may not be capable of cap-
turing the response of System 1 (i.e., immediate and automatic re-
sponse), which is the main focus of this study. Furthermore, a self-
reported data collection method may be vulnerable to various biases
such as courtesy bias, demand characteristics, and social desirability
bias. The ultimate goal of this study is to identify the risk levels that
each worker experiences using physiological signals acquired from
wearable biosensors. This study applied the concept of perceived risk to
link the physiological signals and the risk levels of the activities. In this
sense, this study focuses more on labeling the risk levels of worker ac-
tivities by a third party rather than asking the workers for their subjec-
tive assessment of the risk levels. The study employed two independent
construction experts to assess the risk levels of the activities to acquire
more reliable data labels. The results of the calculation to determine in-
ter-rater reliability indicate that there is a substantial agreement be-
tween the two team members' risk assessment. Therefore, the labeling
process in this study is a viable approach to achieving the research ob-
jective. The results of the developed model also show the potential of
wearable biosensors in identifying the risk levels of construction worker
activities during their ongoing work.
7. Conclusion
In this study, the objective was to develop an automatic method for
recognizing construction workers’ perceived risk levels by using physi-
9
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102824
ological signals acquired from wristband-type wearable biosensors. To
achieve the objective, the authors developed and validated a supervised
machine learning model by using a broad range of features extracted
from the physiological signals (i.e., PPG, EDA, and ST). The perfor-
mance of the model was examined using more than 30 h worth of phys-
iological signals acquired from eight construction workers over the
course of their daily work. The developed GSVM model achieved a vali-
dation accuracy of 81.2% in terms of distinguishing between low and
high levels of perceived risk. The results indicate that the physiological
signals collected from wearable biosensors can feasibly be used e to rec-
ognize construction workers' perceived risk levels during work. This
study contributes to the literature by providing a new means of continu-
ous, objective, and non-invasive monitoring of construction workers'
perceived risk levels. Given the limitations of previous methods to mea-
sure workers' perceived risk levels, the proposed method extends our
understanding of construction workers' perceived risk at construction
sites. Continuous measurement of construction workers' perceived risk
could provide valuable information for improving construction safety
management practices. Although the recognition of workers' perceived
risk levels may not help identify all potential hazards at construction
sites, it would be useful for identifying immediate and substantial haz-
ards encountered by workers during work. Safety managers will be able
to localize hazardous activities by integrating workers' perceived risk
levels and location information. This will help the safety managers to
determine the priority of on-site safety supervision in large construction
sites. Furthermore, the integration of workers' perceived risk levels with
other information, such as location, types of activities, age, and gender,
will be helpful for characterizing various hazards in construction pro-
jects.
CREdiT author statement
Gaang Lee: Formal analysis, Writing-Original draft preparation,
Byungjoo Choi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing-Original
draft preparation, Houtan Jebelli: Data curation, Writing-Reviewing
and Editing, SangHyun Lee: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing-
Reviewing and Editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No.
2020R1G1A1004797). The authors wish to thank their industry part-
ners for their help in data collection, as well as anonymous participants
who participated in the data collection.
References
[1] C.-S. Park, H.-J. Kim, A framework for construction safety management and
visualization system, Autom. ConStruct. 33 (2013) 95–103, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.autcon.2012.09.012.
[2] H. Yang, D. a. S. Chew, W. Wu, Z. Zhou, Q. Li, Design and implementation of an
identification system in construction site safety for proactive accident prevention,
Accid. Anal. Prev. 48 (2012) 193–203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.06.
017.
[3] Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Construction’s Fatal Four,
Department of Labor, 2020 https://www.osha.gov/data/commonstats. (Accessed
10 August 2020).
[4] Us Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in
2018, US Department of Labor, 2019 https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.
pdf. (Accessed 10 August 2020).
[5] US Census Bureau, Department of Labor, 2019 Employment by major industry
https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-sector.htm.
B.G. Lee et al.
(Accessed 10 August 2020).
[6] Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS), Number and rate of occupational
incidents by industry, Ministry of Employment and Labor, 2020 http://kosis.kr/
statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=118&tblId=DT_11806_N000&conn_path=I3.
(Accessed 10 August 2020).
