Towards Infant Sleep-Optimized Driving: Synergizing Wearable and Vehicle Sensing in Intelligent Cruise Control

Jinge Li; Mozhang Guo; Ruitao Chen

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 20 references

Towards Infant Sleep-Optimized Driving: Synergizing Wearable and Vehicle Sensing in Intelligent Cruise Control

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adaptive cruise control keeps simulated infants asleep and trips on time

desk verdict The application is fresh and the paper is transparent, but the sleep-quality claim rests entirely on an unvalidated and probably mis-specified wrist-acceleration model, making the evaluation circular. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06459 v3 pith:TEIFWENF submitted 2025-06-06 cs.LG cs.ETcs.ROcs.SYeess.SY

Ruitao Chen , Mozhang Guo , Jinge Li This is my paper

classification cs.LGcs.ETcs.ROcs.SYeess.SY

keywords infantsleepintelligentcruisecontrolreinforcementlearningdrivingaggressivenesswearablesensingoccupantcomfortPPOCARLAsimulation

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 paper proposes an intelligent cruise control system that adapts driving aggressiveness in real time to protect infant sleep while keeping trips on schedule. The RL agent observes infant wrist motion from a simulated wearable sensor, recent driving actions, and upcoming route features, and picks an aggressiveness level from 0 to 10 at each checkpoint. Reward comes from staying ahead of schedule, and the episode terminates when the simulated infant wakes, defined as wrist acceleration exceeding 2 m/s$^2$. In CARLA simulations, the adaptive PPO policy (with LSTM or Transformer encoding) yields lower wake-up rates and lower peak wrist movement than fixed high or low aggressiveness and random aggressiveness, with comparable trip lateness. If the sleep model reflects reality, this demonstrates a single interpretable knob for personalizing automated driving to occupant state.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the simulated infant, whose wrist acceleration is computed from vehicle acceleration via a second-order mass-spring-damper model, $\alpha_{wrist}(t) = \alpha_{car}(t) + \frac{1}{m}(-kx(t) - cv(t))$, with $m = 0.4$ kg, $k = 50$ N/m, $c = 1.0$ Ns/m, and a wake threshold of $\max\|\alpha_{wrist}\| > 2$ m/s$^2$ over a 3-second window. This model generates both the RL episode termination condition and the evaluation metric (relative maximum movement), so the entire optimization loop is keyed to it. Around that model, the mechanism is PPO with a discrete action space $A = \{0, \dots, 10\}$ of aggressiveness levels; an observation matrix of the $K$ most recent state vectors containing sleep features (max and average motion), driving features (acceleration cycles, turning signals, steering angle, speed), and route-map features (speed limit, intersection counts for the current and next section); and a reward $r_i = R(t^E_i / t^A_i)$ that is maximal when the vehicle is ahead of schedule and minimal when it is behind. LSTM and Transformer encoders are compared for temporal feature extraction, with the Transformer prepending a classification token before self-attention.

