Journal of Safety Research 40 (2009) 239–245

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Safety Research

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j s r

Predicting driver drowsiness using vehicle measures: Recent insights and

future challenges
Charles C. Liu a,⁎, Simon G. Hosking a,b, Michael G. Lenné a
a
Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Building 70, Clayton VIC, 3800, Australia
b
Air Operations Division, Defence Science & Technology Organisation, Fisherman's Bend, VIC, 3207, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 14 July 2009 Introduction: Driver drowsiness is a significant contributing factor to road crashes. One approach to tackling
this issue is to develop technological countermeasures for detecting driver drowsiness, so that a driver can be
Keywords: warned before a crash occurs. Method: The goal of this review is to assess, given the current state of
Fatigue knowledge, whether vehicle measures can be used to reliably predict drowsiness in real time. Results: Several
Sleepiness behavioral experiments have shown that drowsiness can have a serious impact on driving performance in
Lane position
controlled, experimental settings. However, most of those studies have investigated simple functions of
Steering wheel
Intelligent Transport Systems
performance (such as standard deviation of lane position) and results are often reported as averages across
drivers, and across time. Conclusions: Further research is necessary to examine more complex functions, as
well as individual differences between drivers. Impact on Industry: A successful countermeasure for
predicting driver drowsiness will probably require the setting of multiple criteria, and the use of multiple
measures.
© 2009 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Driver drowsiness is a significant contributing factor to road
crashes worldwide. NCSDR/NHTSA Expert Panel on Driver Fatigue and
Sleepiness (1998) has estimated that there are 56,000 crashes each
year (in the United States) in which drowsiness or fatigue was cited by
police as a causal factor. These crashes lead to, on average, 40,000
nonfatal injuries and 1,550 fatalities per year. Data from the U.S.-based
100-car naturalistic driving study indicated that drowsy driving
(compared to alert driving) resulted in a five-fold increase in risk of
a crash or near-crash (Klauer, Dingus, Neale, Sudweeks, & Ramsey,
2006). Internationally, MacLean, Davies, and Thiele (2003) concluded
that “while estimates of the number of crashes due to sleepiness have
varied widely, there is converging evidence that about 20% of crashes
are related to sleepiness” (p. 510). Taken together, these statistics
indicate that driver drowsiness imposes a significant burden on
society, and constitutes a serious public health issue.
To address this issue, we need to be able to reliably identify driver
drowsiness so that appropriate countermeasures can be developed. In
epidemiological research, it can be difficult to identify driver drowsiness
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9905 4669; fax: +61 3 9905 4363.
E-mail addresses: Charles.Liu@muarc.monash.edu.au (C.C. Liu),
Simon.Hosking@dsto.defence.gov.au (S.G. Hosking),
Michael.Lenne@muarc.monash.edu.au (M.G. Lenné).
1
Many researchers in this domain use the terms “drowsiness,” “sleepiness,” and
“fatigue” interchangeably. There does not appear to be a general consensus on how to
differentiate these three concepts, and any attempt to do so would exceed the scope of
this article. Instead, the term “driver drowsiness” will be mostly used throughout,
where this refers, generally, to the driver's tendency to fall asleep at the wheel.
as a causal factor in a crash; drowsiness can only be inferred when other
potential causes have been eliminated. In a study on sleep-related
vehicle accidents in the U.K., Horne and Reyner (1995) used data from
police databases and on-site interviews. To identify the subset of
accidents in which sleepiness was a factor, they developed the following
set of criteria: (a) blood alcohol level below the legal driving limit; (b)
vehicle ran off road or onto the back of another vehicle; (c) no sign of
brakes being applied; (d) no mechanical defect in the vehicle; (e) good
weather conditions and clear visibility; (f) elimination of “speeding” or
“driving too close to vehicle in front” as causes; (g) the police officer at
the scene suspects sleepiness as primary cause; and (h) for several
seconds prior to crash, the driver could have seen the run off point. The
identification of driver drowsiness using these criteria is clearly a
difficult, error-prone, and time-consuming task.
Many countermeasures to driver fatigue have been proposed, such as
the use of bright light, caffeine, or naps. However, these countermeasures
rely on drivers' self-monitoring of their level of drowsiness, and such
subjective measures may be unreliable (Reyner & Horne, 1998). An
alternative related approach has been to develop countermeasures based
on objective driver-performance data. These technological counter-
measures have been designed to detect driver drowsiness so that a
driver can be warned before a crash occurs (for reviews of these systems,
see Kecklund et al., 2006; Kircher, Uddman, & Sandin, 2002; Wright,
Stone, Horberry, & Reed, 2007). These systems can be based on physio-
logical measures (e.g., eye movements), vehicle dynamics, or a combina-
tion of both of these measures. It has been argued that changes in
physiological and vehicle variables are correlated with driver drowsiness,

0022-4375/$ – see front matter © 2009 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2009.04.005
240 C.C. Liu et al. / Journal of Safety Research 40 (2009) 239–245
and can therefore be used to predict when a driver is too drowsy to drive
safely. However, the relationship between driver drowsiness and driver
performance is complex, and it remains unclear whether drowsiness can
be reliably predicted on the basis of such measures.
In this article, we present a review of recent behavioral experi-
ments that have examined the effect of drowsiness on driver perfor-
mance; in particular, performance that can be measured according to
vehicle dynamics, rather than physiological measures (cf., Lal & Craig,
2001). The goal of this review is to assess, given the current state of
knowledge, whether vehicle measures can be used to reliably predict
drowsiness in real time. This question is critical to our theoretical
understanding of drowsy driver behavior, as well as to the develop-
ment and refinement of technological countermeasures. We conclude
with recommendations for future research.
