Cited by 133

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Modeling and Predicting Trust Dynamics in Human–Robot Teaming: A Bayesian Inference Approach

Guo, Yaohui, Yang, X. Jessie·2021·International Journal of Social Robotics

Abstract

Trust in automation, or more recently trust in autonomy, has received extensive research attention in the past three decades. The majority of prior literature adopted a “snapshot” view of trust and typically evaluated trust through questionnaires administered at the end of an experiment. This “snapshot” view, however, does not acknowledge that trust is a dynamic variable that can strengthen or decay over time. To fill the research gap, the present study aims to model trust dynamics when a human interacts with a robotic agent over time. The underlying premise of the study is that by interacting with a robotic agent and observing its performance over time, a rational human agent will update his/her trust in the robotic agent accordingly. Based on this premise, we develop a personalized trust prediction model and learn its parameters using Bayesian inference. Our proposed model adheres to three properties of trust dynamics characterizing human agents’ trust development process de facto and thus guarantees high model explicability and generalizability. We tested the proposed method using an existing dataset involving 39 human participants interacting with four drones in a simulated surveillance mission. The proposed method obtained a root mean square error of 0.072, significantly outperforming existing prediction methods. Moreover, we identified three distinct types of trust dynamics, the Bayesian decision maker, the oscillator, and the disbeliever, respectively. This prediction model can be used for the design of individualized and adaptive technologies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12369-020-00703-3

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Murphy RR (2004) Human–robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, Cybern, Part C (Appl Rev) 34(2):138–153 · DOI
  2. Unhelkar VV, Siu HC, Shah JA (2014) Comparative performance of human and mobile robotic assistants in collaborative fetch-and-deliver tasks. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’14). ACM, pp 82–89 · DOI
  3. Rantanen P, Parkkari T, Leikola S, Airaksinen M, Lyles A (2017) An in-home advanced robotic system to manage elderly home-care patients’ medications: a pilot safety and usability study. Clin Ther 39(5):1054–1061 · DOI
  4. Du N, Huang KY, Yang XJ (2020) Not all information is equal: effects of disclosing different types of likelihood information on trust, compliance and reliance, and task performance in human-automation teaming. Hum Factors 62(6):987–1001 · DOI
  5. Lewis M, Sycara K, Walker P (2018) The role of trust in human–robot interaction. Springer, Cham, pp 135–159
  6. de Visser EJ, Peeters MM, Jung MF, Kohn S, Shaw TH, Pak R, Neerincx MA (2020) Towards a theory of longitudinal trust calibration in human–robot teams. Int J Soc Robot 12(2):459–478 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Rossi A, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML (2017) How the timing and magnitude of robot errors influence peoples’ trust of robots in an emergency scenario. In: Kheddar A et al (eds) Social Robotics. ICSR 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10652. Springer, Cham
  8. Schaefer KE, Billings DR, Szalma JL, Adams JK, Sanders TL, Chen JY, Hancock PA (2014) A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: implications for human–robot interaction. Tech rep, Army Research Laboratory · DOI
  9. Merritt SM, Heimbaugh H, Lachapell J, Lee D (2013) I trust it, but i don’t know why: effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Hum Factors 55(3):520–534 · DOI
  10. Ullman D, Malle BF (2017) Human–robot trust: just a button press away. In: Proceedings of the companion of the 12th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’17). ACM, pp 309–310 · DOI
  11. Hu WL, Akash K, Jain N, Reid T (2016) Real-time sensing of trust in human-machine interactions. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(32):48–53 · DOI
  12. Lee J, Moray N (1992) Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35(10):1243–1270 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Lu Y (2020) Detecting and overcoming trust miscalibration in real time using an eye-tracking based technique. PhD thesis, University of Michigan
  14. Lu Y, Sarter N (2019) Eye tracking: a process-oriented method for inferring trust in automation as a function of priming and system reliability. IEEE Trans Hum-Mach Syst 49(6):560–568 · DOI
  15. Xu A, Dudek G (2015) Optimo: online probabilistic trust inference model for asymmetric human–robot collaborations. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’15). ACM Press, pp 221–228 · DOI
  16. Yang XJ, Wickens CD, Hölttä-Otto K (2016) How users adjust trust in automation: contrast effect and hindsight bias. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Ann Meet 60:196–200 · DOI
  17. Ezer N, Fisk AD, Rogers WA (2008) Age-related differences in reliance behavior attributable to costs within a human-decision aid system. Hum Factors 50(6):853–863 · DOI
  18. McBride SE, Rogers WA, Fisk AD (2011) Understanding the effect of workload on automation use for younger and older adults. Hum Factors 53(6):672–686 · DOI
  19. Rau PP, Li Y, Li D (2009) Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Comput Hum Behav 25(2):587–595 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Salem M, Lakatos G, Amirabdollahian F, Dautenhahn K (2015) Would you trust a (faulty) robot?: effects of error, task type and personality on human–robot cooperation and trust. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’15). IEEE, pp 141–148 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Wickens CD, Rice S, Keller D, Hutchins S, Hughes J, Clayton K (2009) False alerts in air traffic control conflict alerting system: is there a “cry wolf” effect? Hum Factors 51(4):446–462 · DOI
  22. Rau PLP, Li Y, Liu J (2013) Effects of a social robot’s autonomy and group orientation on human decision-making. Adv Hum-Comput Interact 2013:263721 · DOI
  23. Schneider S, Kummert F (2020) Comparing robot and human guided personalization: adaptive exercise robots are perceived as more competent and trustworthy. Int J Soc Robot 1–17 · DOI
  24. Wang N, Pynadath DV, Hill SG (2016) Trust calibration within a human–robot team: comparing automatically generated explanations. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’16). IEEE, pp 109–116 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Bainbridge WA, Hart JW, Kim ES, Scassellati B (2011) The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int J Soc Robot 3(1):41–52 · DOI
  26. Martelaro N, Nneji VC, Ju W, Hinds P (2016) Tell me more: designing hri to encourage more trust, disclosure, and companionship. In: The 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’16). IEEE, pp 181–188 · DOI
  27. Waytz A, Heafner J, Epley N (2014) The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J Exp Soc Psychol 52:113–117 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Zhang MY, Yang XJ (2017) Evaluating effects of workload on trust in automation, attention allocation and dual-task performance. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Ann Meet 61(1):1799–1803 · DOI
  29. Tanner WP, Swets JA (1954) A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychol Rev 61(6):401–409 · DOI
  30. Neil AM, Douglas C (2005) Detection theory: a user’s guide, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
  31. Lloyd SP (1982) Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 28(2):129–137 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Thorndike RL (1953) Who belongs in the family? Psychometrika 18(4):267–276 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Guo, Y., & Yang, X. J.
Venue
International Journal of Social Robotics
Published
2020-10-04
Volume
13
Issue
8
Pages
1899-1909
ISSN
  • 1875-4791
  • 1875-4805
Cited by
133
References
7
Language
en
Funders
Army Research Laboratory (W911NF-20-2-0087)

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