What would settle it

Drive the same route profiles and aggressiveness settings in a real vehicle with an instrumented infant seat or infant wristband, recording wrist acceleration and sleep/wake labels from actigraphy; then check whether the 2 m/s$^2$ threshold aligns with real wake events and whether the adaptive policy produces fewer wake-ups than fixed aggressiveness 8 without more lateness than fixed aggressiveness 2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an RL-selected scalar aggressiveness level, conditioned on infant motion, vehicle control, and map data, achieves a better infant-sleep-versus-trip-latency trade-off than any fixed aggressiveness level. Concretely, in the CARLA Town07 environment over 100 trip sequences, both LSTM- and Transformer-based PPO policies converge within about 500 iterations; on test trips they produce lower relative maximum wrist movement and lower wake-up rates than fixed aggressiveness 8 (too rough) and fixed aggressiveness 2 (too slow), while maintaining a similar average late rate. The result is presented as a proof-of-concept that wearable-plus-vehicle sensing can be folded into AD control through a single, human-meaningful action dimension.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mass-spring-damper model with $m = 0.4$ kg, $k = 50$ N/m, $c = 1.0$ Ns/m and the fixed 2 m/s$^2$ wrist-acceleration threshold faithfully predicts when a real infant wakes; if this model is wrong, both the RL training signal and the sleep-quality evaluation collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the result transfers to real vehicles, cruise control could expose a single 'aggressiveness' dial adjusted in real time to protect infant sleep while still meeting arrival deadlines.
The simulation implies that no fixed driving style is optimal—high aggressiveness wakes the baby, low aggressiveness makes the trip late—so adaptive selection is necessary rather than a calibration detail.
Both LSTM and Transformer policies converge within about 500 iterations using only 100 trip sequences, suggesting the approach is sample-efficient enough for per-vehicle or per-occupant personalization with limited data.
The framework is agnostic to the control implementation: aggressiveness can be mapped to any set of parameters such as speed difference, following distance, and lane-change thresholds, and continuous action spaces are also allowed.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the same wearable-plus-vehicle RL loop could transfer to other comfort-sensitive passengers (adults with motion sickness, pets, elderly occupants) by swapping the sleep model for the corresponding comfort metric.
Editorial inference: the quantitative wake rates are simulation artifacts until the mass-spring-damper model is validated against real infant biomechanics; the qualitative ordering (adaptive policy beats fixed high and low aggressiveness in the sleep/latency trade-off) is the robust claim to test.
Editorial inference: the reward only encodes schedule adherence, while sleep enters through episode termination; adding a continuous sleep-quality term to the reward could change the learned policy and is testable in the same simulator.
Editorial inference: a rule-based baseline that lowers aggressiveness on rough roads and near intersections would isolate what the learned temporal policy adds beyond simple map-conditioned heuristics.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the idea is real and the execution is transparent, but the headline claim about infant sleep quality rests on an unvalidated and likely mis-specified wrist-acceleration model, and the evaluation is circular with respect to that model. Worth a serious referee, not worth taking seriously as evidence about infant sleep until the model is corrected and validated.

What's new: combining wearable sleep-state sensing with RL-driven aggressiveness selection for cruise control, applied to infants, is a new application. The algorithmic pieces (PPO, LSTM, Transformer) are standard, so the contribution is the scenario, the state representation, and the reward/termination design. That's honest progress, though narrow. The paper is clearly written and reproducible in its simulation setup: CARLA version, aggressiveness-to-control mapping, and network hyperparameters are all specified.

Where it gets soft: the sleep model. Eq. (12) defines wrist acceleration as α_car + (1/m)(−kx − cv). The text says v is the vehicle speed. If that's right, at 20 m/s the damping term alone is −50 m/s², 25 times the wake threshold of 2 m/s², so the infant would be labeled awake almost all the time. If v was meant to be relative wrist-vehicle velocity, the paper doesn't say so, and the model is still a hand-tuned spring-damper with no calibration against real infant data. Either way, the termination condition and the evaluation metric (relative maximum movement) both come from this same proxy, so the reported sleep-quality improvement is measured against the paper's own construction. There is no external benchmark, no real infant data, and the final evaluation uses only 10 trip sequences. The reward function also does not directly include sleep quality; it only uses schedule adherence, with sleep entering through episode termination. That's a design choice, but it should be explicit.

Proportionately: the internal comparisons are consistent—the RL agents do beat fixed-aggressiveness baselines on the simulated proxy, and the convergence plots are believable. The problem is that the bridge from driving actions to infant sleep is unvalidated and likely wrong. The authors acknowledge deployment challenges but don't flag this modeling assumption as a limitation.

Who this is for: researchers working on RL for occupant comfort or simulation-based control with physiological sensing. I'd send it to referees—the idea deserves scrutiny and the flaws are fixable—but I wouldn't cite the sleep-quality result as evidence yet.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a PPO-based intelligent cruise control framework that selects a discrete driving aggressiveness level from multimodal observations (wearable wrist motion, vehicle control signals, and route map information). The aggressiveness level is mapped to CARLA Autopilot parameters, and infant sleep is modeled by a mass-spring-damper that produces a simulated wrist acceleration signal in Eq. (12), with a fixed threshold used for episode termination during training. The reward is based solely on the ratio of estimated to actual arrival time at checkpoints. Experiments in CARLA with LSTM and Transformer policies are compared against fixed and random aggressiveness baselines, reporting lower simulated wake-up rates and comparable trip latency.

