Detecting Human Trust Calibration in Automation: A Convolutional Neural Network Approach
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
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?
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.”
From Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [20]
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
- Licence
- 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