1. Method
Articles on relevant behavioral experiments were located by
searches in online databases. The terms driver, drowsiness, sleepiness,
fatigue (and variations of those words) were entered into databases
including Web of Science, PsycINFO, and PubMed. Only those studies
that were published in peer-reviewed journals were retained for
further consideration. Furthermore, we restricted our review to
studies where an objective vehicle-based measure was reported, or
where drowsiness had some effect on impairing driver performance
(as would be expected in the real-world). These restrictions were
necessary to ensure that the studies provided sufficient information to
address the primary goal of this review.
2. Results
In all, there were 17 studies in which behavioral experiments were
reported or analyzed (see Table 1). In almost all of the reported
experiments, driving performance was tested in a simulator, although
some experiments involved test tracks, and real-world driving tasks.
As shown in Table 1, each of the studies can be described by the
following characteristics: (a) measures of driver impairment; (b)
drowsiness manipulation; (c) drowsiness measure; and (d) vehicle
measure. Unfortunately, a quantitative meta-analysis on these data
was not feasible because the studies were too dissimilar to produce
any common measure that could be meaningfully pooled. Further-
more, most studies did not report numerical estimates, or did not
produce graphs with error bars.
In almost all experiments, drivers were subjected to various levels of
sleep deprivation, and the most common finding was that drowsiness
impaired driver performance in terms of increasing the likelihood of
crashes. The magnitude of driver drowsiness was validated by subjec-
tive ratings, and objective physiological measures. Furthermore, drows-
iness induced greater variability in lateral lane position of the vehicle,
and steering wheel movements, which suggests that these variables
may be useful for predicting the onset of drowsiness. These findings are
distilled in more detail below.
2.1. Defining driver impairment
The ultimate purpose of detecting driver drowsiness is to prevent
dangerous events that could lead to vehicle crashes. In the reviewed
literature, dangerous events were typically defined as some form of
lane departure. These lane departures could vary from minor ones
(e.g., part of the car crossing a lane boundary) to major ones (e.g.,
whole car crossing a lane boundary). Both types of lane departures
appeared to be important indicators of driver impairment. On one
hand, minor departures occurred frequently (Ingre et al., 2006b), so
these data provided a more reliable measure of driver impairment. On
the other hand, although major departures occurred less frequently
(De Valck & Cluydts, 2001), they are of primary interest in applications
to real-world driving because they are analogous to serious crashes. In
all of the studies cited, driver drowsiness increased the likelihood of
lane departures. In future experiments of this kind, driver impairment
should be assessed by recording lane departures that are defined at
various levels of severity (i.e., from minor to major), rather than at a
single level (see Stephan, Hosking, Regan, Verdoorn, Young, &
Haworth, 2006).
2.2. Drowsiness manipulation
Drowsiness can be manipulated by varying a number of factors,
including duration of sleep deprivation, time-of-day, and time-on-
task. In the studies cited above, drowsiness was manipulated prima-
rily by partial or total sleep deprivation. Total sleep deprivation
refers to one full night, or more, without sleep, while partial sleep
deprivation refers to less than one full night without sleep. The
extent of sleep deprivation can be quantified by the total hours of
continuous wakefulness. Under the assumption that a full night's
sleep is 8 hours long, the extent of sleep deprivation typically varied
from none (16 h of wakefulness) to partial (16 to 24 h) to total
(greater than 24 h). In one extreme manipulation, drivers went for
60 hours, or over 2 days, without sleep (Peters, Wagner, Alicandri, &
Fox, 1999).
In two of the studies, sleep deprivation was also combined with
caffeine or naps (De Valck & Cluydts, 2001; Horne & Reyner, 1996).
These countermeasures improved the performance of drowsy drivers
by decreasing the frequency of major lane departures. Although
caffeine had similar beneficial effects to that of a nap, the effects of
napping were not consistent across drivers because some were not
able to fall asleep (Horne & Reyner, 1996). In the study by De Valck and
Cluydts (2001), drivers were given a slow-release caffeine dose, which
had a prolonged beneficial effect that was still present at 5 hours after
administration. The researchers argued that slow-release caffeine can
have an important role in combating driver fatigue over long trips,
especially if circumstances do not allow taking a nap.
The effects of time-of-day on driver drowsiness and driving perfor-
mance were examined in three studies. Moller, Kayumov, Bulmash, Nhan,
and Shapiro (2006) found that the frequency of microsleeps was higher
in the afternoon (14:00 to 16:00) than in the morning (10:00 to 12:00),
and this resulted in a slight increase in number of minor lane departures.
The finding of a weak association between time-of-day and lane
departure is consistent with that of earlier studies (Lenné, Triggs, &
Redman, 1997; Lenné, Triggs, & Redman, 1998), in which time-of-day
produced small, but statistically significant, changes in vehicle-based
measures.
Driver drowsiness can also be manipulated by increasing the
duration of the driving task. In simulator-based studies that explicitly
examined the effect of driving duration (and sometimes combined
with sleep deprivation), the number of lane departures increased as
participants drove for longer durations (Akerstedt, Peters, Anund, &
Kecklund, 2005; Otmani, Pebayle, Roge, & Muzet, 2005; Philip,
Sagaspe, Taillard, et al., 2005; Thiffault & Bergeron, 2003). These
lane departures occurred presumably because drivers gradually
became drowsier during the monotonous task (e.g., driving on long,
straight roads that provided little visual stimulation), even though the
driving scenarios were in daytime settings. When the driving scenario
was particularly monotonous, drowsiness-related behavior was
observed as early as 20 minutes into the driving task (Thiffault &
Bergeron, 2003). Furthermore, Otmani et al. showed that driving
duration was the most important factor that contributed to driver
impairment in their study, although the effects of driving duration
appear to be weaker in real-world driving (Philip et al., 2005b).
