Table 4. Difference between the the “time to reported-fatigue” and “time to detected-fatigue” in seconds using different thresholds for the fatigue detection algorithm.
Time-gap was calculated only for those subjects who had instances of both reported and detected fatigue. For the other participants, the time-gap could not be calculated due to the absence of a reported-fatigue because of the reasons mentioned above. Also, a few other subjects had a negative time-gap due to reporting fatigue prior to automatically detecting fatigue.
| Participant No | Group | 2-STD | 3-STD | 4-STD | 5-STD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject 1 | Intervention | -248.228 | -338.228 | -338.228 | 147.772 |
| Subject 3 | Control 1 | 406.949 | 375.946 | 375.946 | 333.946 |
| Subject 4 | Control 2 | -348 | NA | NA | NA |
| Subject 5 | Control 2 | 83.545 | NA | NA | NA |
| Subject 9 | Intervention | 841.576 | 829.574 | 829.574 | 829.574 |
| Subject 12 | Intervention | 737.331 | 707.329 | 707.329 | 659.329 |
| Subject 18 | Intervention | 376.438 | 250.438 | 16.438 | 4.438 |
| Subject 19 | Intervention | 268.725 | NA | NA | NA |
| Subject 21 | Intervention | 1043.206 | 1037.206 | 1037.206 | 1013.204 |
| Subject 22 | Control 2 | 198.03 | 198.03 | 198.03 | 198.03 |
| Subject 23 | Control 2 | -69.189 | NA | NA | NA |
| Subject 24 | Control 2 | 324.039 | 294.037 | 288.037 | 228.037 |
| Subject 26 | Control 2 | 277.493 | 115.493 | 109.493 | 79.493 |
| Subject 30 | Control 2 | 91.181 | 49.179 | 43.179 | 7.179 |