An evaluation and comparison of commercial driver sleepiness detection technology: a rapid review.

Abstract

Objective. Sleepiness-related motor vehicle crashes, caused by lack of sleep or driving during night-time hours, often result in serious injury or fatality. Sleepiness detection technology is rapidly emerging as a sleepiness risk mitigation strategy for drivers. Continuous monitoring technologies assess and alert to driver sleepiness in real-time, while fit for duty technologies provide a single assessment of sleepiness state. The aim of this rapid review was to evaluate and compare sleepiness detection technologies in relation to specifications, cost, target consumer group and validity.Approach. We evaluated a range of sleepiness detection technologies suitable for consumer groups ranging from regular drivers in private vehicles through to work-related drivers within large businesses.Main results. Continuous monitoring technologies typically ranged between $100 and $3000 AUD and had ongoing monthly costs for telematics functionality and manager alerts. Fit for duty technologies had either a one-off purchase cost or a monthly subscription cost. Of concern, the majority of commercial continuous monitoring technologies lacked scientific validation. While some technologies had promising findings in terms of their ability to detect and reduce driver sleepiness, further validation work is required. Field studies that evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of technology alerts under conditions that are regularly experienced by drivers are necessary. Additionally, there is a need for longitudinal naturalistic driving studies to determine whether sleepiness detection technologies actually reduce sleepiness-related crashes or near-crashes.Significance. There is an abundance of sleepiness detection technologies on the market, but a majority lacked validation. There is a need for these technologies and their validation to be regulated by a driver safety body. Otherwise, consumers will base their technology choices on cost and features, rather than the ability to save lives.