skip to main content

Title: Comparison and Quantification of Cognitive Load generated by Sternberg Test using EEG Signals
Driven by the increasing complexity of built environments, firefighters are often exposed to extensive wayfinding information which could cause high cognitive load and ineffective or even dangerous decision making. To reduce injuries and fatal incidents in firefighters’ line of duty, this study aims at measuring the cognitive load and identifying the source of such cognitive overload in wayfinding information review. We developed a Sternberg Test to induce cognitive load on participants pertaining to working memory development, where participants were required to memorize colors, letters, numbers, directions, icons, words, and letter combinations that are relevant to wayfinding tasks. We used an Electroencephalogram (EEG) device to monitor neural activities especially in frontal, parietal, and occipital areas of brain. The fast Fourier transformation (FFT) was applied to separate the sub-band energy. The speed of response in Sternberg Test and the EEG signals were compared to show the coherence between the results of the two methods in representing the cognitive load in the review test. Results indicate that the cognitive load arises from diverse information can be measured to help customize wayfinding information for controlled cognitive load of firefighters in wayfinding tasks.
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Construction Research Congress 2020
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Firefighters are often exposed to extensive wayfinding information in various formats owing to the increasing complexity of the built environment. Because of the individual differences in processing assorted types of information, a personalized cognition-driven intelligent system is necessary to reduce the cognitive load and improve the performance in the wayfinding tasks. However, the mixed and multi-dimensional information during the wayfinding tasks bring severe challenges to intelligent systems in detecting and nowcasting the attention of users. In this research, a virtual wayfinding experiment is designed to simulate the human response when subjects are memorizing or recalling different wayfinding information. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are designed for automated attention detection based on the power spectrum density of electroencephalography (EEG) data collected during the experiment. The performance of the personalized model and the generalized model are compared and the result shows a personalized CNN is a powerful classifier in detecting the attention of users with high accuracy and efficiency. The study thus will serve a foundation to support the future development of personalized cognition-driven intelligent systems.
  2. Amid the rapid development of building information technologies, wayfinding information has become more accessible to building users and first responders. As a result, a realistic risk of cognitive load related to the wayfinding information processing starts to emerge. As cognition-driven adaptive wayfinding information systems become increasingly captivated to overcome challenges of cognition overload due to overwhelming information, a practical and non-invasive method to monitor and classify cognitive loads during the processing of wayfinding information is needed. This paper tests a Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) based method to identify cognitive load related to wayfinding information processing. It provides a holistic fNIRS signal analytical pipeline to extract hemodynamic response features in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) for cognitive load classification. A human-subject experiment (N=15) based on the Sternberg working memory test was performed to model the relationship between fNIRS features and cognitive load. Personalized models were also evaluated to capture individual differences and identify unique contributing features to each person. The results find that fNIRS-based model can help classify cognitive load changes driven by the different levels of task difficulty with satisfactory performance (avg. accuracy rate 70.02±4.41 percent). The findings also demonstrate that personalized models, instead of universal models, are needed for classifyingmore »cognitive load based on neuroimaging data. fNIRS has demonstrated comparable advantages over other neuroimaging methods in cognitive load classification given its robustness to motion artifacts and the satisfactory predictability.« less
  3. Owing to the increasing dynamics and complexity of construction tasks, workers often need to memorize a big amount of engineering information prior to the operations, such as spatial orientations and operational procedures. The working memory development, as a result, is critical to the performance and safety of many construction tasks. This study investigates how the format of engineering information affects human working memory based on a human-subject Virtual Reality (VR) experiment (n=90). A VR model was created to simulate a pipe maintenance task. First, participants were asked to review the task procedures in one of the following formats, including 2D isometric drawings, 3D model, and VR model. After the review session, participants were asked to perform the pipe maintenance task in the virtual environment based on their working memory. The operation accuracy and time were used as the key performance indicators of the working memory development. The experiment results indicate that the 3D and VR groups outperformed the 2D group in both operation accuracy and time, suggesting that a more immersive instruction leads to a better working memory. A further examination finds that the 2D group presented a significantly higher level of intrinsic cognitive load and extraneous cognitive load inmore »the working memory development compared to the 3D and VR groups, indicating that different engineering information formats can cause different levels of cognitive load in working memory development, and ultimately affect the final performance. The findings are expected to inspire the design of intelligent information systems that adapt to the cognitive load of construction workers for improved working memory development.« less
  4. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEGmore »channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997.« less
  5. Modern buildings with increasing complexity can cause serious difficulties for first responders in emergency wayfinding. While real-time data collection and information analytics become easier in indoor wayfinding, a new challenge has arisen: cognitive overload due to information redundancy. Standardized and universal spatial information systems are still widely used in emergency wayfinding, ignoring first responders’ individual difference in information intake. This paper proposes and tests the theoretical framework of a spatial information systems for first responders, which reflects their individual difference in information preference and helps reduce the cognitive load in line of duty. The proposed method includes the use of Virtual Reality (VR) experiments to simulate real world buildings, and the modeling of first responders’ reactions to different information formats and contents in simulated wayfinding tasks. This work is expected to set a foundation of future spatial information system that correctly and effectively responds to first responders’ needs.