Significance. If the synthetic sleep model were validated against real infant responses, the application of RL to infant comfort in automated driving would be a novel and timely contribution, and the multimodal observation design, including route context, is a sensible starting point. However, the central result currently rests on an unvalidated and under-specified physics proxy, and the evaluation is self-referential in the sense that training and evaluation use the same simulated sleep signal. The paper does not ship code or data, so reproducibility is limited. The strengths are the clear problem formulation, the use of standard PPO with two sequence models, and the explicit algorithmic description; the claims, however, need to be scaled back or the underlying model needs external validation.

major comments (4)

[Section V-A, Eq. (12)] The wrist-acceleration model in Eq. (12) is the sole bridge from driving actions to infant sleep, yet it is under-specified: x(t) is never defined, and v(t) is stated to be the vehicle speed. With m=0.4 kg, k=50 N/m, and c=1.0 Ns/m, the damping term at a speed of 20 m/s contributes (1/0.4)*(1.0)*(20) = 50 m/s^2, which is 25 times the 2 m/s^2 wake threshold. Under the stated reading, an infant would be labeled awake for almost any non-negligible vehicle speed, making the sleep signal meaningless. If v(t) was intended as a relative wrist velocity, that must be stated and the model derived from a base-excited mass-spring-damper. As written, the model is internally inconsistent, and any error in it invalidates the sleep-quality improvements reported in Section V-B.
[Section III-F and Section V-B] The training termination condition (M_max >= M_thres, Section III-F) and the evaluation metrics (relative maximum movement and wake-up rate, Section V-B) are both computed from the same simulated wrist model in Eq. (12). The claimed improvement is therefore measured against the paper's own construction, with no external sleep benchmark, no real infant data, and no sensitivity analysis over the model parameters. This does not support the Abstract's statement that the method 'significantly improves infant sleep quality' as a claim about actual infant sleep; at best it demonstrates optimization within the chosen simulator.
[Section III-D] The reward function in Eq. (2) contains only schedule compliance (the ETA/ATA ratio epsilon_i). Sleep quality never enters the reward directly; it affects training only through episode termination in Section III-F. Consequently, the objective actually optimized is 'schedule compliance subject to not exceeding a threshold on the synthetic motion signal,' not a direct sleep-quality/efficiency trade-off as claimed in Sections I and II. The authors should either include a sleep-related term in the reward or explicitly restrict the claims to the termination-constrained formulation.
[Section V-B] The evaluation uses only 10 randomly sampled trip sequences per algorithm (Fig. 5), with no error bars or statistical significance tests reported, yet the Abstract asserts 'significantly improves.' The classification of samples into good/acceptable/poor by thresholds in Fig. 5 is not accompanied by the underlying distributions, and Figs. 6–7 show averages without variance or significance testing. The qualitative pattern may be plausible, but the quantitative support for a significant improvement is not established.

minor comments (5)

[Section III-B vs. Section V-A] The action space is defined as discrete integers in Eq. (1), but Section V-A states that the PPO model outputs a continuous-valued driving aggressiveness level. Please reconcile this inconsistency and clarify how the discrete action set is actually used in training and evaluation.
[Section III-D] The reward function R(.) is said to be shown in Fig. 2, but Fig. 2's caption describes decision-making checkpoints, not the reward shape. The exponential form for the range epsilon_th < epsilon_i < 1 is described only verbally; a concrete formula or plot would improve reproducibility.
[Section III-D] The phrase 'when ATA is significantly higher than ETA, i.e., when epsilon_i is lower than a threshold' is slightly confusing because epsilon_i = tE_i/tA_i, so a lower epsilon_i does correspond to a higher ATA, but the wording could be clearer.
[Section V-A] The mass-spring-damper parameters m=0.4 kg, k=50 N/m, c=1.0 Ns/m are introduced without justification or citation. Since these parameters drive the entire sleep proxy, a sensitivity study or a derivation from the cited reference [20] is needed.
[Fig. 4] The convergence plot in Fig. 4 has garbled axis labels and no clear description of what is plotted against the y-axis (accumulated reward) or how the two curves should be compared. Please provide a legible figure and a precise caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: the simulated wrist-acceleration model is an unvalidated input assumption, not a fitted/predicted quantity, and the paper contains no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the RL controller is trained with PPO (Section IV) using a schedule-based reward (Eq. 2) and an episode-termination condition (Section III-F) defined by the simulated wrist acceleration from Eq. (12); the evaluation metrics (relative maximum movement and wake-up rate, Section V-B) use the same simulated IMU output. This shared model creates a validity concern—the sleep-quality proxy is not calibrated to real infant data, and Eq. (12) leaves x(t) unspecified—but it is not a circular reduction of the paper's claimed results. No parameter is fitted to the evaluation metric and then renamed a prediction; no self-citation is load-bearing (the authors do not cite their own prior work); and no uniqueness theorem is imported to force the choice. The paper explicitly defers real-world deployment and more accurate sleep-state estimation to future work (Section VI), which is an admitted limitation rather than a hidden circular step. Therefore the central 'improvement' claim has independent algorithmic content within the stated simulation assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an unvalidated simulated sleep model, hand-chosen thresholds, and a reward that only encodes schedule compliance. No external benchmarks or real infant data are used.

