Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 9 minor 2 cited by

Visual Dominance and Emerging Multimodal Approaches in Distracted Driving Detection: A Review of Machine Learning Techniques

T0 review · 3 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Visual-only models dominate distracted-driving research and reach near-perfect benchmark scores, but the review argues that multimodal systems are the path to real-world detection.

desk verdict Useful systematic review of distracted driving detection, but it overclaims multimodal superiority and leaves a PRISMA retrieval gap unanalyzed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01973 v1 pith:HX3QLXHV submitted 2025-05-04 cs.CV

Anthony Dontoh , Stephanie Ivey , Logan Sirbaugh , Andrews Danyo , Armstrong Aboah This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords distracteddrivingdetectionmachinelearningdeepmultimodalfusionvisualdominancedrivermonitoringphysiologicalsensingprivacy-preserving
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review of 74 peer-reviewed studies from 2019 to 2024 argues that machine-learning research on distracted driving is lopsided: most systems rely on camera images alone, report very high benchmark accuracy, and generalize poorly to real roads. The authors contend that this visual dominance is a documented imbalance, not a sign that vision is sufficient. Sensor-based methods, physiological signals, and emerging modalities fill blind spots that vision cannot, and when studies directly compare fused multimodal systems against unimodal baselines, the multimodal systems consistently win. If the review is right, the field should shift its center of gravity toward multimodal, context-aware, deployable detection rather than further refining camera-only accuracy on benchmarks.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a four-way modality taxonomy—visual, sensor-based, multimodal, and emerging—applied through a systematic screening pipeline that winnowed 607 records down to 74 studies. Within visual approaches, the taxonomy splits into CNN, temporal, ensemble/multi-task, and attention families; within multimodal approaches, the load-bearing concept is fusion strategy, early, mid, late, or hybrid, because it explains why fused systems capture both shared and modality-specific cues. The taxonomy does the argument's work by letting the authors aggregate accuracy ranges per family, identify visual dominance by counting, and point to head-to-head fusion results as evidence that the imbalance should be corrected.

What would settle it

Retrieve the 137 inaccessible full-text articles and re-run the modality count and the multimodal-versus-unimodal comparisons on matched datasets and metrics: if visual-only methods are not a clear majority, or if fused systems no longer consistently outperform unimodal baselines, the review's central conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that visual-only methods dominate the distracted-driving detection literature, and that this dominance is a problem. CNNs, temporal networks, ensembles, and attention models reach accuracies from roughly 86% to above 99% on benchmark datasets, but the review reads those numbers as controlled-condition artifacts: they degrade under poor lighting, occlusion, demographic shift, and cannot register cognitive distraction, vehicle dynamics, or internal physiological state. Sensor-based and physiological models add missing signals but are fewer, often simulation-bound, and rarely match visual accuracy on controlled benchmarks. When studies do compare, multimodal systems win: adding telemetry to visual features improved accuracy by 23%, and fusing RGB, infrared, depth, and skeleton data lifted accuracy from 63.64% to 69.03%. The conclusion is that the field's benchmark-driven reliance on vision has produced high-scoring but brittle detectors, and the next generation of driver monitoring should be built around multimodal fusion, personalized baselines, and cross-modality evaluation.

Load-bearing premise

The review assumes that the 74 studies it could read are representative of the whole field, even though 137 full-text articles from the initial screening were never retrieved and the performance numbers it compares come from different datasets and metrics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Benchmark accuracy is not readiness: a camera-only model scoring above 99% on a public dataset can still fail in rain, darkness, occlusion, or with an unfamiliar driver population.
  • Fusion is already known to help: systems that combine video with telemetry, physiological signals, or depth and infrared data have beaten their unimodal baselines in published comparisons.
  • Evaluation practices need to change: cross-dataset tests, standardized metrics, and latency and energy reporting are prerequisites for comparing distraction detectors honestly.
  • Privacy-preserving modalities—Wi-Fi based sensing, acoustic wearables, and neuromorphic event cameras—are viable lines of development that avoid in-cabin cameras.
  • Future systems should use personalized driver baselines and context-aware weighting of modalities to reduce false alarms and detect evolving distraction states.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The review does not quantify how the 137 unretrieved full-text articles might shift the modality distribution; a sensitivity analysis that codes those papers as worst-case visual-only and worst-case multimodal would bound the strength of the visual-dominance claim.
  • Most of the 'multimodal consistently surpasses unimodal' evidence is cross-study rather than matched on dataset, metric, and compute budget; a controlled benchmark with identical training conditions could show the advantage shrinks on raw accuracy but persists on robustness and false-alarm rate.
  • The review's own logic implies a hardware-planning rule for ADAS: prioritize sensing channels that are disjoint from vision, such as steering torque, heart-rate variability, and cabin audio, before adding more cameras, because redundancy within one modality buys less than complementary modalities.
  • A standardized multimodal challenge with fixed compute, reporting accuracy, latency, energy, and false alarms would be a direct test of the paper's prediction that multimodal systems win in real-world conditions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 9 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a systematic review of machine learning and deep learning approaches for distracted driving detection, covering 74 peer-reviewed studies from 2019 to 2024. It follows a PRISMA-style screening flow, categorizes the literature into visual, sensor-based, multimodal, and emerging modalities, and argues that visual-only methods dominate the field but generalize poorly in real-world settings, whereas multimodal systems consistently outperform unimodal baselines. The review concludes with future research directions on lightweight multimodal frameworks, cross-modality benchmarks, and real-world validation.

