A Neuro-Symbolic System for Interpretable Multimodal Physiological Signals Integration in Human Fatigue Detection
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Electronic Engineering, University of Essex, United Kingdom
Abstract
We propose a neuro-symbolic architecture that learns four interpretable physiological concepts, oculomotor dynamics, gaze stability, prefrontal hemodynamics, and multimodal, from eye-tracking and neural hemodynamics, functional near-infrared spectroscopy, (fNIRS) windows using attention-based encoders, and combines them with differentiable approximate reasoning rules using learned weights and soft thresholds, to address both rigid hand-crafted rules and the lack of subject-level alignment diagnostics. We apply this system to fatigue classification from multimodal physiological signals, a domain that requires models that are accurate and interpretable, with internal reasoning that can be inspected for safety-critical use. In leave-one-subject-out evaluation on 18 participants (560 samples), the method achieves 72.1% +/- 12.3% accuracy, comparable to tuned baselines while exposing concept activations and rule firing strengths. Ablations indicate gains from participant-specific calibration (+5.2 pp), a modest drop without the fNIRS concept (-1.2 pp), and slightly better performance with Lukasiewicz operators than product (+0.9 pp). We also introduce concept fidelity, an offline per-subject audit metric from held-out labels, which correlates strongly with per-subject accuracy (r=0.843, p < 0.0001).
Figures & tables
| Component | Core details |
|---|---|
| Eye-tracking | EyeLink 1000 Plus (2000 Hz); timestamps reconstructed to remove LSL jitter/duplicates. |
| fNIRS | 8-channel CW; bandpass 0.01–0.2 Hz; flat channels ( ) removed. |
| Pupil preprocessing | Blink detection at below median, 50 ms dilation, linear interpolation; bandpass 0.01–4.0 Hz. |
| Windows | Modalities aligned to 10 Hz; 10 s windows with 50% overlap; eye features computed at native rate then aggregated. |
| Labels | Alert (baseline) vs. Fatigued (post-induction); 560 samples (280/280). |
| Modality | Feature Groups & Metrics | Dim. |
|---|---|---|
| Eye: Pupil | Stat: , range, skew, kurtosis. Dyn: of and . Spec: Bandpower (LF, HF, Ratio), SampEn, Coeff. Var | 16 |
| Eye: Oculomotor | Dispersion: , corr , spatial . Kinematics: Velocity ( ), accel. stats. Events: Saccade rate, fixation prop. Trend: Linear fit slope , angular stats, SampEn . | 18 |
| Eye: Eyelid | Blink: Rate, duration/IBI stats ( ), Percentage of Eye Closure (PERCLOS) (total & weighted). | 8 |
| fNIRS | Global: , skew, range of channel-mean & deriv. Spec: VLF, LF, HF powers & ratios. Regional: , SampEn per ROI (8 groups). Sym: L/R diff stats ( ), corr(L,R), A/P contrast. Cmplx: Global SampEn, Hurst exp., outlier prop. | 48 |
| Rule | Antecedent Consequent | Firing Strength |
|---|---|---|
| IF is HIGH THEN Fatigue is LIKELY | ||
| IF ( is HIGH) OR ( is HIGH) THEN Fatigue is LIKELY | ||
| IF (Weighted Concept Sum) is HIGH THEN Fatigue is LIKELY |
| Method | Accuracy (%) † | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| NeSy (Ours) | 72.1 12.3 | [66.4, 77.8] |
| No Logic (Ablation) | 72.0 12.1 | [66.4, 77.6] |
| Tuned Baselines (nested CV): | ||
| SVM-RBF | 69.4 13.5 | [63.2, 75.7] |
| Random Forest | 66.6 12.3 | [60.9, 72.3] |
| Extra Trees | 68.3 14.3 | [61.7, 74.9] |
| Strategy | Accuracy (%) | Std (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Global ∗ | 80.3 | 10.1 |
| Participant-Aware (Calibration) † | 72.1 | 12.3 |
| No-Calibration (Train-Only) | 66.9 | 8.3 |
| ∗ Population statistics estimated from the training cohort; may not transfer to unseen users | ||
| † Primary configuration; calibration, no test labels used | ||
| Configuration | Accuracy (%) | (pp) |
|---|---|---|
| Full Model (Calibration) | 72.1 | – |
| Without (Oculomotor Dynamics) | 73.4 | +1.3 |
| Without (Gaze Stability) | 72.4 | +0.3 |
| Without (Prefrontal Hemodynamics) | 70.9 | -1.2 |
| Without (Multimodal) | 71.2 | -0.9 |
| Operator | Accuracy (%) | Std (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product | 72.0 | 12.0 | – |
| Łukasiewicz | 72.9 | 12.2 | +0.9 |
| Gödel (min/max) | 72.2 | 12.3 | +0.2 |
| Configuration | Accuracy (%) | Std (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Learned Thresholds | 72.1 | 12.3 |
| Fixed Thresholds ( ) | 70.6 | 12.2 |
| ID | Acc | C-Fid | R-Fid | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P007 | 96.7 | 0.75 | 0.83 | -0.03 | +0.09 | -0.01 |
| P006 | 86.4 | 0.55 | 0.56 | -0.05 | +0.10 | -0.00 |
| P010 | 85.0 | 0.46 | 0.48 | -0.05 | +0.10 | -0.00 |
| P018 | 85.0 | 0.44 | 0.61 | -0.04 | +0.06 | -0.01 |
| P011 | 83.5 | 0.45 | 0.44 | -0.04 | +0.08 | -0.00 |
| P016 | 81.4 | 0.48 | 0.47 | +0.01 | +0.05 | +0.00 |
Multimodal Model Interpretability
Multimodal model interpretability studies how AI systems combine and use images, text, audio, video, and other signals, and how to explain their decisions.
See all 122 papers