[7] A. Pousette, M. Törner, Effects of systematic work preparation meetings on safety
climate and psychosocial conditions in the construction industry, Construct.
Manag. Econ. 34 (6) (2016) 355–365, https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2016.
1189584.
[8] M. Grill, A. Pousette, K. Nielsen, R. Grytnes, M. Törner, Safety leadership at
construction sites: the importance of rule-oriented and participative leadership,
Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health (4) (2017) 375–384, https://doi.org/10.5271/
sjweh.3650.
[9] Y. Chen, B. Mccabe, D. Hyatt, Impact of individual resilience and safety climate on
safety performance and psychological stress of construction workers: a case study
of the ontario construction industry, J. Saf. Res. 61 (2017) 167–176, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jsr.2017.02.014.
[10] Z. Zhou, Y.M. Goh, Q. Li, Overview and analysis of safety management studies in
the construction industry, Saf. Sci. 72 (2015) 337–350, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssci.2014.10.006.
[11] B. Shao, Z. Hu, Q. Liu, S. Chen, W. He, Fatal accident patterns of building
construction activities in China, Saf. Sci. 111 (2019) 253–263, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ssci.2018.07.019.
[12] R.W. Allison, C.K.H. Hon, B. Xia, Construction accidents in Australia: evaluating
the true costs, Saf. Sci. 120 (2019) 886–896, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.
07.037.
[13] S. Baradan, S.U. Dikmen, O. Akboga Kale, Impact of human development on safety
consciousness in construction, Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 25 (1) (2019) 40–50,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2018.1445069.
[14] J. Mullen, Investigating factors that influence individual safety behavior at work,
J. Saf. Res. 35 (3) (2004) 275–285, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2004.03.011.
[15] J.W. Garrett, J. Teizer, Human factors analysis classification system relating to
human error awareness taxonomy in construction safety, J. Construct. Eng. Manag.
135 (8) (2009) 754–763, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.
0000034.
[16] A. Perlman, R. Sacks, R. Barak, Hazard recognition and risk perception in
construction, Saf. Sci. 64 (2014) 22–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.
019.
[17] H.W. Heinrich, D. Petersen, N. Roos, Industrial Accident Prevention, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 9780070280588, 1959.
[18] R.A. Haslam, S.A. Hide, A.G.F. Gibb, D.E. Gyi, T. Pavitt, S. Atkinson, A.R. Duff,
Contributing factors in construction accidents, Appl. Ergon. 36 (4) (2005)
401–415, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2004.12.002.
[19] A. Suraji, A.R. Duff, S.J. Peckitt, Development of causal model of construction
accident causation, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 127 (4) (2001) 337–344 (2001)127:
4(337), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364.
[20] J. Wang, P.X.W. Zou, P.P. Li, Critical factors and paths influencing construction
workers’ safety risk tolerances, Accid. Anal. Prev. 93 (2016) 267–279, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.11.027.
[21] T. Aven, On how to define, understand and describe risk, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 95
(6) (2010) 623–631, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.01.011.
[22] I. Rodríguez-Garzón, V. Lucas-Ruiz, M. Martínez-Fiestas, A. Delgado-Padial,
Association between perceived risk and training in the construction industry, J.
Construct. Eng. Manag. 141 (5) (2014) 04014095, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000960.
[23] D.M. Dejoy, Behavior change versus culture change: divergent approaches to
managing workplace safety, Saf. Sci. 43 (2) (2005) 105–129, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ssci.2005.02.001.
[24] H. Guo, Y. Yu, T. Xiang, H. Li, D. Zhang, The availability of wearable-device-based
physical data for the measurement of construction workers’ psychological status
on site: from the perspective of safety management, Automation in Construction,
2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06.001.
[25] D. Wang, J. Chen, D. Zhao, F. Dai, C. Zheng, X. Wu, Monitoring workers’ attention
and vigilance in construction activities through a wireless and wearable
electroencephalography system, Autom. ConStruct. 82 (2017) 122–137, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.02.001.
[26] B. Choi, H. Jebelli, S. Lee, Feasibility analysis of electrodermal activity (EDA)
acquired from wearable sensors to assess construction workers’ perceived risk, Saf.