free parameters (5)

mass-spring-damper constants m, k, c = m=0.4 kg, k=50 N/m, c=1.0 Ns/m
Used in Eq. (12) to convert vehicle acceleration into wrist acceleration. Chosen by hand, no infant data.
wake threshold = 2 m/s^2 (max wrist acceleration over 3 s)
Used to label the infant as awake and terminate episodes. Chosen by hand.
aggressiveness-to-control mapping coefficients = Ps=1.5*ai, Pd=6.0-0.4*ai, Pu=1000-70*ai, Pa=I{ai>=2}, Pr=100-10*ai
Maps action ai to autopilot configuration in CARLA; coefficients are hand-set.
reward threshold epsilon_th and reward shape = not specified
Defines the piecewise-exponential R(epsilon) in Section III.D; shape and threshold are not derived from data.
observation window and sequence length = 3 s, K=5
IMU window for wake detection and LSTM/Transformer sequence length; hand-chosen.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The simulated mass-spring-damper model in Eq. (12) faithfully represents infant wrist motion under vehicle acceleration.
Central link between driving actions and sleep outcome; no real infant data.
domain assumption Infant wakefulness can be inferred from a fixed wrist acceleration threshold (2 m/s^2).
Used both for episode termination and sleep evaluation.
domain assumption Lower driving aggressiveness reduces infant motion and improves sleep, all else equal.
The design premise behind the aggressiveness mapping and reward discounting.
domain assumption CARLA's TrafficManager Autopilot with the aggressiveness-dependent parameters is an adequate vehicle dynamics environment.
Simulation fidelity assumption.
standard math PPO with MLP+LSTM/Transformer converges to a sufficiently good policy in this setting.
Standard RL algorithm; convergence is empirical, no formal guarantee.
ad hoc to paper The reward can be based only on schedule compliance because sleep enters through episode termination.
This is the paper's specific design choice, and it is contradicted by the stated objective of balancing sleep and efficiency.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Infant Sleep-Optimized Driving: Synergizing Wearable and Vehicle Sensing in Intelligent Cruise Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TEIFWENF

@misc{pith2026250606459,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Infant Sleep-Optimized Driving: Synergizing Wearable and Vehicle Sensing in Intelligent Cruise Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TEIFWENF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06459}
}

read the original abstract

Automated driving (AD) has substantially improved vehicle safety and driving comfort, but their impact on passenger well-being, particularly infant sleep, is not sufficiently studied. Sudden acceleration, abrupt braking, and sharp maneuvers can disrupt infant sleep, compromising both passenger comfort and parental convenience. To solve this problem, this paper explores the integration of reinforcement learning (RL) within AD to personalize driving behavior and optimally balance occupant comfort and travel efficiency. In particular, we propose an intelligent cruise control framework that adapts to varying driving conditions to enhance infant sleep quality by effectively synergizing wearable sensing and vehicle data. Long short-term memory (LSTM) and transformer-based neural networks are integrated with RL to model the relationship between driving behavior and infant sleep quality under diverse traffic and road conditions. Based on the sleep quality indicators from the wearable sensors, driving action data from vehicle controllers, and map data from map applications, the model dynamically computes the optimal driving aggressiveness level, which is subsequently translated into specific AD control strategies, e.g., the magnitude and frequency of acceleration, lane change, and overtaking. Simulation experiments conducted in the CARLA environment indicate that the proposed solution significantly improves infant sleep quality compared to baseline methods, while preserving desirable travel efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06459 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** An illustration of the decision-making checkpoints [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Proposed LSTM and Transformer based network struc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Convergence process of the proposed algorithm for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Average late rate with different algorithms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Average wake-up rate with different algorithms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Comfort in autom ated driving: A literature survey and a high-level integrative f ramework,