Significance. If its central claims hold, the review would provide a useful field-level synthesis documenting the visual bias in distracted-driving research and a concrete case for multimodal integration. The paper's strengths include a documented multi-database search, a PRISMA flow diagram, and organized summary tables by architecture family, which make the surveyed evidence accessible. However, the headline comparative claim about multimodal superiority is currently stronger than the evidence assembled, and the aggregate 'visual dominance' claim is vulnerable to uncharacterized selection bias from the 137 unretrieved full-text articles. With a revised evidence presentation and a more cautious framing, the review could be a valuable resource for the intelligent transportation systems and computer vision communities.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-C, Summary and Comparative Analysis of Multimodal Approaches] The claim that 'empirical evidence consistently shows that multimodal systems outperform unimodal counterparts' is not supported for all of the cited studies. Only Omerustaoglu et al. [11] (23% accuracy improvement over their own unimodal variant) and Martin et al. [77] (late fusion from 63.64% to 69.03% on Drive&Act) provide direct within-study comparisons. The other supporting studies—Gjoreski et al. [14], Das et al. [13], Misra et al. [39], and Yadawadkar et al. [76]—report absolute metrics on different datasets, sensors, and class sets, so their numbers cannot be used to infer superiority over unimodal systems. Please revise the abstract and Section III-C to restrict the superiority claim to matched comparisons, or add a table that collates each multimodal method with its own unimodal baseline under identical conditions.
  2. [II-C, PRISMA flow] The review does not characterize the 137 full-text articles that could not be retrieved (137 of 321, about 43%). Because the claim that visual-only methods dominate is an aggregate statement about the field, a systematic difference between retrievable and non-retrievable papers—for example, if inaccessible papers are disproportionately sensor-based or multimodal—could bias the reported modality distribution. Please analyze the modality distribution of the missing records from their titles and abstracts, or explicitly discuss this as a limitation of the review's representativeness.
  3. [II-A and II-B, Inclusion criteria] The methodology states that the search was 'restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles published between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2024,' but the included studies comprise conference papers (e.g., [36], [45], [59], [77]) and pre-2019 works (e.g., [76]). This inconsistency leaves the study population undefined and weakens the systematic-review protocol. Please clarify how conference papers and seminal works were treated, and align the inclusion criteria with the actual screening decisions.
minor comments (9)
  1. [IV, Key Findings] The reference numbers in the bullet points do not match the claimed categories: [37] and [39] are not transfer-learned CNNs, [34], [51], [52] are not temporal frameworks, [61], [62], [73] are not sensor-based studies, and [74] is not an auditory system. Please correct these citations so that every synthesized claim is traceable to the cited source.
  2. [III-C, Multimodal summary] Martin et al. is referenced as [67] in the multimodal summary, but [67] is Li et al.'s AB-DLM; use [77] for Martin et al.
  3. [II-A and Table 5] The first author of reference [36] appears as both 'Kouchak and Gaffar' and 'Kouchak and Ghaffar'; please standardize the spelling.
  4. [III-A, Summary and Comparative Analysis of Visual Approaches] The visual summary states CNN accuracy ranges from 86.1% to 99.93%, but the lowest accuracy in Table 1 is 88.83% (Oliveira & Farias). Please reconcile the range with the table.
  5. [III-A, Figure 3 reference] The 'Summary and Comparative Analysis of Visual Approaches' refers to 'Figure 3, Table 1' for performance, but Figure 3 is a pipeline diagram; please reference Table 1 only, or add a data caption to Figure 3.
  6. [II-C, Screening Process] The description of full-text screening as conducted by 'all authors' in groups is ambiguous; specify how many groups performed the screening and how inter-rater discrepancies were resolved.
  7. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, including 'lightning' for 'lighting' in Section IV, 'emerging techniques but limited techniques' in the Introduction, and 'MACHINE LEARNGIN' in the Table 6 heading; a thorough proofread is needed.
  8. [IV, Summary and Outlook] The statement that 'unimodal visual models still achieve top performance under controlled conditions' is in tension with the abstract's 'consistently surpasses unimodal baselines' and should be reconciled so that the review's overall position is unambiguous.
  9. [II, Methodology] The review does not report a PRISMA 2020 checklist or a risk-of-bias assessment, which are commonly expected for systematic reviews; please add a completed checklist or justify the deviation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the review synthesizes external studies; self-citations are peripheral and not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a systematic review, so its claims are aggregative statements about the reported results of 74 external studies, not derivations from a model whose parameters are fitted to the outcome it predicts. The central claims—visual dominance, limited generalizability of visual-only models, and advantages of multimodal fusion—are supported by cited empirical studies. Where direct within-study comparisons exist (e.g., Omerustaoglu et al.'s 23% improvement from fusion and Martin et al.'s late-fusion gain from 63.64% to 69.03%), the review is reporting comparative evidence, not constructing the result from its own assumptions. The self-citations (refs 81-83) appear only in peripheral future-research and evaluation-framework sentences and do not supply the load-bearing evidence for any central conclusion; ref 81 is also topically unrelated, which is a citation-quality problem rather than circularity. The unimodal-versus-multimodal comparison partly relies on absolute accuracies across different datasets and protocols, but that is a validity/rigor concern about how evidence is aggregated, not a circular derivation. Similarly, the 137 missing full-text articles create a possible selection-bias risk, but the paper does not use that missing set to define or force any conclusion. No step in the paper reduces by definition or by self-citation to the claims it is supposed to establish.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters, new entities, or mathematical axioms. Its load-bearing assumptions are about the representativeness of the screened literature and the comparability of reported metrics. The missing-access analysis is the most concrete threat: 137 of 238 full-text articles were unavailable, which could bias the modality distribution and performance summaries.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The PRISMA screening process, applied by the authors, correctly identifies the relevant literature on ML/DL distracted driving detection.
    The central claims are aggregate statements about the field, so they inherit the correctness of the screening. The paper relies on this in Section II, Screening Process.
  • domain assumption Accuracy, F1, and other metrics reported across heterogeneous datasets are sufficiently comparable to support comparative claims such as 'multimodal approaches consistently outperform unimodal baselines.'
    The review's synthesis in Sections III.A-C compares numeric results from different datasets without normalization or meta-analysis, so comparability is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Visual Dominance and Emerging Multimodal Approaches in Distracted Driving Detection: A Review of Machine Learning Techniques." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HX3QLXHV

