Transparency in a Human-Machine Context: Approaches for Fostering Shared Awareness/Intent
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Human-machine collaboration can increase transparency and accountability in AI systems, as humans can understand the reasoning behind the decisions made by these systems.
“Increased transparency: Human-machine collaboration can increase transparency and accountability in AI systems, as humans can understand the reasoning behind the decisions made by these systems.This will allow shared awareness and intent for optimal teamwork [174].”
From Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as [174]
Cites
A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans · doi:10.1109/3468.844354 · Cited by 4,195 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Taxonomies for representing different levels of automation such as those outlined in [28] could be used to signify the degree of autonomy currently allocated to the robot for a particular task.”
BackgroundMachines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00153 · Cited by 4,022 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Research has consistently demonstrated that humans naturally anthropomorphize technology [4], and this phenomenon may be more prominent within an HRI domain as humans may seek to ascribe “intention” to robotic systems given their appearance and planned usage in socially-oriented contexts [2].”
BackgroundA Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., de Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720811417254 · Cited by 2,051 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This is logical given that performance is the strongest predictor of trust within a human-robot context [13].”
BackgroundThe role of trust in automation reliance
Dzindolet, M. T., Peterson, S. A., Pomranky, R. A., Pierce, L. G., & Beck, H. P. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00038-7 · Cited by 1,276 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Hassija, V., Chamola, V., Mahapatra, A., Singal, A., Goel, D., Huang, K., Scardapane, S., Spinelli, I., Mahmud, M., & Hussain, A. (2024) · Cognitive Computation · doi:10.1007/s12559-023-10179-8 · Cited by 2,062 · see citing works
“This will allow shared awareness and intent for optimal teamwork [174].”
BackgroundIntelligent agent transparency in human–agent teaming for multi-UxV management
Mercado, J. E., Rupp, M. A., Chen, J. Y. C., Barnes, M. J., Barber, D., & Procci, K. (2016) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720815621206 · Cited by 403 · see citing works
Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies
Tolmeijer, S., Weiss, A., Hanheide, M., Lindner, F., Powers, T. M., Dixon, C., & Tielman, M. L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3319502.3374793 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Ethics, Equity, & Justice in Human-Robot Interaction: A Review and Future Directions
Ostrowski, A. K., Walker, R., Das, M., Yang, M., Breazea, C., Park, H. W., & Verma, A. (2022) · 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) · doi:10.1109/ro-man53752.2022.9900805 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lyons, J. B., & Havig, P. R.
- Affiliations
- United States Air Force Research Laboratory (US)
- ORCID
- Lyons, Joseph B.
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2014
- Pages
- 181-190
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W117178103
- Cited by
- 96
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 6.54
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Keywords
- shared awareness, human-robot interaction, autonomy, information representation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