V . Domova, R. M. Currano, and D. Sirkin, “Comfort in autom ated driving: A literature survey and a high-level integrative f ramework,” Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, W earable and Ubi quitous Technologies, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1–23, Sep. 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Mitigation of motion sickness and optimization of motion c omfort in autonomous vehicles: Systematic survey,

Y . Zhang, H. Zhao, C. Hu, Y . Tian, Y . Li, X. Jiao, and G. Wen, “Mitigation of motion sickness and optimization of motion c omfort in autonomous vehicles: Systematic survey,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 21 737–21 756, Oct. 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Scenario-function system for automotive intellig ent cockpits: Framework, research progress and perspectives,

H. Chen, R. Gao, L. Fan, E. Liu, W. Li, R. Tan, Y . Li, L. He, an d D. Cao, “Scenario-function system for automotive intellig ent cockpits: Framework, research progress and perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4890–4904, Mar. 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Modeling and vi bration control of a three-degree-of-freedom electrically interc onnected seat sus- pension system for heavy-duty vehicle,

H. Zhan, P . Liu, X. Xia, D. Ning, and H. Du, “Modeling and vi bration control of a three-degree-of-freedom electrically interc onnected seat sus- pension system for heavy-duty vehicle,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, pp. 1–10, 2025

work page 2025
[5]

The association between in fant sleep, cognitive, and psychomotor development: a systematic revi ew,

B. Butler, R. Burdayron, G. Mazor-Goder, C. Lewis, M. V en dette, B. Khoury, and M.-H. Pennestri, “The association between in fant sleep, cognitive, and psychomotor development: a systematic revi ew,” Sleep, vol. 47, no. 11, p. zsae174, Nov. 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Childhood sleep: physical, cognitive, and behavioral con sequences and implications,

J. Liu, X. Ji, S. Pitt, G. Wang, E. Rovit, T. Lipman, and F. J iang, “Childhood sleep: physical, cognitive, and behavioral con sequences and implications,” W orld Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 122–132, Feb. 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Comfort-oriented motion planning for automated vehicles using deep reinforcement l earning,

N. Rajesh, Y . Zheng, and B. Shyrokau, “Comfort-oriented motion planning for automated vehicles using deep reinforcement l earning,” IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 4, pp. 348–359, May 2023

work page 2023
[8]

A deep reinforcement learning based motion c ueing al- gorithm for vehicle driving simulation,

H. Scheidel, H. Asadi, T. Bellmann, A. Seefried, S. Moham ed, and S. Nahavandi, “A deep reinforcement learning based motion c ueing al- gorithm for vehicle driving simulation,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 9696–9705, Mar. 2024

work page 2024

Show all 20 references

[9]

Mitigating m otion sickness in autonomous vehicles for improved passenger com fort,

A. Wadi, M. Abdel-Hafez, and M. A. Jaradat, “Mitigating m otion sickness in autonomous vehicles for improved passenger com fort,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 62 709–62 718, Apr. 2024

2024
[10]

Ideal comfort ellipses and comfort dynamics model for mitigating motion s ickness in battery electric vehicle,

Z. Shi, L. He, M. Wang, Y . Bian, S. Cui, and P . Chen, “Ideal comfort ellipses and comfort dynamics model for mitigating motion s ickness in battery electric vehicle,” V ehicle System Dynamics, pp. 1–17, Dec. 2024

2024
[11]

Study of human comfort in autonomous ve hicles using wearable sensors,

H. Su and Y . Jia, “Study of human comfort in autonomous ve hicles using wearable sensors,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 11 490–11 504, Aug. 2021

2021
[12]

Reinforcement le arning from human feedback for lane changing of autonomous vehicles in m ixed trafﬁc,

Y . Wang, L. Liu, M. Wang, and X. Xiong, “Reinforcement le arning from human feedback for lane changing of autonomous vehicles in m ixed trafﬁc,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/a bs/2408.04447

2024 arXiv
[13]

Driving into the future: A sc oping review of smartwatch use for real-time driver monitoring,