@misc{pith2026250501973,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Visual Dominance and Emerging Multimodal Approaches in Distracted Driving Detection: A Review of Machine Learning Techniques},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HX3QLXHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01973}
}
read the original abstract

Distracted driving continues to be a significant cause of road traffic injuries and fatalities worldwide, even with advancements in driver monitoring technologies. Recent developments in machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) have primarily focused on visual data to detect distraction, often neglecting the complex, multimodal nature of driver behavior. This systematic review assesses 74 peer-reviewed studies from 2019 to 2024 that utilize ML/DL techniques for distracted driving detection across visual, sensor-based, multimodal, and emerging modalities. The review highlights a significant prevalence of visual-only models, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and temporal architectures, which achieve high accuracy but show limited generalizability in real-world scenarios. Sensor-based and physiological models provide complementary strengths by capturing internal states and vehicle dynamics, while emerging techniques, such as auditory sensing and radio frequency (RF) methods, offer privacy-aware alternatives. Multimodal architecture consistently surpasses unimodal baselines, demonstrating enhanced robustness, context awareness, and scalability by integrating diverse data streams. These findings emphasize the need to move beyond visual-only approaches and adopt multimodal systems that combine visual, physiological, and vehicular cues while keeping in checking the need to balance computational requirements. Future research should focus on developing lightweight, deployable multimodal frameworks, incorporating personalized baselines, and establishing cross-modality benchmarks to ensure real-world reliability in advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and road safety interventions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01973 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram: Study Identification and Screening Process. III. RESULTS OF THIS STUDY AND DISCUSSION Research on distracted driving detection has advanced considerably with the proliferation of sensing technologies and computational models. This section categorizes detection strategies by primary data modality, including visual, sensor￾based, multimodal, and emerging approaches—and evaluates their methodologic… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Summary of Visual Data Approaches ML and DL-Based Approaches This section outlines the primary strategies applied to visual data, categorized into traditional machine learning and deep learning techniques. Machine Learning (ML) Approaches Although deep learning methods dominate recent efforts as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. provides the modular pipeline for CNN-based distracted driving detection approaches while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Generalized Architecture for Temporal Modeling in Distracted Driving Detection. TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF TEMPORAL MODELING APPROACHES [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: gives an overview of the various sensory data approaches captured in this review [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: provides a generalized pipeline of sensor-based approaches, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Representative Multimodal Techniques ML and DL-Based Approaches Machine Learning Approaches ML approaches for multimodal distracted driving detection typically integrate handcrafted features from visual, physiological, and vehicle-based modalities. Studies often conver…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: illustrates the generalized architecture of Martin et al.’s multimodal CNN framework, showing the integration of spatiotemporal features and late fusion for final behavior classification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: shows fusion strategies in ML-driven multimodal distraction detection typically fall into three categories: early fusion, where features from all modalities are concatenated before modeling; mid fusion, which integrates modality￾specific representations at intermediat…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Overview of sensing pipeline adapted from Shariff et al. [78]. Radio Frequency – Based Methods Raja et al. [79] proposed a non-intrusive, Wi-Fi-based distraction detection system utilizing Channel State Information (CSI) to capture upper body motion, including head tu…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Proposed System Architecture for Wi-Fi-based distraction. Adapted from Raja et al. [79]. Auditory Signal Processing Zhao et al. [80] developed a novel auditory-based distraction detection system that leverages wearable acoustic sensors to capture under-skin neck vibra…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Demographics-Informed Neural Network for Multi-Modal Spatiotemporal forecasting of Urban Growth and Travel Patterns Using Satellite Imagery

    cs.CV 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A demographics-aware deep network predicts future satellite images, demographics, and travel behavior from 11 years of US county data, reporting higher SSIM and demographic consistency than two video-prediction baselines.

  2. PaveSync: A Unified and Comprehensive Dataset for Pavement Distress Analysis and Classification

    cs.CV 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    PaveSync merges existing pavement imagery into a standardized 52,747-image, 13-class detection dataset and benchmarks seven object detectors on it.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [61]

    Ensemble model for Driver Distraction Detection,

    S. Subbulakshmi, A. K. Arathy, and P. Madhu, “Ensemble model for Driver Distraction Detection, ” 2023 4th IEEE Glob. Conf. Adv. Technol. GCAT 2023, pp. 1 –7, 2023, doi: 10.1109/GCAT59970.2023.10353386

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [62]

    An Ensemble Approach for Identification of Distracted Driver by Implementing Transfer Learned Deep CNN Architectures,

    M. A. R. Mollah, A. Y. Srizon, and M. Ahmed, “An Ensemble Approach for Identification of Distracted Driver by Implementing Transfer Learned Deep CNN Architectures,” Proc. 2022 25th Int. Conf. Comput. Inf. Technol. ICCIT 2022 , pp. 938 –942, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ICCIT57492.2022.10055668

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [73]

    Innovative Framework for Distracted-Driving Alert System Based on Deep Learning,

    P. W. Lin and C. M. Hsu, “Innovative Framework for Distracted-Driving Alert System Based on Deep Learning,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, no. July, pp. 77523 – 77536, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3186674

