Cited by 59Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsEmotion and Mood RecognitionHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

In AI We Trust: Investigating the Relationship between Biosignals, Trust and Cognitive Load in VR

Gupta, Kunal, Hajika, Ryo, Pai, Yun Suen, Duenser, Andreas, Lochner, Martin, Billinghurst, Mark·2019·25th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology

Abstract

Human trust is a psycho-physiological state that is difficult to measure, yet is becoming increasingly important for the design of human-computer interactions. This paper explores if human trust can be measured using physiological measures when interacting with a computer interface, and how it correlates with cognitive load. In this work, we present a pilot study in Virtual Reality (VR) that uses a multi-sensory approach of Electroencephalography (EEG), galvanic skin response (GSR), and Heart Rate Variability (HRV) to measure trust with a virtual agent and explore the correlation between trust and cognitive load. The goal of this study is twofold; 1) to determine the relationship between biosignals, or physiological signals with trust and cognitive load, and 2) to introduce a pilot study in VR based on cognitive load level to evaluate trust. Even though we could not report any significant main effect or interaction of cognitive load and trust from the physiological signal, we found that in low cognitive load tasks, EEG alpha band power reflects trustworthiness on the agent. Moreover, cognitive load of the user decreases when the agent is accurate regardless of task’s cognitive load. This could be possible because of small sample size, tasks not stressful enough to induce high cognitive load due to lab study and comfortable environment or timestamp synchronisation error due to fusing data from various physiological sensors with different sample rate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3359996.3364276

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • No study has explored the characterization of human trust in and reliance on AI through eye gaze tracking.

    “However, no study has explored the characterization of human trust in and reliance on AI through eye gaze tracking.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gupta, K., Hajika, R., Pai, Y. S., Duenser, A., Lochner, M., & Billinghurst, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
Venue
25th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-11-12
Pages
1-10
OpenAlex
W2983152572
Cited by
59
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3
FWCI
4.45
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST) (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
cognitive load, physiological signals, virtual reality, EEG, skin conductance, heart rate variability, trustworthiness, human-computer interaction

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