Results from these “time-on-task” studies are consistent with the
epidemiological finding that drowsiness-related crashes are more
likely to occur on (monotonous) motorways than on other roads
(Horne & Reyner, 1995). In general, driver drowsiness, whether caused
 C.C. Liu et al. / Journal of Safety Research 40 (2009) 239–245 241

Table 1
Summary of studies.

Author (Year) Sample Size Drowsiness Manipulation Drowsiness Measure Driving Task Vehicle Measure Impairment Measure
(number of (Drowsiness (Drowsiness
participants) increased...) increased...)
Arnedt et al. (2001) N = 18 Sleep deprivation: no sleep Stanford Sleepiness 30-mins drive on Average distance from Major lane departures
for Scale simulated motorway - lane center (entire vehicle leaving
- 16 hours no other cars Standard deviation of road)
- 18.5 hours lane position
- 21 hours Standard deviation
- 23.5 hours. of speed
Alcohol
Arnedt et al. (2000) N = 22 Sleep deprivation: no sleep Stanford Sleepiness 30-mins drive on Average distance from Major lane departures
for Scale simulated motorway lane center (entire vehicle leaving
- 16 hours - no other cars Standard deviation of road)
- 20 hours lane position
Alcohol Standard deviation of
speed
De Valck & Cluydts (2001) N = 12 Sleep deprivation: slept for Stanford Sleepiness 45-mins drive on Standard deviation of Major lane departures
- 4.5 hours Scale simulated motorway lane position (entire vehicle leaving
- 7.5 hours the road)
Caffeine - no stop signs or traffic Mean deviation of Multi-vehicle crashes
lights vehicle speed from
- overtaken by two speed limit (100 km/h)
vehicles
Fairclough & Graham (1999) N = 64 Sleep deprivation: slept from Karolinska Sleepiness Three 40 mins drives Steering wheel Minor lane departures
- 12 am to 4 am scale on simulated road reversals (two wheels contacting
- all night boundary)
Alcohol
Hack et al. (2001) N = 12 Sleep deprivation: no sleep for None Three 30 mins drives Standard deviation of Major lane departures
24 hours on simulated road lane position (center of vehicle
Alcohol crossing boundary)
Horne & Reyner (1996) N = 10 Sleep deprivation: slept for Karolinska Sleepiness Two 30 mins drives on None Major lane departures
5 hrs Scale simulated road (entire vehicle leaving
Naps EEG activity road)
Caffeine Blink rate
Ingre et al. (2006a, 2006b); N = 10 Sleep deprivation: shift Karolinska Sleepiness 2 hours on simulated Standard deviation of Major lane departures
Re-analysis of data workers who worked all night, Scale rural road lateral position (vehicle crossing lane
from Akerstedt et al. and drove in the morning with four wheels)
(2005)
Blink durations Minor lane departures
(vehicle crossing lane
with two wheels)
Lenné et al. (1997) N = 11 Time-of-day: Subjective ratings of Six 30 mins drives, Mean deviation from None
- 6 am alertness, sleepiness, every four hours in speed limit
- 10 am and motivation simulator Standard deviation of
- 2 pm lane position
- 6 pm
- 10 pm
- 2 am
Lenné et al. (1998) N = 24 Sleep deprivation: no sleep for Subjective ratings of Five 20 mins drives, Mean deviation from None
24 to 36 hours alertness, sleepiness, every three hours in speed limit
Time-of-day: and motivation simulator Standard deviation of
- 8 am lane position
- 11 am
- 2 pm
- 5 pm
- 8 pm
Moller et al. (2006) N = 31 Time-of-day: Subjective ratings of Four 30 mins drives, Lane position Major lane departures
- 10 am sleepiness and every two hours on (center of vehicle
- 12 pm alertness simulated motorway crossing lane)
- 2 pm EEG
- 4 pm
Otmani et al. (2005) N = 20 Sleep deprivation: slept for Karolinska Sleepiness 90 mins drive on a Standard deviation of Minor lane departures
5 hours Scale EEG simulated motorway lane position (one wheel touching a
Time-on-task: Mean amplitude of lane boundary)
- 10 mins to 90 mins steering wheel
reversals
Peters et al., (1999) N = 12 Sleep deprivation: no sleep None 40 mins drive on Standard deviation of Minor lane departures
for simulated rural road lane position (one wheel touching a
- 9 hours Standard deviation of lane boundary)
- 12 hours steering wheel
- 36 hours movements
- 60 hours
Philip et al. (2005a) N = 22 Sleep deprivation: slept Karolinska Sleepiness 105 mins drive on a None Minor lane departures
for Scale real, open highway. (one wheel touching
- 2 hours lane boundary)
- 8 hours

(continued on next page)

242 C.C. Liu et al. / Journal of Safety Research 40 (2009) 239–245
Table 1 (continued)
Author (Year) Sample Size Drowsiness Manipulation
(number of
participants)
Philip et al. (2005b) N = 12 Sleep deprivation: slept for
- 2 hours
- 8 hours
Thiffault & Bergeron (2003) N = 56 Time on task:
- 5 mins to 40 mins
by sleep deprivation or by long driving duration, impaired perfor-
mance by increasing the probability of lane departures.