Sci. 115 (2019) 110–120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.01.022.
[27] T. Rundmo, Safety climate, attitudes and risk perception in norsk hydro, Saf. Sci.
34 (1) (2000) 47–59, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00006-0.
[28] I.W.H. Fung, V.W.Y. Tam, T.Y. Lo, L.L.H. Lu, Developing a risk assessment model
for construction safety, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (6) (2010) 593–600, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.09.006.
[29] M. Hallowell, Safety risk perception in construction companies in the pacific
northwest of the USA, Construct. Manag. Econ. 28 (4) (2010) 403–413, https://
doi.org/10.1080/01446191003587752.
[30] J. Covan, Safety Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 0-471-55612-2, 1995.
[31] A. Tixier, M. Hallowell, A. Albert, L. Van Boven, B. Kleiner, Psychological
antecedents of risk-taking behavior in construction, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 140
(11) (2014) 04014052, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000894.
[32] C.D. Wickens, Engineering Psychology and Human Performance Merrill, 1984
Columbus. (ISBN: 1317351320, 9781317351320).
[33] M.R. Endsley, Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems, Hum.
Factors 37 (1) (1995) 32–64, https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543.
[34] J. Chen, X. Song, Z. Lin, Revealing the “invisible gorilla” in construction:
10
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102824
estimating construction safety through mental workload assessment, Autom.
ConStruct. 63 (2016) 173–183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.12.018.
[35] S. Hasanzadeh, B. Esmaeili, M.D. Dodd, Examining the relationship between
construction workers’ visual attention and situation awareness under fall and
tripping hazard conditions: using mobile eye tracking, J. Construct. Eng. Manag.
144 (7) (2018) 04018060, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.
0001516.
[36] A. Albert, M.R. Hallowell, B.M. Kleiner, Experimental field testing of a real-time
construction hazard identification and transmission technique, Construct. Manag.
Econ. 32 (10) (2014) 1000–1016, https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2014.
929721.
[37] B. Choi, S. Lee, An empirically based agent-based model of the sociocognitive
process of construction workers’ safety behavior, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 144 (2)
(2017) 04017102, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001421.
[38] J. Lu, X. Xie, R. Zhang, Focusing on appraisals: how and why anger and fear
influence driving risk perception, J. Saf. Res. 45 (2013) 65–73, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jsr.2013.01.009.
[39] E.L. Harbeck, A.I. Glendon, Driver prototypes and behavioral willingness: young
driver risk perception and reported engagement in risky driving, J. Saf. Res. 66
(2018) 195–204, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2018.07.009.
[40] M. Cristea, P. Delhomme, The effects of co-presence on risk perception and
intention to engage in risky behaviors, J. Saf. Res. 56 (2016) 97–103, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jsr.2015.12.006.
[41] D. Herrero-Fernández, P. Macía-Guerrero, L. Silvano-Chaparro, L. Merino, E.C.
Jenchura, Risky behavior in young adult pedestrians: personality determinants,
correlates with risk perception, and gender differences, Transport. Res. F Traffic
Psychol. Behav. 36 (2016) 14–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.11.007.
[42] M. Ji, X. You, J. Lan, S. Yang, The impact of risk tolerance, risk perception and
hazardous attitude on safety operation among airline pilots in China, Saf. Sci. 49
(10) (2011) 1412–1420, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.06.007.
[43] J.K. Riad, F.H. Norris, R.B. Ruback, Predicting evacuation in two major disasters:
risk perception, social influence, and access to resources 1, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.
29 (5) (1999) 918–934, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00132.x.
[44] M. Choi, M. Park, H.-S. Lee, S. Hwang, K. Anderson, S. Lee, 2016. Understanding
the role of dynamic risk perception during fire evacuations using agent-based
modeling, Construction research congress (2016) 1669–1679, https://doi.org/10.
1061/9780784479827.167.
[45] A. Oliver, A. Cheyne, J.M. Tomás, S. Cox, The effects of organizational and
individual factors on occupational accidents, J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 75 (4)
(2002) 473–488, https://doi.org/10.1348/096317902321119691.
