4.1. Categorizing Subjects into CS and NCS
We analyzed the subjective impatience and the difference in the number of accidents between the young driver group and the older driver group using the Brunner–Munzel test. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the young driver group and the older driver group in terms of subjective impatience and the number of accidents in Experiment I and Experiment II. The rejection region is 1%. The results of the test are shown in
Table 3. The difference between the two groups in terms of subjective impatience and the number of accidents was not statistically significant.
Next, we analyzed the difference in the subjective impatience and the number of accidents between Experiment I and Experiment II using the Brunner–Munzel test. The set of young drivers and older drivers is defined as ∑. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Experiment I and Experiment II in terms of subjective impatience and the number of accidents of ∑. The rejection region is 1%. The results of the test are shown in
Table 4. The difference between the two groups in terms of the number of accidents was statistically significant. The test results show that the number of accidents in Experiment I is larger than that in Experiment II. The difference between the two groups in terms of subjective impatience was not statistically significant. However, the subjects were likely more nervous in Experiment I than in Experiment II, even though there was no significant difference in subjective impatience. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Experiment I and Experiment II in terms of the pulse wave sensor value ∑. The rejection region is 1%.
Table 5 shows three characteristic elements with high statistics.
The difference between the two groups in terms of average, minimum, and maximum HR was statistically significant. When the subject is nervous, the subject’s sympathetic nerves dominate. When the sympathetic nerve is dominant, the HR increases.
The difference between the control conditions of Experiment I and Experiment II is whether an unexpected situation occurs while the driver is driving. Besides, the subjects were more nervous in Experiment I than in Experiment II. Therefore, these two factors may have influenced the number of accidents in Experiment I. Therefore, it is likely that these two factors affected the number of accidents in Experiment I. NCS is a driver who cannot deal with the unexpected situation of Experiment I. NCS is expected to have more accidents in Experiment I than in Experiment II. Therefore, drivers are categorized into CS and NCS based on the number of accidents in Experiment I.
The average ± standard deviation of the number of accidents in Experiment II was 1.6 ± 1.1. Therefore, subjects with more than two accidents in Experiment I were categorized into NCS. The other subjects were categorized into CS. Eight subjects were categorized into NCS in the young driver group, and the other subjects in the young driver group were categorized into CS. Five subjects in the elderly driver group were categorized into NCS, and the other subjects in the older driver group were categorized into CS.
We analyzed the difference in the subjective impatience and the number of accidents between the NCS group and CS group using the Brunner–Munzel test. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the NCS group and the CS group in terms of subjective impatience and the number of accidents in Experiment I and Experiment II. The rejection region is 1%. The results of the test are shown in
Table 6.
Since the threshold was set based on the number of accidents in Experiment I and the CS group and NCS group were categorized, the number of accidents in Experiment I could not be tested. However, from
Table 6, there is a definite difference in the number of accidents in Experiment I between the CS group and the NCS group. Drivers in the NCS group have more than twice as many accidents as drivers in the CS group. The difference between the two groups in terms of subjective impatience and the number of accidents was not statistically significant.
The average ± standard deviation of Experiment III was 3.8 ± 1.5, and the average ± standard deviation of Experiment IV was 2.3 ± 1.5. The degree of impatience of Experiment III and IV was less than 4, and the subjects did not feel impatience.
4.2. Behavioral and Cognitive Characteristics of CS and NCS
Table 6 shows that drivers in the NCS group are more likely to have an accident when faced with an unexpected situation under a mental workload such as impatience or nervousness. To investigate the effect of impatience on behavior and cognition, the characteristics of behavior and cognition when the driver feels impatience or calm were analyzed using the Brunner–Munzel test. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the NCS group and CS group in terms of the characteristics of behavior and cognition when the driver feels impatience or calm. The rejection region is 1%.
Table 7 and
Table 8 show the behavioral and cognitive characteristics of the older driver when they feel impatient or calm.
Table 9 and
Table 10 show the behavioral and cognitive characteristics of the young driver when they feel impatient or calm.
Impatience is defined as a mental state when subjective impatience is greater than 4. Calmness is defined as a mental state in which subjective impatience is less than 4. According to related work, when an older driver feels uneasy about driving, the older drivers drive at a speed well below the speed limit [
11]. A related study reported that steering speed is a good indicator for detecting that a driver has urgently avoided a collision [
13]. Related works focus on the maximum of braking as new measures of driving performance [
14]. Therefore, the average of accelerator and steering, and the maximum value of braking were analyzed. We analyze the average of the tilt angle in the
y-axis and the angular velocity in the
x-axis, which are necessary elements for the principle of the CP system. We analyzed good indicators in the characteristic of cognitive to detect older groups of CS and NCS.
The characteristics of the behavior in
Table 7,
Table 8,
Table 9 and
Table 10 are the average accelerator and steering, the maximum of braking, tilt angle in the
y-axis, and the average angular velocity in the
x-axis. The characteristics of the cognitive in
Table 7,
Table 8,
Table 9 and
Table 10 are the average of the measurements of each channel of NIRS.
Table 7,
Table 8,
Table 9 and
Table 10 show the average of cerebral blood flow in channel 6 and channel 18 with the highest statistics when older drivers were feeling impatient.
Figure 5 and
Figure 6 show heat maps of brain activity. The heat map of brain activity was normalized with the maximum values in
Figure 5 and
Figure 6 as 1. Scatter plots of the characteristics of behavior and cognition are shown in
Figure 7 and
Figure 8.