2.3. Drowsiness measures
Because driver drowsiness is a latent construct that cannot be
observed directly, it must instead be inferred on the basis of
observable measures. In the studies cited above, the measurement
of drowsiness was necessary to achieve two goals. The first goal was
simply to confirm that the manipulations (i.e., sleep deprivation and
its countermeasures) reliably produced their intended effects of
increasing or decreasing drowsiness. The second goal was to explore
the underlying, quantitative relationship between drowsiness and
driver performance. These two goals were achieved, to varying
degrees, using both subjective and objective measures of drowsiness.
2.3.1. Subjective measures
Subjective measures of drowsiness involve some form of intro-
spective assessment by the driver. For example, Moller et al. (2006)
asked drivers to rate their sleepiness on a scale from 0 to 10. Almost
all other studies employed one of the two most common sleepiness
scales: either the 7-point Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS), or the 9-point
Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS), in which the numeric ratings corres-
pond to a unique verbal description for the particular state of sleepiness.
Of these two scales, the KSS appears to be the more common in the
studies reviewed. In fact, several studies have used KSS ratings to
quantitatively predict the probability of lane departures. Horne and
Reyner (1996) asked drivers to report KSS ratings every 200 seconds
during the driving task. They found that a minor lane departure (i.e.,
one car wheel over the lane) never occurred until the reported KSS
was at least 6 (“some signs of sleepiness”). However, once this level
was reached, a minor lane departure occurred, on average, about
11 minutes from the onset of self-declared sleepiness.
Horne and Reyner (1996) asked drivers to rate their likelihood of
falling asleep at the wheel. This rating was reported on a five-point
scale that ranged from “very unlikely” to “very likely.” The association
between the KSS ratings and the likelihood ratings was analyzed by
the same authors in a later paper (Reyner & Horne, 1998). The two
types of ratings were correlated, but not perfectly. This meant that for
some drivers, on some occasions, the two types of ratings diverged.
For example, of all the occasions where drivers reported a KSS rating
of 8 (when they were clearly feeling sleepy), drivers reported that the
likelihood of falling asleep was “unlikely” or “very unlikely” on 18% of
these occasions. In other words, drivers sometimes underestimated
the likelihood of falling asleep, despite feeling very sleepy.
Ingre, Akerstedt, Peters, Anund, Kecklund, & Pickles (2006b) asked
drivers to report KSS ratings every 5 minutes during the driving task.
The researchers estimated that, for the average driver, the risk of a
major lane departure increased by 185 times if sleepiness increased
Drowsiness Measure Driving Task Vehicle Measure Impairment Measure
(Drowsiness (Drowsiness
increased...) increased...)
Karolinska Sleepiness 105 mins drive in None Minor lane departures
Scale simulator (one wheel touching
105 mins drive on a lane boundary)
real, open highway.
None Two 40 mins drives in Mean and standard None
simulator deviation of steering
wheel movements
Decreased frequency of
smaller steering wheel
movements
Increased frequency of
larger steering wheel
movements
from a rating of 5 (“neither alert nor sleepy”) to a rating of 9 (“very
sleepy, great effort to stay awake”). These average estimates have to be
interpreted with caution, however, because there were considerable
individual differences in the relationship between subjective ratings
and risk of lane departure. (Later in the Discussion, we revisit this issue
of individual differences.) Another potential limitation is that the
process of asking for ratings may have stimulated the driver, and
therefore reduced the level of drowsiness that is being measured. Thus,
physiological measures may be better suited to the validation of
drowsiness in such experiments.
2.3.2. Physiological measures
Some studies of driver drowsiness have employed objective,
physiological measures of drowsiness, which involve the monitoring
of activity in the brain, the heart, and/or the eyes. Two physiological
measures, in particular, were commonly used: electroencephalographic
(EEG) activity, and eyeblink (or eye closure) duration.
EEG analysis was used in two of the behavioral studies. In those
studies, indicators of drowsiness were computed by combining the
power in the alpha range (8 - 12 Hz) and the theta range (4 - 7 Hz) of
EEG activity. While alpha activity is a relatively early sign of sleepiness,
theta activity is associated with more severe sleepiness. EEG activity in
the alpha and theta ranges increased steadily as driving duration
increased (Otmani et al., 2005). Conversely, EEG activity in this range
was significantly reduced when drowsy drivers took a nap, or were
given caffeine (Horne & Reyner, 1996). Although EEG analysis appears
to be a reliable tool for validating driver drowsiness, it can be difficult
to use in practice, because the EEG signal may be contaminated by
artifacts that are caused by body, head, and eye movements.
Eyeblink duration is closely associated with subjective KSS ratings,
as well as the frequency of lane departures (Akerstedt et al., 2005). As
drivers become drowsier, their eyes remain closed for longer, and their
performance suffers as a result. One prominent measure that is related
to eyeblink duration is PERCLOS (percentage of eyelid closure), which is
defined as the proportion of time in a specified time period (e.g., 1 to
3 min) that a participant's eyes are closed. According to one criterion,
a driver is considered to be drowsy whenever their PERCLOS measure
exceeds 80% (Wierwille & Ellsworth, 1994).