[46] D.P. Gilkey, C.L.D. Puerto, T. Keefe, P. Bigelow, R. Herron, J. Rosecrance, P. Chen,
Comparative analysis of safety culture perceptions among homesafe managers and
workers in residential construction, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 138 (9) (2012)
1044–1052, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000519.
[47] D.A. Patel, K.N. Jha, Neural network model for the prediction of safe work
behavior in construction projects, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 141 (1) (2015)
04014066, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000922.
[48] M. Namian, A. Albert, C.M. Zuluaga, M. Behm, Role of safety training: impact on
hazard recognition and safety risk perception, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 142 (12)
(2016) 04016073, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001198.
[49] Y. Feng, P. Wu, G. Ye, D. Zhao, Risk-compensation behaviors on construction sites:
demographic and psychological determinants, J. Manag. Eng. 33 (4) (2017)
04017008, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000520.
[50] M. Namian, A. Albert, J. Feng, Effect of distraction on hazard recognition and
safety risk perception, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 144 (4) (2018) http://ascelibrary.
org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0001263 04018008.
[51] S. Chaiken, Y. Trope, Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology, Guilford Press, 1-
57230-421-9, 1999.
[52] K.E. Stanovich, R.F. West, Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the
rationality debate?, Behav. Brain Sci. 23 (5) (2001) 645–665, https://doi.org/10.
1017/S0140525X0028343X.
[53] J.S.B.T. Evans, In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning, Trends Cognit.
Sci. 7 (10) (2003) 454–459, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012.
[54] E.R. Smith, J. Decoster, Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology:
conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems, Pers. Soc.
Psychol. Rev. 4 (2) (2000) 108–131, https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327957PSPR0402_01.
[55] J.S.B.T. Evans, Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social
cognition, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59 (1) (2008) 255–278, https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.59.103006.093629.
[56] D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Macmillan, 9780374275631, 2011.
[57] R. Larson, M. Csikszentmihalyi, The Experience Sampling Method. Flow and the
Foundations of Positive Psychology, Springer, 2014, pp. 21–34, https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_2.
[58] R.O. Phillips, A. Fyhri, F. Sagberg, Risk compensation and bicycle helmets, Risk
Anal. 31 (8) (2011) 1187–1195, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.
01589.x.
[59] M. Schmidt-Daffy, Velocity versus safety: impact of goal conflict and task difficulty
on drivers’ behaviour, feelings of anxiety, and electrodermal responses, Transport.
Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 15 (3) (2012) 319–332, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trf.2012.02.004.
[60] C. Dettmers, D. Fatepour, H. Faust, F. Jerusalem, Sympathetic skin response
abnormalities in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Muscle Nerve 16 (9) (1993)
930–934, https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.880160907.
[61] M. Nitzan, A. Babchenko, B. Khanokh, D. Landau, The variability of the
photoplethysmographic signal - a potential method for the evaluation of the
B.G. Lee et al.
autonomic nervous system, Physiol. Meas. 19 (1) (1998) 93–102, https://doi.org/
10.1088/0967-3334/19/1/008.
[62] K. Budidha, P.A. Kyriacou, Photoplethysmography for quantitative assessment of
sympathetic nerve activity (sna) during cold stress, Front. Physiol. 9 (2019) 1863-
1863, https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01863.
[63] D. Crundall, P. Chapman, N. Phelps, G. Underwood, Eye movements and hazard
perception in police pursuit and emergency response driving, J. Exp. Psychol.
Appl. 9 (3) (2003) 163–174, https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.9.3.163.
[64] Y. Ba, W. Zhang, A.H.S. Chan, T. Zhang, A.S.K. Cheng, How drivers fail to avoid
crashes: a risk-homeostasis/perception-response (rh/pr) framework evidenced by
visual perception, electrodermal activity and behavioral responses, Transport. Res.
F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 43 (2016) 24–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.09.
025.
[65] H. Jebelli, B. Choi, S. Lee, Application of wearable biosensors to construction sites.
I: assessing workers’ stress, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 145 (12) (2019) 04019079,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001729.
[66] M. Benedek, C. Kaernbach, A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity,
J. Neurosci. Methods 190 (1) (2010) 80–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.
2010.04.028.