θ(y)avg and ω
(x)avg in
Figure 7 are defined as the average of
y-axis tilt angle and angular velocity in the
x-axis.
C(6)avg and
C(18)avg in
Figure 8 are defined as the average of cerebral blood flow in channel 6 and channel 18. From
Table 7, the difference between the two groups in terms of the maximum of braking,
θ(y)avg, ω
(x)avg,
C(6)avg, and
C(18)avg of the older driver who feels impatience were statistically significant. From
Table 8, the difference between the two groups in terms of
θ(y)avg,
C(6)avg, and
C(18)avg of the older driver who felt calm were statistically significant. The older drivers in the CS group who felt impatient stepped on the brake more strongly than the older drivers in the NCS group. When the older driver felt calm, the difference between the two groups in terms of the maximum of braking was not statistically significant. When the older driver felt impatient or calm, the tilt angle of the left foot of the older driver in the NCS group was more perpendicular to the ground than that in the CS group. When older drivers felt impatient, older drivers in the CS group had a higher ω
(x)avg than older drivers in the NCS group. The difference between the two groups in terms of ω
(x)avg of the older driver who felt calm was not statistically significant. From
Table 9, the difference between the two groups in terms of the average of the accelerator and
θ(y)avg of a young driver who feels impatience were statistically significant. From
Table 10, the difference between the two groups in terms of the average of
θ(y)avg, ω
(x)avg,
C(6)avg, and
C(18)avg of a young driver who feels calm were statistically significant. From
Table 9, the young drivers in the NCS group who felt impatient stepped on the accelerator more strongly than the young drivers in the CS group. When the young driver felt calm, the difference between the two groups in terms of the average accelerator was not statistically significant. When the young driver felt impatient or calm, the tilt angle of the left foot of the young driver in the CS group was more perpendicular to the ground than that in the NCS group. The results show that behavioral characteristics differ between younger and older drivers. When young drivers felt calm, young drivers in the CS group had a higher ω
(x)avg than young drivers in the NCS group. When the young driver and older driver felt impatience or calm, the drivers in the CS group had higher cerebral blood flow than drivers in the NCS group.
The characteristics of behavior and cognition in Experiment III and IV were analyzed using the Brunner–Munzel test. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the NCS group and the CS group in terms of the behavioral characteristics in Experiment III and IV. The rejection region is 0.01.
Table 11 and
Table 12 show the behavioral characteristics of the NCS group and CS group in Experiment III and IV. Scatter plots of the characteristic of behavior in Experiment III and IV are shown in
Figure 9.
From
Table 11, the difference between the two groups in terms of
θ(y)avg of the older driver in Experiment III was statistically significant. From
Table 12, the difference between the two groups in terms of
θ(y)avg of young driver and older driver in Experiment IV was statistically significant.
We analyzed the correlation between the left foot movement in driving and the left foot movement during preparing to start the car using the tests for non-correlation. The null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between driving (Experiment I and II) and preparing to start the car (Experiment III and IV) in terms of the left foot movement. The rejection region is 0.01.
Table 13 shows the correlation coefficients between
θ(y)avg and ω
(x)avg in driving and the left foot movement
θ(y)avg and ω
(x)avg in preparing to start the car.
From
Table 13, there was a strong correlation between
θ(y)avg of the older driver in driving and
θ(y)avg of the older driver in preparing to start the car. Therefore, the coping skills of the older driver can be predicted from
θ(y)avg in preparing to start the car.
4.3. Prediction of Coping Skills by CP System
We evaluated the prediction accuracy of the CP system. The CP system predicts the coping skills of the older driver from the driving behavior when the older driver feels impatient. The objective variable is coping skills. The labels of coping skills are NCS or CS. The explanatory variables are
θ(y)avg and ω
(x)avg of the older driver while driving the car. Radial basis function (RBF)-SVM, naive Bayes, and random forest are used for binary classification. These machine learnings were implemented in the R language. Random forest was built using the random forest package. RBF-SVM and naive Bayes were built using the e1071 package. The parameters of each machine learning are default values in each package. For example, the decision tree of random forest is constructed with the classification and regression tree (CART) [
24]. We constructed 500 decision trees. The decision tree is constructed with √D variables. D is the number of dimensions. Decision trees are not pruned. The CP system predicts the coping skills of the older driver from the behavior in preparing to start the car. The objective variable is coping skills. The labels of coping skills are NCS or CS. The explanatory variables are
θ(y)avg and ω
(x)avg of the older driver while preparing to start the car. RBF-SVM, naive Bayes, and random forest are used for binary classification. The parameters were the same as the parameters in predicting the coping skills of older drivers based on driving behavior. There are two missing values in the NCS group data of Experiments III and IV due to sensor malfunction. Leave one subject out cross-validation (LOSO-CV) was used for evaluation.
Figure 10 shows the predicted results of coping skills using SVM, naive Bayes, and random forest. From
Figure 10, the average prediction accuracy of random forest was the highest. Therefore, we focused on the prediction accuracy of random forest.
Table 14 shows the results of predicting coping skills of the older driver based on driving behavior using random forest.
The CP system predicted with 92% accuracy on average based on
θ(y)avg and ω
(x)avg of the older driver while driving the car.
Table 15 shows the results of predicting coping skills of the older driver based on the behavior in preparing to start the car using random forest.
The CP system predicted with 94% accuracy on average based on θ(y)avg and ω(x)avg of the older driver while preparing to start the car. Therefore, the CP system was able to predict coping skills from the tilt angle and angular velocity of the left foot when an older driver is driving or preparing to start a car.