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [74]

    Improving Driving Safety by Preventing Driver Distraction,

    Y. Richter, O. Malka, M. Grossman, and A. Meidan, “Improving Driving Safety by Preventing Driver Distraction,” 2021 IEEE Int. Conf. Microwaves, Antennas, Commun. Electron. Syst. COMCAS 2021 , pp. 75 –78, 2021, doi: 10.1109/COMCAS52219.2021.9629018

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [11]

    Distracted driver detection by combining in -vehicle and image data using deep learning,

    F. Omerustaoglu, C. O. Sakar, and G. Kar, “Distracted driver detection by combining in -vehicle and image data using deep learning, ” Appl. Soft Comput. J. , vol. 96, p. 106657, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106657

    arXiv 2020

  6. [77]

    Drive&act: A multi-modal dataset for fine-grained driver behavior recognition in autonomous vehicles,

    M. Martin et al., “Drive&act: A multi-modal dataset for fine-grained driver behavior recognition in autonomous vehicles,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. , vol. 2019-Octob, no. Iccv, pp. 2801 –2810, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ICCV.2019.00289

    work page arXiv 2019

  7. [14]

    Machine Learning and End-to- End Deep Learning for Monitoring Driver Distractions from Physiological and Visual Signals,

    M. Gjoreski, M. Z. Gams, M. Lu štrek, P. Genc, J. U. Garbas, and T. Hassan, “Machine Learning and End-to- End Deep Learning for Monitoring Driver Distractions from Physiological and Visual Signals, ” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 70590 –70603, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2986810

    arXiv 2020

  8. [13]

    Detection and Recognition of Driver Distraction Using Multimodal Signals,

    K. Das et al. , “Detection and Recognition of Driver Distraction Using Multimodal Signals, ” ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. , vol. 12, no. 4, 2022, doi: 10.1145/3519267

    doi:10.1145/3519267 2022

  9. [39]

    Detection of Driver Cognitive Distraction Using Machine Learning Methods,

    A. Misra, S. Samuel, S. Cao, and K. Shariatmadari, “Detection of Driver Cognitive Distraction Using Machine Learning Methods,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, no. December 2022, pp. 18000 –18012, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3245122

    work page arXiv 2022

  10. [76]

    Identifying Distracted and Drowsy Drivers Using Naturalistic Driving Data,

    S. Yadawadkar et al. , “Identifying Distracted and Drowsy Drivers Using Naturalistic Driving Data, ” Proc. - 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. Big Data, Big Data 2018, pp. 2019 –2026, 2018, doi: 10.1109/BigData.2018.8622612

    work page arXiv 2018

  11. [36]

    Using bidirectional long short term memory with attention layer to estimate driver behavior,

    S. Monjezi Kouchak and A. Gaffar, “Using bidirectional long short term memory with attention layer to estimate driver behavior, ” Proc. - 18th IEEE Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. Appl. ICMLA 2019 , pp. 315 – 320, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ICMLA.2019.00059

    arXiv 2019

  12. [45]

    Distracted driving behavior detection and identification based on improved cornernet - saccade,

    W. Zheng, Q. Q. Zhang, Z. H. Ni, Z. G. Ye, Y. M. Hu, and Z. J. Zhu, “Distracted driving behavior detection and identification based on improved cornernet - saccade,” Proc. - 2020 IEEE Int. Symp. Parallel Distrib. Process. with Appl. 2020 IEEE Int. Conf. Big Data Cloud Comput. 2020 IEEE Int. Symp. Soc. Comput. Netw. 2020 IEE , pp. 1150 –1155, 2020, doi: 10...

    work page arXiv 2020

  13. [59]

    Driver Distraction Behavior Detection Framework Based on the DWPose Model, Kalman Filtering, and Multi -Transformer,

    X. Shi, “Driver Distraction Behavior Detection Framework Based on the DWPose Model, Kalman Filtering, and Multi -Transformer,” IEEE Access , vol. 12, no. June, pp. 80579 –80589, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3406605

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 83 references
  1. [1]

    An Assessment of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Distraction Using Naturalistic Driving Data,

    J. S. Hickman and R. J. Hanowski, “An Assessment of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Distraction Using Naturalistic Driving Data, ” Traffic Inj. Prev. , vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 612 –619, 2012, doi: 10.1080/15389588.2012.683841

    2012

  2. [2]

    World Health Organization, Global status report on road safety 2023, vol. 15, no. 4. 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Distracted Driving Crashes: A Review on Data Collection, Analysis, and Crash Prevention Methods,

    A. S. Hasan, M. Jalayer, E. Heitmann, and J. Weiss, “Distracted Driving Crashes: A Review on Data Collection, Analysis, and Crash Prevention Methods, ” Transp. Res. Rec., vol. 2676, no. 8, pp. 423–434, 2022, doi: 10.1177/03611981221083917

    2022 doi

  4. [4]

    Review of driving performance parameters critical Review of driving performance parameters critical for distracted driving research for distracted driving research,

    P. Papantoniou, E. Papadimitriou, G. Yannis, P. Papantoniou, E. Papadimitriou, and G. Yannis, “Review of driving performance parameters critical Review of driving performance parameters critical for distracted driving research for distracted driving research,” Transp. Res. Pro...

    2017 doi

  5. [5]

    Driver distraction: a review of the literature (report),

    Kristie Young, Michael Regan, and Mike Hammer, “Driver distraction: a review of the literature (report), ” Monash Univ. Accid. Res. Cent. , no. 206, p. 66, 2003, [Online]. Available: http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/muar 16 > REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MANUSCRIP...