An important limitation of using physiological predictors is that
driver drowsiness is a very different state to normal drowsiness because
drivers are motivated to stay awake (Horne & Reyner, 1996). The
physiological events that occur before falling asleep at the wheel may
therefore be different to those that occur before normal sleep (e.g., at
home in bed). Physiological indices of the driver drowsiness state may
reflect a mixture of normal drowsiness, and an effortful response to
maintain alertness. Furthermore, Horne and Reyner expressed con-
siderable skepticism about the utility of eyeblink measures, because
“blinking in the driver is also affected by the outside road lighting,
oncoming headlights, and the air temperature and state of the
 C.C. Liu et al. / Journal of Safety Research 40 (2009) 239–245
ventilation system in the vehicle” (p.292). Thus, although such
measures may be adequate for validating a drowsiness manipulation,
they may be not sufficiently reliable for predicting driver drowsiness in
real time (cf., Johns, Tucker, Chapman, Crowley, & Michael, 2007).
2.3.3. Vehicle-based measures
Although drowsiness detection can be based on physiological
measures such as eyeblink duration, an alternative source of informa-
tion is available from the vehicle system. For example, sleep deprivation
can produce greater variability in driving speed (Arnedt, Wilde, Munt, &
Maclean, 2000; Fairclough & Graham, 1999). However, the standard
deviation of lane position (SDLP) was the most consistently associated
with drowsiness (e.g., Arnedt, Wilde, Munt, & Mclean, 2001; De Valck &
Cluydts, 2001; Ingre, Akerstedt, Peters, Anund, & Kecklund, 2006a).
One study, in particular, has reported precise numerical estimates of
SDLP as a function of drowsiness levels measured by KSS ratings (Ingre
et al., 2006a). They found that SDLP (in meters) increased gradually
from KSS level 1, where participants report being “very alert”
(SDLP = 0.19, SE= 0.06) to KSS level 7, where participants report
being “sleepy but no effort to remain awake” (SDLP = 0.28, SE = 0.04).
SDLP increased dramatically at KSS level 8 (SDLP = 0.36, SE = 0.04) and
level 9 (SDLP = 0.47, SE = 0.04). For a typical lane of about 3.6 m width,
this degree of SDLP would make lane departures quite likely. It should
be pointed out that those estimates were calculated as average effects
across participants, and did not necessarily apply to all drivers: for some
drivers, SDLP never exceeded 0.3 m, even at the highest KSS levels.
The variability of lane position should, in principle, be a measure
of the driver's ability to maintain a straight path (or precision), and
this measure should be independent of those that assess the driver's
ability to track the lane center (or bias). Consider a participant who
drove well within the lane boundaries, but was slightly off the lane
center. This performance should yield low SDLP. It seems intuitive
that a participant who was driving with such precision would be alert
and not drowsy. This is the definition of SDLP that was adopted in
most studies. For example, Pilutti and Ulsoy (1999) found that 6 out
of the 12 drivers in their study naturally maintained a position off
the lane center (away from the adjacent lane); however, this behavior
was unrelated to the degree of variability in lane position. In a few
studies, in contrast, SDLP was defined with respect to the lane center,
rather than the average position of the vehicle (e.g., Hack, Choi, &
Vijayapalan, 2001; Otmani, et al., 2005). This definition is a composite
measure of bias and precision. In future experiments, it would be
useful to maintain separate measures of bias and precision, given that
they are likely to index different aspects of driver performance (Land &
Horwood, 1995).
Another important vehicle-based measure is steering wheel
movement (SWM). Fairclough and Graham (1999) found that
sleep-deprived drivers made fewer steering wheel reversals (i.e.,
movements that crossed the resting position of the wheel) compared
to rested drivers. More recently, Thiffault and Bergeron (2003) found
that this effect depended on the size of the SWM. Specifically, they
distinguished between small movements (1-5 degrees) and large
movements (6-10 degrees). As driving duration (and supposedly,
drowsiness) increased, drivers made fewer small SWMs, but more
large SWMs. These results were attributed to the inability of the
drowsy driver to detect small lane deviations (which can be
corrected by small SWMs), and the necessity of large SWMs to
correct for large lane deviations. This explanation implies that the
observed increase in SDLP is due to two distinct actions: drifting and
correcting. When a driver loses concentration, the vehicle begins to
drift away from the lane center, but once detected, such deviations
are corrected by large SWMs toward the lane center.
The relationship between SDLP and SWMs can be further
investigated by adding curved roads or “virtual wind gusts” to the
driving task (Moller et al., 2006; Thiffault & Bergeron, 2003), so that
drivers are forced to make corrective SWMs to stay within their lane.
243
Given such a task, a drowsy driver cannot maintain lane position by
simply holding the steering wheel still.
3. Discussion
The research reviewed here has shown that drowsiness consistently
produces a range of effects on vehicle measures. However, this does not
necessarily imply that the inverse is also true: that vehicle measures can
be used consistently to predict drowsiness. In order to develop a success-
ful technological warning device for driver drowsiness, a number of
outstanding issues need to be addressed: (a) relating simulator and real-
world driving behavior; (b) reducing raw vehicle data; (c) defining
critical events; (d) specifying a critical time window; (e) setting an
appropriate criterion; and (f) combining multiple measures. Each of these
issues, discussed below, present an opportunity for further research in the
area.