[67] W. Kennedy, G. Wendelschafer-Crabb, T. Brelje, Innervation and vasculature of
human sweat glands: an immunohistochemistry-laser scanning confocal
fluorescence microscopy study, J. Neurosci. 14 (11) (1994) 6825–6833, https://
doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.14-11-06825.1994.
[68] T. Nishiyama, J. Sugenoya, T. Matsumoto, S. Iwase, T. Mano, Irregular activation
of individual sweat glands in human sole observed by a videomicroscopy, Auton.
Neurosci. 88 (1) (2001) 117–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1566-0702(01)
00229-6.
[69] B. Studer, L. Clark, Place your bets: psychophysiological correlates of decision-
making under risk, Cognit. Affect Behav. Neurosci. 11 (2) (2011) 144–158,
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-011-0025-2.
[70] M.P. Jones, P. Chapman, K. Bailey, The influence of image valence on visual
attention and perception of risk in drivers, Accid. Anal. Prev. 73 (2014) 296–304,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.09.019.
[71] M. Tagliabue, M. Sarlo, Affective components in training to ride safely using a
moped simulator, Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 35 (2015) 132–138,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.10.018.
[72] G. Lee, B. Choi, H. Jebelli, C.R. Ahn, S. Lee, Wearable biosensor and collective
sensing-based approach for detecting older adults’ environmental barriers, J.
Comput. Civ. Eng. 34 (2) (2020) 04020002, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.
1943-5487.0000879.
[73] A. Greco, G. Valenza, A. Lanata, E.P. Scilingo, L. Citi, Cvxeda: a convex
optimization approach to electrodermal activity processing, IEEE (Inst. Electr.
Electron. Eng.) Trans. Biomed. Eng. 63 (4) (2016) 797–804, https://doi.org/10.
1109/TBME.2015.2474131.
[74] G. Lee, B. Choi, C.R. Ahn, S. Lee, Wearable biosensor and hotspot analysis-based
framework to detect stress hotspots for advancing elderly’s mobility, J. Manag.
Eng. 36 (3) (2020) 04020010, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.
0000753.
[75] J. Allen, Photoplethysmography and its application in clinical physiological
measurement, Physiol. Meas. 28 (3) (2007) R1–R39, https://doi.org/10.1088/
0967-3334/28/3/R01.
[76] S. Arberet, M. Lemay, P. Renevey, J. Solà, O. Grossenbacher, D. Andries, C. Sartori,
M. Bertschi, Photoplethysmography-based ambulatory heartbeat monitoring
embedded into a dedicated bracelet, Proceedings of the Computing in Cardiology
2013, 978-1-4799-0886-8, 2013, pp. 935–938.
[77] T. Tamura, Y. Maeda, M. Sekine, M. Yoshida, Wearable photoplethysmographic
sensors—past and present, Electronics 3 (2) (2014) 282–302, https://doi.org/10.
3390/electronics3020282.
[78] S. Hwang, J. Seo, H. Jebelli, S. Lee, Feasibility analysis of heart rate monitoring of
construction workers using a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor embedded in a
wristband-type activity tracker, Autom. ConStruct. 71 (2016) 372–381, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.029.
[79] S. Hwang, S. Lee, Wristband-type wearable health devices to measure construction
workers’ physical demands, Autom. ConStruct. 83 (2017) 330–340, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06.003.
[80] J. Mesken, M.P. Hagenzieker, T. Rothengatter, D. De Waard, Frequency,
determinants, and consequences of different drivers’ emotions: an on-the-road
study using self-reports, (observed) behaviour, and physiology, Transport. Res. F
Traffic Psychol. Behav. 10 (6) (2007) 458–475, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.
2007.05.001.
[81] B.J. Powers, E.Z. Oddone, J.M. Grubber, M.K. Olsen, H.B. Bosworth, Perceived and
actual stroke risk among men with hypertension, J. Clin. Hypertens. 10 (4) (2008)
287–294, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7176.2008.07797.x.
[82] E. Rubaltelli, S. Scrimin, U. Moscardino, G. Priolo, G. Buodo, Media exposure to
terrorism and people’s risk perception: the role of environmental sensitivity and
psychophysiological response to stress, Br. J. Psychol. 109 (4) (2018) 656–673,
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12292.