    2003

  6. [6]

    Distracted driving in 2022,

    NHTSA, “Distracted driving in 2022, ” U.S. Dep. Transp. Natl. Highw. Traffic Saf. Adm., no. April 2024, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublic ation/813443

    2022

  7. [7]

    Causation and control: Understanding distracted driving in Australia through a systems thinking lens,

    M. Abedi et al., “Causation and control: Understanding distracted driving in Australia through a systems thinking lens, ” Saf. Sci. , vol. 173, no. January, p. 106435, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106435

    2024

  8. [8]

    Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving Using Meta-Analytic Techniques,

    W. J. Horrey and C. D. Wickens, “Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving Using Meta-Analytic Techniques, ” vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 196 – 205, 2006

    2006

  9. [9]

    Car Following and Microscopic Traffic Simulation Under Distracted Driving,

    S. Zatmeh -kanj and T. Toledo, “Car Following and Microscopic Traffic Simulation Under Distracted Driving,” vol. 2675, no. 8, pp. 643 –656, 2021, doi: 10.1177/03611981211000357

    2021 doi

  10. [12]

    Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data,

    T. A. Dingus et al. , “Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data, ” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. , vol. 113, no. 10, pp. 2636–2641, 2016, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1513271113

    2016 doi

  11. [15]

    Papatheocharous, C

    E. Papatheocharous, C. Kaiser, J. Moser, and A. Stocker, Monitoring Distracted Driving Behaviours with Smartphones: An Extended Systematic Literature Review, vol. 23, no. 17. 2023. doi: 10.3390/s23177505

    2023 doi

  12. [16]

    Driver Distraction: A Review of Literature,

    K. Young and M. Regan, “Driver Distraction: A Review of Literature, ” Australas. Coll. Road Saf. , pp. 379–405, 2007, doi: 10.1201/9780429466809

    2007 doi

  13. [17]

    How to select distracted driving countermeasures evaluation metrics: A systematic review,

    M. Pan and A. Ryan, “How to select distracted driving countermeasures evaluation metrics: A systematic review,” J. Transp. Saf. Secur., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 542– 572, 2024, doi: 10.1080/19439962.2023.2233104

    2024

  14. [18]

    Deep Learning Based Driver Distraction: A Review of the Literature,

    W. A. A. Abd Almutalib, T. H. A. Abbas, and H. A. Abdulbaqi, “Deep Learning Based Driver Distraction: A Review of the Literature, ” AIP Conf. Proc. , vol. 2398, no. October, 2022, doi: 10.1063/5.0093566

    2022 doi

  15. [19]

    Multiple driver distractions : A systemic transport problem,

    T. C. Lansdown, A. N. Stephens, and G. H. Walker, “Multiple driver distractions : A systemic transport problem,” Accid. Anal. Prev. , pp. 1 –8, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2014.07.006

    2014 doi

  16. [20]

    A Survey on Driver Behavior Analysis From In-Vehicle Cameras,

    J. Wang et al., “A Survey on Driver Behavior Analysis From In-Vehicle Cameras,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 10186 –10209, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2021.3126231

    2022

  17. [21]

    Driver Distraction Detection Methods: A Literature Review and Framework,

    A. Kashevnik, R. Shchedrin, C. Kaiser, and A. Stocker, “Driver Distraction Detection Methods: A Literature Review and Framework, ” IEEE Access , vol. 9, pp. 60063–60076, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3073599

    2021

  18. [22]

    What literature review is not: Diversity, boundaries and recommendations,

    F. Rowe, “What literature review is not: Diversity, boundaries and recommendations, ” Eur. J. Inf. Syst. , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 241 –255, 2014, doi: 10.1057/ejis.2014.7

    2014 doi

  19. [23]

    Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review.,

    J. Webster and R. T. Watson, “Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review., ” MIS Q. , vol. 26, no. 2, pp. xiii –xxiii, 2002, doi: 10.1.1.104.6570

    2002

  20. [24]

    A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research,

    C. Okoli and K. Schabram, “A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research,” SSRN Electron. J. , 2012, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1954824

    2012 doi

  21. [25]

    Telehealth for Rural Veterans in the United States: A Systematic Review of Utilization, Cost Savings, and Impact of COVID -19,

    B. P. Quayson, J. Hough, R. Boateng, I. D. Boateng, R. Godavarthy, and J. Mattson, “Telehealth for Rural Veterans in the United States: A Systematic Review of Utilization, Cost Savings, and Impact of COVID -19,” Societies, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 1 –18, 2024, doi: 10.3390/soc14120264

    2024 doi

  22. [26]

    The prisma 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,

    M. J. Page et al. , “The prisma 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, ” Med. Flum. , vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 444 –465, 2021, doi: 10.21860/medflum2021_264903

    2020 doi

  23. [27]

    PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews,

    M. J. Page et al. , “PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews, ” BMJ, vol. 372, 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160

    2020 doi

  24. [28]

    Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses,

    M. K. Linnenluecke, M. Marrone, and A. K. Singh, “Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses,” Aust. J. Manag., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 175–194, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0312896219877678

    2020 doi

  25. [29]

    PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020 -compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis,

    N. R. Haddaway, M. J. Page, C. C. Pritchard, and L. A. McGuinness, “PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020 -compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis, ” Campbell Syst. Rev., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1...