R. E. Barka and I. Politis, “Driving into the future: A sc oping review of smartwatch use for real-time driver monitoring,” Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, vol. 25, p. 101098, May 2024

2024
[14]

M otion sickness mitigating algorithms and control strategy for autonomous vehicles,

M. R. Siddiqi, S. Milani, R. N. Jazar, and H. Marzbani, “M otion sickness mitigating algorithms and control strategy for autonomous vehicles,” IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 304–315, Oct. 2022

2022
[15]

Comfort improvement for autonomou s vehicles using reinforcement learning with in-situ human feedback,

J. Xiang and L. Guo, “Comfort improvement for autonomou s vehicles using reinforcement learning with in-situ human feedback, ” SAE Tech- nical Paper, Mar. 2022

2022
[16]

Model Y owner’s manual,

“Model Y owner’s manual,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/en us/

2025
[17]

A systematic review of sensing technolog ies for wearable sleep staging,

S. A. Imtiaz, “A systematic review of sensing technolog ies for wearable sleep staging,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 5, p. 1562, Feb. 2021

2021
[18]

Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P . Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. K limov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” 2017. [Online ]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347

2017 arXiv
[19]

Carla: An open urban driving simulator,

A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V . Ko ltun, “Carla: An open urban driving simulator,” in Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2017, pp. 1–16

2017
[20]

Mechanical impedance and its relations to motor control, limb dynamics, and motion biomechanics,

J. Mizrahi, “Mechanical impedance and its relations to motor control, limb dynamics, and motion biomechanics,” Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1–20, Jan. 2015

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Comfort in autom ated driving: A literature survey and a high-level integrative f ramework,

V . Domova, R. M. Currano, and D. Sirkin, “Comfort in autom ated driving: A literature survey and a high-level integrative f ramework,” Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, W earable and Ubi quitous Technologies, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1–23, Sep. 2024

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Mitigation of motion sickness and optimization of motion c omfort in autonomous vehicles: Systematic survey,

Y . Zhang, H. Zhao, C. Hu, Y . Tian, Y . Li, X. Jiao, and G. Wen, “Mitigation of motion sickness and optimization of motion c omfort in autonomous vehicles: Systematic survey,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 21 737–21 756, Oct. 2024

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Scenario-function system for automotive intellig ent cockpits: Framework, research progress and perspectives,

H. Chen, R. Gao, L. Fan, E. Liu, W. Li, R. Tan, Y . Li, L. He, an d D. Cao, “Scenario-function system for automotive intellig ent cockpits: Framework, research progress and perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4890–4904, Mar. 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Modeling and vi bration control of a three-degree-of-freedom electrically interc onnected seat sus- pension system for heavy-duty vehicle,

H. Zhan, P . Liu, X. Xia, D. Ning, and H. Du, “Modeling and vi bration control of a three-degree-of-freedom electrically interc onnected seat sus- pension system for heavy-duty vehicle,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, pp. 1–10, 2025

work page 2025

[5] [5]

The association between in fant sleep, cognitive, and psychomotor development: a systematic revi ew,

B. Butler, R. Burdayron, G. Mazor-Goder, C. Lewis, M. V en dette, B. Khoury, and M.-H. Pennestri, “The association between in fant sleep, cognitive, and psychomotor development: a systematic revi ew,” Sleep, vol. 47, no. 11, p. zsae174, Nov. 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Childhood sleep: physical, cognitive, and behavioral con sequences and implications,

J. Liu, X. Ji, S. Pitt, G. Wang, E. Rovit, T. Lipman, and F. J iang, “Childhood sleep: physical, cognitive, and behavioral con sequences and implications,” W orld Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 122–132, Feb. 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Comfort-oriented motion planning for automated vehicles using deep reinforcement l earning,

N. Rajesh, Y . Zheng, and B. Shyrokau, “Comfort-oriented motion planning for automated vehicles using deep reinforcement l earning,” IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 4, pp. 348–359, May 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

A deep reinforcement learning based motion c ueing al- gorithm for vehicle driving simulation,

H. Scheidel, H. Asadi, T. Bellmann, A. Seefried, S. Moham ed, and S. Nahavandi, “A deep reinforcement learning based motion c ueing al- gorithm for vehicle driving simulation,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 9696–9705, Mar. 2024

work page 2024