[83] J. Zhou, X. Jia, G. Xu, J. Jia, R. Hai, C. Gao, S. Zhang, The relationship between
different types of alarm sounds and children’s perceived risk based on their
physiological responses, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 16 (24) (2019) 5091,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245091.
[84] M. Garbey, N. Sun, A. Merla, I. Pavlidis, Contact-free measurement of cardiac pulse
based on the analysis of thermal imagery, IEEE (Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng.) Trans.
Biomed. Eng. 54 (8) (2007) 1418–1426, https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2007.
891930.
[85] A. Aryal, A. Ghahramani, B. Becerik-Gerber, Monitoring fatigue in construction
11
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102824
workers using physiological measurements, Autom. ConStruct. 82 (2017) (2017)
154–165, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.03.003.
[86] W. Harris, R.J. Wagnon, The effects of chiropractic adjustments on distal skin
temperature, J. Manipulative Physiol. Therapeut. 10 (2) (1987) 57–60.
[87] K.H. Kim, S.W. Bang, S.R. Kim, Emotion recognition system using short-term
monitoring of physiological signals, Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 42 (3) (2004)
419–427, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02344719.
[88] D. Dias, J. Paulo Silva Cunha, Wearable health devices-vital sign monitoring,
systems and technologies, Sensors 18 (8) (2018) 2414, https://doi.org/10.3390/
s18082414.
[89] C.R. Ahn, S. Lee, C. Sun, H. Jebelli, K. Yang, B. Choi, Wearable sensing technology
applications in construction safety and health, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 145 (11)
(2019) 03119007, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001708.
[90] W. Ritter, Measuring Psychophysiological Signals in Every-Day Situations, 2019,
pp. 720–728 Berlin, Heidelberg, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02710-9_80.
[91] I. Awolusi, E. Marks, M. Hallowell, Wearable technology for personalized
construction safety monitoring and trending: Review of applicable devices, Autom.
ConStruct. 85 (2018) 96–106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.010.
[92] J. Chen, J. Qiu, C. Ahn, Construction worker’s awkward posture recognition
through supervised motion tensor decomposition, Autom. ConStruct. 77 (2017)
67–81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.01.020.
[93] M.F. Antwi-Afari, H. Li, Y. Yu, L. Kong, Wearable insole pressure system for
automated detection and classification of awkward working postures in
construction workers, Autom. ConStruct. 96 (2018) 433–441, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.autcon.2018.10.004.
[94] W. Umer, H. Li, W. Lu, G.P.Y. Szeto, A.Y.L. Wong, Development of a tool to
monitor static balance of construction workers for proactive fall safety
management, Autom. ConStruct. 94 (2018) 438–448, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2018.07.024.
[95] H. Chen, X. Luo, Z. Zheng, J. Ke, A proactive workers’ safety risk evaluation
framework based on position and posture data fusion, Autom. ConStruct. 98
(2019) 275–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.11.026.
[96] X. Li, S. Han, M. Gül, M. Al-Hussein, Automated post-3d visualization ergonomic
analysis system for rapid workplace design in modular construction, Autom.
ConStruct. 98 (2019) 160–174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.11.012.
[97] L. Zhang, M.M. Diraneyya, J. Ryu, C.T. Haas, E.M. Abdel-Rahman, Jerk as an
indicator of physical exertion and fatigue, Autom. ConStruct. 104 (2019) 120–128,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.04.016.
[98] A.A. Akanmu, J. Olayiwola, O. Ogunseiju, D. Mcfeeters, Cyber-physical postural
training system for construction workers, Autom. ConStruct. 117 (2020) 103272,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103272.
[99] K. Kim, Y.K. Cho, Effective inertial sensor quantity and locations on a body for
deep learning-based worker’s motion recognition, Autom. ConStruct. 113 (2020)
103126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103126.
[100] K. Yang, C.R. Ahn, M.C. Vuran, S.S. Aria, Semi-supervised near-miss fall detection
for ironworkers with a wearable inertial measurement unit, Autom. ConStruct. 68
(2016) 194–202, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.04.007.