3.1. Simulated versus real driving conditions
One future challenge is to better understand the relationship
between simulator driving behavior and real-world driving. One study
that has directly compared the effects of drowsiness on simulated and
real-world driving found some discrepancies between the two
conditions (Philip et al., 2005a). In general, the effects of sleep-
deprivation and time on task were more pronounced in simulated
driving. In the real-world condition, they found no increase in lane
departures in the first two hours of driving. This finding contrasts with
those of previous simulator studies, which have found driving
impairments within the first 20 to 40 minutes. The researchers
attributed this discrepancy to the greater level of stimulation in
real-world driving compared to simulated driving. Previous studies
have shown a good correspondence between simulator and real-
world driving behavior (e.g., Godley, Triggs, & Fildes, 2002). Thus,
further research comparing simulated and real-world driving is
warranted. More generally, data from naturalistic driving studies
should offer further insights; from estimating the prevalence and risk
of driver drowsiness as in the 100-car study (Klauer et al., 2006), to
field operational testing of the acceptability of lane departure warning
devices (LeBlanc et al., 2006).
3.2. Data reduction
The first step toward developing an algorithm to predict driver
drowsiness is to specify the relevant vehicle measures, such as lane
position or steering wheel movements. In a typical experiment using a
simulator or instrumented vehicle, the raw vehicle measures can be
recorded continually at a high frequency (e.g., 30 Hz). The volume of
this data can be reduced by computing a function of the vehicle
measure, averaged across a short time interval (e.g., one minute) or
road length (e.g., 100 meters). Although most of the studies computed
simple and crude functions, such as SDLP or frequency of SWMs, more
sophisticated functions may be necessary to capture the underlying
regularities in the data.
3.3. Critical events
The second step is to define the critical events of interest, that is,
what the countermeasure should predict. These events may include
lane departures of different levels of severity: from minor departures
(e.g., part of the car crossing a lane boundary) to major departures
(e.g., whole car crossing a lane boundary).
3.4. Prediction time window
The third step is to precisely specify the prediction time window;
that is, how long before a critical event does a warning need to be
244 C.C. Liu et al. / Journal of Safety Research 40 (2009) 239–245
issued? This question is important because vehicle measures
obviously vary over time. Variability over time was masked in some
studies because results were presented as averages across an entire
test period. Studies that reported measures of drowsiness and
performance at several time intervals (e.g., Hack et al., 2001; Thiffault
& Bergeron, 2003) found that these variables were not constant across
time. As driving duration increased, driver drowsiness systematically
increased, and driving performance systematically decreased.
Although potential vehicle-based measures must be computed as
averages over time, there exists an unavoidable tradeoff between
speed and accuracy in this computation (Kwon & Lee, 2002). On one
hand, if the time window is too short, the system may be merely
detecting “noise,” and will therefore generate an excessive number of
false alarms. On the other hand, if the time window is too long, the
system may be too slow to be of any practical use.
3.5. Criterion setting
One or more criteria need to be set to distinguish drowsy states
from non-drowsy states. These criteria should yield both high
sensitivity, and high specificity. High sensitivity means that the
function should indicate “drowsy” when the driver is actually drowsy,
and high specificity means that the function should indicate “not
drowsy” when the driver is not actually drowsy.
The tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity has received little
attention in the literature, but was discussed at length by Stephan et al.
(2006). They described a drowsiness detection measure, known as the
Johns Drowsiness Scale (JDS), which is based on a number of variables
relating to eyelid movements (Johns et al., 2007). The score is com-
puted minute-by-minute, and the scale varies from 0 to 10, where
higher scores represent greater levels of drowsiness. A score of 4.5 is
said to represent a cautionary level of drowsiness. In the study by
Stephan et al., JDS scores and vehicle-based measures were collected
from sleep-deprived drivers in the simulator. Using the criterion of 4.5,
the JDS score predicted lane departures in the following 15 minutes,
with 83% sensitivity and 61% specificity. Although many errors (both
misses and false alarms) were made, Johns et al. argued that, “we are
not aware of any other method that could be used regularly by drivers
that predicts ‘off-road’ events with greater accuracy several minutes
before they happen” (p. 240). Whether this error rate would be ac-
ceptable to drivers, in practice, remains a question for further research.
The setting of a fixed criterion may not be ultimately feasible.
Brookhuis, De Waard, and Fairclough (2003) highlighted the important
distinction between absolute and relative criteria. Absolute criteria are
those that could reasonably apply to all drivers, whereas relative criteria
are those that apply only to a subgroup of drivers, or even to a specific
driver. For example, a very high level of SDLP may indicate drowsiness
for all drivers (absolute criterion), whereas a medium level of SDLP may
indicate drowsiness for some individuals and not others (relative
criterion). The setting of relative criteria will be necessary whenever
individual differences exist for some measure of driving performance.
The issue of individual differences was neglected in some studies,
because the results were presented as averages across participants.
Where individual results were reported (e.g., Ingre et al., 2006a, 2006b;
Philip et al., 2005a; Otmani et al., 2005), it was clear that the effect of
drowsiness on driver performance (and on vehicle-based measures)
differed across individuals. This suggests that a single, fixed criterion
will not be equally effective for all individual drivers. A successful
countermeasure must be sufficiently flexible to adapt to the behavioral
patterns of a specific driver.
Yet another complication is that multiple criteria may be necessary,
even for a single individual. For example, although it is well-known that
drowsiness increases SDLP, one could also argue that near-zero SDLP
(i.e., holding the steering wheel still) may also indicate impaired
performance. To investigate these possibilities, future experiments
must analyze behavioral data at the level of the individual driver.