    2020 doi

  26. [30]

    Identification of Driver Distraction Based on SHRP2 Naturalistic Driving Study,

    Z. Liu, S. Ren, and M. Peng, “Identification of Driver Distraction Based on SHRP2 Naturalistic Driving Study,” Math. Probl. Eng. , vol. 2021, 2021, doi: 10.1155/2021/6699327

    2021 doi

  27. [31]

    Drive & Act,

    M. Martin, A. Roitberg, M. Haurilet, M. Horne, S. Reiß, and R. Stiefelhagen, “Drive & Act, ” IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., 2019

    2019

  28. [32]

    Unlocking the Emotional World of Visual Media: An Overview of the Science, Research, and Impact of Understanding Emotion,

    J. Z. Wang et al., “Unlocking the Emotional World of Visual Media: An Overview of the Science, Research, and Impact of Understanding Emotion, ” Proc. IEEE , vol. 111, no. 10, pp. 1236 –1286, 2023, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2023.3273517

    2023

  29. [33]

    Study on Distracted Driving 17 > REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MANUSCRIPT ID NUMBER (DOUBLE -CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < Behavior based on Transfer Learning,

    R. Zhang and X. Ke, “Study on Distracted Driving 17 > REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MANUSCRIPT ID NUMBER (DOUBLE -CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < Behavior based on Transfer Learning,” IEEE Jt. Int. Inf. Technol. Artif. Intell. Conf. , vol. 2022-June, pp. 1315– 1319, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ITA...

    2022

  30. [34]

    Design of an Efficient Distracted Driver Detection System: Deep Learning Approaches,

    N. K. Vaegae, K. K. Pulluri, K. Bagadi, and O. O. Oyerinde, “Design of an Efficient Distracted Driver Detection System: Deep Learning Approaches, ” IEEE Access, vol. 10, no. November, pp. 116087 –116097, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3218711

    2022

  31. [35]

    Optimizing Road Safety: Advancements in Lightweight YOLOv8 Models and GhostC2f Design for Real-Time Distracted Driving Detection,

    Y. Du, X. Liu, Y. Yi, and K. Wei, “Optimizing Road Safety: Advancements in Lightweight YOLOv8 Models and GhostC2f Design for Real-Time Distracted Driving Detection, ” Sensors (Basel). , vol. 23, no. 21, 2023, doi: 10.3390/s23218844

    2023 doi

  32. [37]

    Distraction detection of driver based on EEG signals in a simulated driving with alternative secondary task,

    L. Yan, Y. Chen, J. Zhang, Z. Guan, Y. Wu, and F. Yan, “Distraction detection of driver based on EEG signals in a simulated driving with alternative secondary task,” Proc. 2021 IEEE Int. Conf. Human -Machine Syst. ICHMS 2021 , no. 61876137, pp. 1 –3, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ICHMS53...

    2021

  33. [38]

    A lightweight ConvGRU network for Distracted Driving detection,

    P. Anagnostou and N. Mitianoudis, “A lightweight ConvGRU network for Distracted Driving detection, ” Int. Conf. Digit. Signal Process. DSP , vol. 2023 -June, no. Dmd, pp. 1 –5, 2023, doi: 10.1109/DSP58604.2023.10167971

    2023

  34. [40]

    DMD: A Large-Scale Multi-modal Driver Monitoring Dataset for Attention and Alertness Analysis,

    J. D. Ortega et al., “DMD: A Large-Scale Multi-modal Driver Monitoring Dataset for Attention and Alertness Analysis,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics) , vol. 12538 LNCS, pp. 387 –405, 2020, doi: 10.1007/978-3-03...

    2020 doi

  35. [41]

    An Algorithm for Distracted Driving Recognition Based on Pose Features and an Improved KNN,

    Y. Gong and X. Shen, “An Algorithm for Distracted Driving Recognition Based on Pose Features and an Improved KNN,” Electron., vol. 13, no. 9, 2024, doi: 10.3390/electronics13091622

    2024 doi

  36. [42]

    Detecting Distracted Drivers Using Convolutional Neural Networks,

    M. Tarabin, M. M. Alketbi, H. R. Alfalasi, M. Alsmirat, and Y. Sharrab, “Detecting Distracted Drivers Using Convolutional Neural Networks, ” 2023 Int. Conf. Intell. Data Sci. Technol. Appl. IDSTA 2023, pp. 59–66, 2023, doi: 10.1109/IDSTA58916.2023.10317853

    2023

  37. [43]

    Robust Deep Learning -Based Driver Distraction Detection and Classification,

    A. Ezzouhri, Z. Charouh, M. Ghogho, and Z. Guennoun, “Robust Deep Learning -Based Driver Distraction Detection and Classification, ” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 168080 –168092, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3133797

    2021

  38. [44]

    A data augmentation approach to distracted driving detection,

    J. Wang, Z. C. Wu, F. Li, and J. Zhang, “A data augmentation approach to distracted driving detection,” Futur. Internet , vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1 –11, 2021, doi: 10.3390/fi13010001

    2021 doi

  39. [46]

    An Efficient Deep Learning Framework for Distracted Driver Detection,

    F. Sajid, A. R. Javed, A. Basharat, N. Kryvinska, A. Afzal, and M. Rizwan, “An Efficient Deep Learning Framework for Distracted Driver Detection, ” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 169270 –169280, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3138137

    2021

  40. [47]

    Exploring Object Detection and Image Classification Tasks for Niche Use Case in Naturalistic Driving Studies,

    R. Peruski, D. Aykac, L. Torkelson, and T. Karnowski, “Exploring Object Detection and Image Classification Tasks for Niche Use Case in Naturalistic Driving Studies,” IS T Int. Symp. Electron. Imaging Sci. Technol., vol. 36, no. 17, pp. 1 –6, 2024, doi: 10.2352/EI.2024.36.17.AVM-112

    2024 doi

  41. [48]

    A deep learning- based distracted driving detection solution implemented on embedded system,