[101] H. Kim, C.R. Ahn, T.L. Stentz, H. Jebelli, Assessing the effects of slippery steel
beam coatings to ironworkers’ gait stability, Appl. Ergon. 68 (2018) 72–79,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.11.003.
[102] M.F. Antwi-Afari, H. Li, S. Anwer, S.K. Yevu, Z. Wu, P. Antwi-Afari, I. Kim,
Quantifying workers’ gait patterns to identify safety hazards in construction using
a wearable insole pressure system, Saf. Sci. 129 (2020) 104855, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104855.
[103] Y. Yu, H. Li, W. Umer, C. Dong, X. Yang, M. Skitmore, Y.L. Wong Arnold,
Automatic biomechanical workload estimation for construction workers by
computer vision and smart insoles, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 33 (3) (2019) 04019010,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000827.
[104] H. Li, D. Wang, J. Chen, X. Luo, J. Li, X. Xing, Pre-service fatigue screening for
construction workers through wearable eeg-based signal spectral analysis, Autom.
ConStruct. 106 (2019) 102851, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102851.
[105] X. Xing, H. Li, J. Li, B. Zhong, H. Luo, M. Skitmore, A multicomponent and
neurophysiological intervention for the emotional and mental states of high-
altitude construction workers, Autom. ConStruct. 105 (2019) 102836, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102836.
[106] J. Li, H. Li, W. Umer, H. Wang, X. Xing, S. Zhao, J. Hou, Identification and
classification of construction equipment operators’ mental fatigue using wearable
eye-tracking technology, Autom. ConStruct. 109 (2020) 103000, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2019.103000.
[107] D. Wang, H. Li, J. Chen, Detecting and measuring construction workers’ vigilance
through hybrid kinematic-EEG signals, Autom. ConStruct. 100 (2019) 11–23,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.12.018.
[108] S. Hasanzadeh, B. Dao, B. Esmaeili, M.D. Dodd, Role of personality in construction
safety: investigating the relationships between personality, attentional failure, and
hazard identification under fall-hazard conditions, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 145
(9) (2019) 04019052, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001673.
[109] K.T. Sweeney, T.E. Ward, S.F. Mcloone, Artifact removal in physiological
signals—practices and possibilities, IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 16 (3)
(2012) 488–500, https://doi.org/10.1109/TITB.2012.2188536.
[110] H. Jebelli, S. Hwang, S. Lee, EEG-based workers’ stress recognition at construction
sites, Autom. ConStruct. 93 (2018) 315–324, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.
2018.05.027.
[111] I.-V. Bornoiu, O. Grigore, A study about feature extraction for stress detection,
Proceedings of the Advanced Topics in Electrical Engineering (ATEE), 2013 8th
International Symposium on, 978-1-4673-5980-1, 2013, pp. 1–4.
[112] A. Caizzone, A. Boukhayma, C. Enz, Comprehensive noise analysis in ppg read-out
B.G. Lee et al.
chains, Proceedings of the Noise and Fluctuations (ICNF), 2017 International
Conference on, 978-1-5090-2760-6, 2017, pp. 1–4.
[113] W. Boucsein, Electrodermal Activity, Springer Science & Business Media, 978-1-
4614-1125-3, 2012.
[114] M. Benedek, C. Kaernbach, Decomposition of skin conductance data by means of
nonnegative deconvolution, Psychophysiology 47 (4) (2010) 647–658, https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00972.x.
[115] G. Hawkes, J. Houghton, G. Rowe, Risk and worry in everyday life: comparing
diaries and interviews as tools in risk perception research, Health Risk Soc. 11 (3)
(2009) 209–230, https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570902906439.
[116] J. Choi, B. Ahmed, R. Gutierrez-Osuna, Development and evaluation of an
ambulatory stress monitor based on wearable sensors, IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol.
Biomed. 16 (2) (2012) 279–286, https://doi.org/10.1109/TITB.2011.2169804.
[117] R.R. Singh, S. Conjeti, R. Banerjee, Assessment of driver stress from physiological
signals collected under real-time semi-urban driving scenarios, Int. J. Comput.
Intell. Syst. 7 (5) (2014) 909–923, https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2013.
864478.
