Cognitive-State Stimuli Tuning for Driver Hazard Alerts

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Partly-autonomous vehicles face challenges in balancing human driver and autonomous machine control, leading to issues with driver receptivity and engagement, with existing solutions resulting in high rates of false positives and negatives in alert systems.

Innovation Solution

A method and system that determine a saliency level for stimuli based on a human subject's cognitive state and a target cognitive state, using a predictive model to ensure the stimuli is seamless and directs spatial attention, with factors such as size, opacity, brightness, and location for visual stimuli, and volume, frequency, and duration for audio stimuli, to manage driver attention and engagement effectively.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If alert systems increase sensitivity to reduce false negatives, then hazard detection improves, but false positive rates increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvehazard detection accuracyVSAvoidfalse positive alerts
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSObject-generated harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts alert parameters (saliency levels, stimulus intensity, presentation duration) based on the driver's real-time cognitive state. When the driver is highly engaged, alert parameters are reduced to minimize false positives. When engagement drops, parameters are increased to ensure hazard detection, thus adapting the system's sensitivity to current operational conditions rather than using fixed thresholds.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The alert system transitions from a static, one-size-fits-all approach to a dynamic system that continuously monitors driver cognitive state and adjusts alert characteristics accordingly. The system modulates stimulus properties (visual, auditory, tactile) in real-time based on measured engagement levels, creating a adaptive feedback loop that balances safety with driver experience.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Reliability

If traditional alert systems increase stimulus intensity to ensure driver attention, then hazard response improves, but driver wellbeing deteriorates due to stress and distraction

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedriver response reliabilityVSAvoiddriver stress and distraction
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system adjusts alert stimulus parameters (intensity, modality, duration, repetition) based on the driver's cognitive state and the specific hazard context. Instead of always using high-intensity stimuli, the system selects optimal parameter combinations that achieve reliable driver response while minimizing stress. For example, it may use gentle visual cues for minor hazards and more intense multi-modal alerts for critical situations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The system introduces cognitive state monitoring as an intermediary layer between hazard detection and alert delivery. This intermediary assesses driver engagement and modulates the alert response accordingly, preventing direct transmission of high-stress alerts when the driver is already engaged, and ensuring appropriate alert intensity when engagement is low.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Productivity

If the system frequently requests driver intervention to maintain engagement, then driver attentiveness improves, but driver receptivity deteriorates due to overconfidence and anxiety

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedriver engagement levelVSAvoiddriver receptivity to control
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of constantly requesting driver intervention, the system applies partial action by selectively engaging the driver only when cognitive state thresholds are crossed or hazards are detected. This avoids excessive intervention that causes driver fatigue and receptivity deterioration, while still maintaining sufficient engagement through targeted, meaningful interactions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts the frequency and nature of driver engagement requests based on real-time cognitive state assessment. When the driver is highly engaged, intervention requests are minimized or eliminated. When engagement drops, the system gradually introduces engagement activities or alerts, adapting to the driver's current state rather than applying fixed intervention schedules.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Data Source

PatentUS11937930B2Cognitive state-based seamless stimuli
Publication Date: 2024.03.26 ADAM COGTECH LTD
  • US11937930B2 patent drawing
  • US11937930B2 patent drawing
  • US11937930B2 patent drawing

AI summary

Method, apparatus and product for providing cognitive state-based seamless stimuli. The method comprising: obtaining a cognitive state of a human subject; determining a target cognitive state for the human subject; determining, based on the cognitive state and the target cognitive state, a saliency level for a stimuli, wherein the saliency level is configured to cause the human subject to direct spatial attention to the stimuli, wherein the saliency level is configured to cause the stimuli to be seamless for the human subject given the cognitive state; and outputting the stimuli at the saliency level to be perceived by the human subject.