    G. K. Sahoo, S. K. Das, and P. Singh, “A deep learning- based distracted driving detection solution implemented on embedded system, ” Multimed. Tools Appl., vol. 82, no. 8, pp. 11697 –11720, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11042-022-13450-6

    2023 doi

  42. [49]

    Distracted Driver Detection Based on a CNN With Decreasing Filter Size,

    B. Qin, J. Qian, Y. Xin, B. Liu, and Y. Dong, “Distracted Driver Detection Based on a CNN With Decreasing Filter Size, ” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 6922 –6933, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2021.3063521

    2022

  43. [50]

    Toward Extremely Lightweight Distracted Driver Recognition With Distillation -Based Neural Architecture Search and Knowledge Transfer,

    D. Liu, T. Yamasaki, Y. Wang, K. Mase, and J. Kato, “Toward Extremely Lightweight Distracted Driver Recognition With Distillation -Based Neural Architecture Search and Knowledge Transfer, ” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 764–777, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TITS...

    2023

  44. [51]

    Neural Networks for the Detection of Distractions in Drivers,

    E. A. Lopez and J. A. Arias-Aguilar, “Neural Networks for the Detection of Distractions in Drivers,” Proc. 25th Robot. Mex. Congr. COMRob 2023 , pp. 19 –24, 2023, doi: 10.1109/COMRob60035.2023.10349775

    2023

  45. [52]

    Detection of Distracted Driver using Deep learning Algorithm,

    A. Anand, I. Sharma, K. Sharma, and S. Suchitra, “Detection of Distracted Driver using Deep learning Algorithm,” 2024 Int. Conf. Adv. Data Eng. Intell. Comput. Syst. ADICS 2024 , pp. 1 –6, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ADICS58448.2024.10533591

    2024

  46. [53]

    An Intelligent Driver Monitoring System,

    P. Supraja, P. Revati, K. S. Ram, and C. Jyotsna, “An Intelligent Driver Monitoring System,” Proc. 2021 2nd Int. Conf. Commun. Comput. Ind. 4.0, C2I4 2021 , pp. 6–10, 2021, doi: 10.1109/C2I454156.2021.9689295

    2021

  47. [54]

    Comparing transfer learning approaches applied to distracted driver detection,

    F. R. Da Silva Oliveira and F. C. Farias, “Comparing transfer learning approaches applied to distracted driver detection,” 2018 IEEE Lat. Am. Conf. Comput. Intell. LA-CCI 2018 , no. i, 2019, doi: 10.1109/LA - CCI.2018.8625214

    2018

  48. [55]

    A Transfer Learning Approach with Modified VGG 16 for Driving Behavior Detection in Intelligent Transportation Systems,

    A. H. Nur, M. S. Hasan Talukder, S. Adnan, and M. R. Ahmed, “A Transfer Learning Approach with Modified VGG 16 for Driving Behavior Detection in Intelligent Transportation Systems,” Proc. - 6th Int. Conf. Electr. Eng. Inf. Commun. Technol. ICEEICT 2024 , no. May, pp. 1060 –106...

    2024

  49. [56]

    Transfer Learning -based Driver Distraction Detection,

    L. Goel, S. Chennamaneni, A. Golla, S. Puchhakayala, and A. Rudraram, “Transfer Learning -based Driver Distraction Detection,” 2nd Int. Conf. Sustain. Comput. Data Commun. Syst. ICSCDS 2023 - Proc., pp. 58–63, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ICSCDS56580.2023.10104662

    2023

  50. [57]

    Optimally-Weighted Multi-Scale Local Feature Fusion Network for Driver Distraction Recognition,

    L. S. Fan and G. Shangbing, “Optimally-Weighted Multi-Scale Local Feature Fusion Network for Driver Distraction Recognition, ” IEEE Access , vol. 10, no. December, pp. 128554 –128561, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3224585

    2022

  51. [58]

    A Computer Vision Based Approach forDriver Distraction Recognition Using Deep Learning and Genetic Algorithm Based Ensemble,

    A. Kumar, K. S. Sangwan, and Dhiraj, “A Computer Vision Based Approach forDriver Distraction Recognition Using Deep Learning and Genetic Algorithm Based Ensemble,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), vol. 12855 LN...

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    HCF: A Hybrid CNN Framework for Behavior Detection of Distracted Drivers,

    C. Huang et al., “HCF: A Hybrid CNN Framework for Behavior Detection of Distracted Drivers, ” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 109335 –109349, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3001159

    2020

  53. [63]

    E2DR: A Deep Learning Ensemble-Based Driver Distraction Detection with Recommendations Model,

    M. Aljasim and R. Kashef, “E2DR: A Deep Learning Ensemble-Based Driver Distraction Detection with Recommendations Model, ” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 5, 2022, doi: 10.3390/s22051858

    2022 doi

  54. [64]

    A Novel Ensemble Learning Approach of Deep Learning Techniques to Monitor Distracted Driver Behaviour in Real Time,

    H. U. Draz, M. Zeeshan Khan, M. U. Ghani Khan, A. Rehman, and I. Abunadi, “A Novel Ensemble Learning Approach of Deep Learning Techniques to Monitor Distracted Driver Behaviour in Real Time, ” 2021 1st Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Data Anal. CAIDA 2021 , pp. 251–256, 2021, doi: 1...

