Cited by 34Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesEmotion and Mood Recognition

Detecting Human Trust Calibration in Automation: A Convolutional Neural Network Approach

Choo, Sanghyun, Nam, Chang·2022·IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems

Abstract

There is a general lack of studies that are aimed at monitoring and detecting an operator's trust calibration, even though detecting someone's adjusted trust towards automation is essential to prevent misuse and disuse of automation. The goal of this article is to propose a convolutional neural network (CNN) based framework to estimate operators’ trust levels and detect their trust calibration in automation using image features of electroencephalogram (EEG) signals preserving temporal, spectral, and spatial information. Thirteen participants performed a set of automated Air Force multiattribute task battery tasks that differed in reliability (High/Low) and credibility (High/Low) levels. The proposed framework was compared with three machine learning methods—naïve bayes, support vector machine, multilayer perceptron—in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of trust estimation and detection of trust calibration. Results of this article showed that the proposed framework had the highest performance of both trust estimation and detection of trust calibration in automation compared to the other comparison methods. This indicates that the proposed framework using the CNN classifier with the image-based EEG features could be an applicable model for estimating multilevel trust and detecting trust calibration during human-automation interaction. Also, it can help to prevent disuse and misuse of automation by estimating operators’ trust levels and monitoring their trust calib…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/thms.2021.3137015

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Results support that users can and do differentiate between low and highly reliable systems, with more reliable systems perceived as more trustworthy than less reliable systems.

    “Results of these eforts support the notion that users can and do diferentiate between low and highly reliable systems (see e.g., [19,20,69,130]), with more reliable systems being perceived as more trustworthy than less reliable systems.”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 70 · Cited by 34

Authors
Choo, S., & Nam, C.
Affiliations
North Carolina State University (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems
Published
2022-08
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
774-783
ISSN
  • 2168-2291 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-2305
OpenAlex
W4206622711
Cited by
34
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
5.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Science, ICT, Korea (2020001560)
  • Institute for Information and Communications Technology Planning and Evaluation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
trust calibration, trust evaluation, EEG, convolutional neural networks, human-automation interaction, operator monitoring

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