[118] R. Zangróniz, A. Martínez-Rodrigo, J.M. Pastor, M.T. López, A. Fernández-
Caballero, Electrodermal activity sensor for classification of calm/distress
condition, Sensors 17 (10) (2017) 2324, https://doi.org/10.3390/s17102324.
[119] B. Xue, M. Zhang, W.N. Browne, Particle swarm optimization for feature selection
in classification: a multi-objective approach, IEEE transactions on cybernetics 43
(6) (2012) 1656–1671, https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB.2012.2227469.
[120] J. Too, A.R. Abdullah, N. Mohd Saad, W. Tee, EMG feature selection and
classification using a pbest-guide binary particle swarm optimization,
Computation 7 (1) (2019) 12, https://doi.org/10.3390/computation7010012.
[121] S. Das, Filters, wrappers and a boosting-based hybrid for feature selection,
Proceedings of 18th International conference of on Machine learning (2001) 74–81
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/645530.658297.
[122] H. Akbari, M.T. Sadiq, M. Payan, S.S. Esmaili, H. Baghri, H. Bagheri, Depression
detection based on geometrical features extracted from SODP shape of EEG signals
and binary PSO, Trait. Du. Signal 38 (1) (2020) 13–26.
[123] F.-T. Sun, C. Kuo, H.-T. Cheng, S. Buthpitiya, P. Collins, M. Griss, Activity-aware
mental stress detection using physiological sensors, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Mobile Computing, Applications, and Services, 2010,
pp. 282–301, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29336-8_12.
[124] F.-T. Sun, C. Kuo, H.-T. Cheng, S. Buthpitiya, P. Collins, M. Griss, Activity-aware
12
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102824
mental stress detection using physiological sensors, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Mobile Computing, Applications, and Services, 2010,
pp. 282–301, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29336-8_16.
[125] P. Karthikeyan, M. Murugappan, S. Yaacob, Multiple physiological signal-based
human stress identification using non-linear classifiers, Elektronika ir
elektrotechnika 19 (7) (2013) 80–86, https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.19.7.2232.
[126] C.M. Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning Springer, 978-0-387-
31073-2, 2006.
[127] C. Setz, B. Arnrich, J. Schumm, R. La Marca, G. Tröster, U. Ehlert, Discriminating
stress from cognitive load using a wearable eda device, IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol.
Biomed. 14 (2) (2010) 410–417, https://doi.org/10.1109/TITB.2009.2036164.
[128] J.P. Donate, G.G. Sanchez, A.S. De Miguel, Time series forecasting. A comparative
study between an evolving artificial neural networks system and statistical
methods, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tool. 21 (2012) 01 1250010, https://doi.org/10.
1142/S0218213011000462.
[129] I. Mozetič, L. Torgo, V. Cerqueira, J. Smailović, How to evaluate sentiment
classifiers for twitter time-ordered data?, PloS One 13 (3) (2018), https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0194317.
[130] M. Süzen, A. Yegenoglu, Generalised Learning of Time-Series: Ornstein-Uhlenbeck
Processes, 2019 arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09394 https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.
09394.
[131] S. Coniglio, A.J. Dunn, A.B. Zemkoho, Infrequent Adverse Event Prediction in Low
Carbon Energy Production Using Machine Learning, 2020 arXiv preprint arXiv:
2001.06916 https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.06916.
[132] H. Jebelli, B. Choi, S. Lee, Application of wearable biosensors to construction sites.
II: assessing workers’ physical demand, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 145 (12) (2019)
04019080, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001710.
[133] C. Bergmeir, J.M. Benítez, On the use of cross-validation for time series predictor
evaluation, Inf. Sci. 191 (2012) 192–213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.12.
028.
[134] O. Banos, J.-M. Galvez, M. Damas, H. Pomares, I. Rojas, Window size impact in
human activity recognition, Sensors 14 (4) (2014) 6474–6499, https://doi.org/10.
3390/s140406474.
[135] C.H. Vinkers, R. Penning, J. Hellhammer, J.C. Verster, J.H. Klaessens, B. Olivier, C.
J. Kalkman, The effect of stress on core and peripheral body temperature in
humans, Stress 16 (5) (2013) 520–530, https://doi.org/10.3109/10253890.2013.
807243.