3.6. Combining multiple measures
Methods that are based on a single measure will be unreliable under
certain conditions. One potential problem with the measurement of
lane position is that it requires a reliable method for processing images
taken from outside the vehicle. For example, computation of lane
position may not work well when the roads are wet, or dirty, or when
lanes are not clearly marked. Some have argued that the accuracy of
steering wheel information may be less dependent on outside condi-
tions (Desai & Haque, 2006; Sayed & Eskandarian, 2001). However,
SWMs can also be affected by changes in the road surface that are
unrelated to driver drowsiness. It is likely that a reliable counter-
measure must incorporate multiple measures, but it remains unclear
how these measure should be combined in an optimal fashion. While
the incorporation of vehicle-based measures may be a necessary first
step for a successful driver drowsiness detection system, such a system
may not be sufficiently robust without the availability of other (e.g.,
physiological) measures.
One study, involving 38 commercial truck drivers, evaluated an
approach that combined multiple measures (Dinges, Maislin, Brew-
ster, Krueger, & Carroll, 2005). In that study, whenever the driver
made an abrupt deviation from the lane without signaling, a device
(based on lane position information) provided an auditory warning
signal. Drivers in that study were also provided with three other
fatigue management devices. The first device was a wrist-worn
actigraph device, which provided information on the need to sleep.
The second device was used to detect excessive eye closure, and was
based on the PERCLOS measure described earlier. The third device
helped to reduce physical fatigue by controlling vehicle stability while
driving. The explicit purpose of that study was to test whether
feedback from all four devices - as a single intervention - could reliably
improve driver performance.
Driver performance was measured during normal, work driving
schedules. Each driver underwent the conditions in the same order:
2 weeks with no devices, followed by 2 weeks of intervention, in
which they used the four devices simultaneously. The researchers
found that both driver drowsiness (as measured by PERCLOS) and lane
tracking variability were reduced in the intervention condition.
Systematic evaluation of the reliability of such devices (either alone,
or in combination) is a priority for future research.
3.7. Summary
The research reviewed here has shown that drowsiness can have a
serious impact on driving performance in controlled, experimental
settings, as would be expected on the basis of epidemiological studies.
Drowsiness impairs driving performance, by increasing the probability
of lane departures (both minor and major). However, while there is
substantial literature on the topic, few studies have characterized the
precise relationship between drowsiness and driving performance.
Most of the studies have investigated simple functions of driving
performance, such as SDLP or frequency of SWMs. In addition, much of
the behavioral data were reported as averages: It remains unclear
whether the drowsiness manipulations would produce such robust
effects if the variability across individual drivers and across time were
accounted for. Ultimately, it appears that a successful countermeasure
for driver drowsiness detection may require the setting of multiple
criteria, and the use of multiple measures.
4. Impact on industry
Over 10 years ago, Brown (1997) predicted that “there seems no
reason why reliable and affordable technological countermeasures
against driver fatigue should not be commercially available within 5-
10 years” (p.530). Given the present literature review, this prediction
may have been too optimistic. We speculate that a successful
 C.C. Liu et al. / Journal of Safety Research 40 (2009) 239–245
technological countermeasure will require input from vehicle mea-
sures that are more sensitive than merely SDLP, or frequency of SWMs.
The growing literature on psychologically-plausible models of driver
behavior is likely to be relevant to this enterprise (e.g., Salvucci, 2006).
Acknowledgements
This research was funded through our participation in the Cooperative
Research Center for Advanced Automotive Technology (AutoCRC). The
views expressed in this article are those of the authors, and do not
necessarily represent the views of the AutoCRC. We would like to thank
Karen Stephan for helpful discussions and comments.
References
Akerstedt, T., Peters, B., Anund, A., & Kecklund, G. (2005). Impaired alertness and
performance driving home from the night shift: a driving simulator study. Journal of
Sleep Research, 14, 17−20.
Arnedt, J. T., Wilde, G. J. S., Munt, P. W., & Maclean, A. W. (2000). Simulated driving
performance following prolonged wakefulness and alcohol consumption: separate
and combined contributions to impairment. Journal of Sleep Research, 9, 233−241.
Arnedt, J. T., Wilde, G. J. S., Munt, P. W., & MacLean, A. W. (2001). How do prolonged
wakefulness and alcohol compare in the decrements they produce on a simulated
driving task? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 337−344.
Brookhuis, K. A., De Waard, D., & Fairclough, S. H. (2003). Criteria for driver impairment.
Ergonomics, 46, 433−445.
Brown, I. D. (1997). Prospects for technological countermeasures against driver fatigue.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 525−531.
Desai, A. V., & Haque, M. A. (2006). Vigilance monitoring for operator safety: A simulation
study on highway driving. Journal of Safety Research, 37, 139−147.
De Valck, E., & Cluydts, R. (2001). Slow-release caffeine as a countermeasure to driver
sleepiness induced by partial sleep deprivation. Journal of Sleep Research, 10, 203−209.
Dinges, D. F., Maislin, G., Brewster, R. M., Krueger, G. P., & Carroll, R. J. (2005). Pilot test of
fatigue management technologies. Transportation Research Record, 1922, 175−182.
Fairclough, S. H., & Graham, R. (1999). Impairment of driving performance caused by
sleep deprivation or alcohol: A comparative study. Human Factors, 41, 118−128.
Godley, S. T., Triggs, T. J., & Fildes, B. N. (2002). Driving simulator validation for speed
research. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 589−600.
Hack, M. A., Choi, S. J., Vijayapalan, P., Davies, R. J. O., & Stradling, J. R. (2001). Comparison of the
effects of sleep deprivation, alcohol and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) on simulated
steering performance. Respiratory Medicine, 95, 594−601.
Horne, J. A., & Reyner, L. A. (1995). Sleep related vehicle accidents. British Medical Journal, 310,
565−567.
Horne, J. A., & Reyner, L. A. (1996). Counteracting driver sleepiness: Effects of napping,
caffeine, and placebo. Psychophysiology, 33, 306−309.