    2021

  55. [65]

    TML: A Triple -Wise Multi -Task Learning Framework for Distracted Driver Recognition,

    Di. Liu, T. Yamasaki, Y. Wang, K. Mase, and J. Kato, “TML: A Triple -Wise Multi -Task Learning Framework for Distracted Driver Recognition, ” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 125955 –125969, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3109815

    2021

  56. [66]

    Optimizing Road Safety : Advancements in Lightweight,

    Y. Du, X. Liu, Y. Yi, and K. Wei, “Optimizing Road Safety : Advancements in Lightweight,” 2023

    2023

  57. [67]

    AB-DLM: An Improved Deep Learning Model Based on Attention Mechanism and BiFPN for Driver Distraction Behavior Detection,

    T. Li, Y. Zhang, Q. Li, and T. Zhang, “AB-DLM: An Improved Deep Learning Model Based on Attention Mechanism and BiFPN for Driver Distraction Behavior Detection,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, no. July, pp. 83138– 83151, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3197146

    2022

  58. [68]

    A visual recognition method for the automatic detection of distracted driving behavior based on an attention mechanism,

    Y. Du, H. Du, Y. Jin, and Y. Yi, “A visual recognition method for the automatic detection of distracted driving behavior based on an attention mechanism, ” ITOEC 2023 - IEEE 7th Inf. Technol. Mechatronics Eng. Conf., vol. 7, pp. 811 –815, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ITOEC57671.2023.10291763

    2023

  59. [69]

    Double attention convolutional neural network for driver action recognition,

    Y. Ai, J. Xia, K. She, and Q. Long, “Double attention convolutional neural network for driver action recognition,” 2019 IEEE 3rd Int. Conf. Electron. Inf. Technol. Comput. Eng. EITCE 2019 , pp. 1515 –1519, 2019, doi: 10.1109/EITCE47263.2019.9094987

    2019

  60. [70]

    SWAM: Driver Distraction Recognition Based on Attention Mechanism,

    W. Li, J. Huang, Y. Huang, Y. Chen, and R. Li, “SWAM: Driver Distraction Recognition Based on Attention Mechanism, ” Proc. - 2022 IEEE SmartWorld, Ubiquitous Intell. Comput. Auton. Trust. Veh. Scalable Comput. Commun. Digit. Twin, Priv. Comput. Metaverse, SmartWorld/UIC/ATC/Sc...

    2022

  61. [71]

    Driver distraction detection via multi-scale domain adaptation network,

    J. Wang and Z. C. Wu, “Driver distraction detection via multi-scale domain adaptation network, ” IET Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1742–1751, 2023, doi: 10.1049/itr2.12366

    2023 doi

  62. [72]

    Driver ’ s Driving Behavior Analysis,

    M. J. V. N. R. Deepthi, “Driver ’ s Driving Behavior Analysis,” pp. 242–247, 2024

    2024

  63. [75]

    An FPGA System for Driver Mobile Usage Detection and Heart Rate -Based Health Monitoring,

    H. D. S. M. Heenetimulla, S. K. Das, G. K. Sahoo, and P. Singh, “An FPGA System for Driver Mobile Usage Detection and Heart Rate -Based Health Monitoring, ” 2nd Odisha Int. Conf. Electr. Power Eng. Commun. Comput. Technol. ODICON 2022 , pp. 1 –6, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ODICON54453...

    2022

  64. [78]

    Spiking-DD: Neuromorphic Event Camera based Driver Distraction Detection with Spiking Neural Network,

    W. Shariff, P. Kielty, J. Lemley, and P. Corcoran, “Spiking-DD: Neuromorphic Event Camera based Driver Distraction Detection with Spiking Neural Network,” 2024, [Online]. Available: 19 > REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MANUSCRIPT ID NUMBER (DOUBLE -CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < http://arx...

    2024 arXiv

  65. [79]

    Detecting driver’s distracted behaviour from Wi -Fi,

    M. Raja, V. Ghaderi, and S. Sigg, “Detecting driver’s distracted behaviour from Wi -Fi,” IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf., vol. 2018 -June, pp. 1 –5, 2018, doi: 10.1109/VTCSpring.2018.8417778

    2018

  66. [80]

    A Wearable Acoustic Sensor Based Driver Distraction Behaviour Recognition,

    Y. Zhao, T. Li, and Y. Dong, “A Wearable Acoustic Sensor Based Driver Distraction Behaviour Recognition,” 2021 Int. Conf. High Perform. Big Data Intell. Syst. HPBD IS 2021 , pp. 281 –285, 2021, doi: 10.1109/HPBDIS53214.2021.9658476

    2021

  67. [81]

    Temporal Transferability of Regional Trip Generation Models Updated with Spatially Transferred Data,

    A. Dontoh, “Temporal Transferability of Regional Trip Generation Models Updated with Spatially Transferred Data,” Tennessee Technological University PP - United States -- Tennessee, United States -- Tennessee,

  68. [82]

    Integrating Travel Behavior Forecasting and Generative Modeling for Predicting Future Urban Mobility and Spatial Transformations,

    E. Denteh, A. Danyo, J. K. Asamoah, B. A. Kyem, T. Addai, and A. Aboah, “Integrating Travel Behavior Forecasting and Generative Modeling for Predicting Future Urban Mobility and Spatial Transformations, ” 2025, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.21158

    2025 arXiv

  69. [83]

    An improved ResNet50 model for predicting pavement condition index (PCI) directly from pavement images,

    A. Danyo, D. Anthony, and A. and Aboah, “An improved ResNet50 model for predicting pavement condition index (PCI) directly from pavement images,” Road Mater. Pavement Des. , pp. 1 –18, doi: 10.1080/14680629.2025.2498632. Anthony Dontoh is a doctoral candidate in Civil Engineer...

    2017

  70. [2022]

    [Online]. Available: https://ezproxy.memphis.edu:3443/login?url=https://w ww.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/temporal- transferability-regional-trip- generation/docview/2756144317/se- 2?accountid=14582

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.