Ingre, M., Akerstedt, T., Peters, B., Anund, A., & Kecklund, G. (2006a). Subjective sleepiness,
simulated driving performance and blink duration: examining individual differences.
Journal of Sleep Research, 15, 47−53.
Ingre, M., Akerstedt, T., Peters, B., Anund, A., Kecklund, G., & Pickles, A. (2006b). Subjective
sleepiness and accident risk avoiding the ecological fallacy. Journal of Sleep Research, 15,
142−148.
Johns, M. W., Tucker, A., Chapman, R., Crowley, K., & Michael, N. (2007). Monitoring eye
and eyelid movements by infrared reflectance oculography to measure drowsiness
in drivers. Somnologie, 11, 234−242.
Kecklund, G., Akerstedt, T., Sandberg, D., Wahde, M., Dukic, T., Anund, A., et al. (2006). State
of the art review of driver sleepiness. Volvo.
Kircher, A., Uddman, M., & Sandin, J. (2002). Vehicle control and drowsiness. Swedish
National Road and Transport Research Institute.
Klauer, S. G., Dingus, T. A., Neale, V. L., Sudweeks, J. D., & Ramsey, D. J. (2006). The impact of
driver inattention on near crash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100-car naturalistic
245
driving study data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Kwon, W., & Lee, S. (2002). Performance evaluation of decision making strategies for an
embedded lane departure warning system. Journal of Robotic Systems, 19, 499−509.
Lal, S., & Craig, A. (2001). A critical review of psychophysiology of driver fatigue. Biological
Psychology, 55, 173−194.
Land, M., & Horwood, J. (1995). Which parts of the road guide steering. Nature, 377, 339−340.
LeBlanc, D. J., Sayer, J., Winkler, C., Ervin, R., Bogard, S., Devonshire, J., et al. (2006). Road
departure crash warning system field operational test: methodology and results. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
Lenné, M. G., Triggs, T. J., & Redman, J. R. (1997). Time of day variations in driving performance.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 431−437.
Lenné, M. G., Triggs, T. J., & Redman, J. R. (1998). Interactive effects of sleep deprivation,
time of day, and driving experience. Sleep, 21, 38−44.
MacLean, A. W., Davies, D. R. T., & Thiele, K. (2003). The hazards and prevention of driving
while sleepy. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 7, 507−521.
Moller, H. J., Kayumov, L., Bulmash, E. L., Nhan, J., & Shapiro, C. M. (2006). Simulator
performance, microsleep episodes, and subjective sleepiness: Normative data using
convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 61, 335−342.
NCSDR/NHTSA Expert Panel on Driver Fatigue and Sleepiness. (1998). Drowsy driving
and automobile crashes. DOT HS 808 707, USA. Washington, DC: Author.
Otmani, S., Pebayle, T., Roge, J., & Muzet, A. (2005). Effect of driving duration and partial
sleep deprivation on subsequent alertness and performance of car drivers. Physiology
& Behavior, 84, 715−724.
Peters, R. D., Wagner, E. K., Alicandri, E., & Fox, J. E. (1999). Effects of partial and total sleep
deprivation. Public Roads, 62, 2−6.
Philip, P., Sagaspe, P., Moore, N., Taillard, J., Charles, A., Guilleminault, C., et al. (2005a). Fatigue,
sleep restriction and driving performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 473−478.
Philip, P., Sagaspe, P., Taillard, J., Valtat, C., Moore, N., Akerstedt, T., et al. (2005b).
Fatigue, sleepiness, and performance in simulated versus real driving conditions.
Sleep, 28, 1511−1516.
Pilutti, T., & Ulsoy, A. G. (1999). Identification of driver state for lane-keeping tasks. IEEE
Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part A, 29, 486−502.
Reyner, L. A., & Horne, J. A. (1998). Falling asleep whilst driving: are drivers aware of
prior sleepiness? International Journal of Legal Medicine, 111, 120−123.
Salvucci, D. D. (2006). Modeling driver behavior in a cognitive architecture. Human Factors, 48,
362−380.
Sayed, R., & Eskandarian, A. (2001). Unobtrusive drowsiness detection by neural network
learning of driver steering. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D,
215, 969−975.
Stephan, K., Hosking, S., Regan, M., Verdoorn, A., Young, K., & Haworth, N. (2006). The
relationship between driving performance and the Johns drowsiness scale as measured
by the Optalert system. Monash University Accident Research Center, Report No 252.
Downloaded from www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc252.pdf
Thiffault, P., & Bergeron, J. (2003). Monotony of road environment and driver fatigue: a
simulator study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 381−391.
Wierwille, W. W., & Ellsworth, L. A. (1994). Evaluation of driver drowsiness by trained
observers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 26, 571−581.
Wright, N.A., Stone, B.M., Horberry, T.J., & Reed, N. (2007). A review of in-vehicle sleepiness
detection devices. TRL Limited.
Charles Liu, PhD, is a Research Fellow at the Accident Research Centre, Monash University,
in Melbourne. He is currently involved in a number of projects relating to human factors
and road-traffic safety.
Simon Hosking, PhD, is a research scientist in the Air Operations Division of the Defence
Science and Technology Organisation, Australia. His research interests are in visual
perception and human performance, coordination and control of behavior, and human
performance modeling.
Michael Lenné, PhD, is Team Leader (Human Factors) at the Accident Research Centre,
Monash University. His research interests focus around how technology can be used to
improve safety and understanding routes to failure in transportation systems.