The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 22 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration
Open accessAbstract
Safety and efficiency of human-AI collaboration often depend on how humans could appropriately calibrate their trust towards the AI agents. Over-trusting the autonomous system sometimes causes serious safety issues. Although many studies focused on the importance of system transparency in keeping proper trust calibration, the research in detecting and mitigating improper trust calibration remains very limited. To fill these research gaps, we propose a method of adaptive trust calibration that consists of a framework for detecting the inappropriate calibration status by monitoring the user's reliance behavior and cognitive cues called "trust calibration cues" to prompt the user to reinitiate trust calibration. We evaluated our framework and four types of trust calibration cues in an online experiment using a drone simulator. A total of 116 participants performed pothole inspection tasks by using the drone's automatic inspection, the reliability of which could fluctuate depending upon the weather conditions. The participants needed to decide whether to rely on automatic inspection or to do the inspection manually. The results showed that adaptively presenting simple cues could significantly promote trust calibration during over-trust.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper proposes adaptive trust calibration: a behavior-based framework detects over-trust/under-trust and presents “trust calibration cues” (TCCs) only when needed. In an online drone-simulator experiment, adaptively presented TCCs significantly increased manual choices and improved sensitivity d′ during over-trust, whereas continuous reliability information alone did not.
Key findings
- Of 194 online participants, 116 successfully inspected at least 15 checkpoints; they completed 1,740 inspections with a correct rate of 0.74, choosing automatic inspection 1,236 times (0.71) and manual inspection 504 times (0.29).
- A two-factor mixed ANOVA found a significant main effect of weather period on manual rates [F(1, 111) = 51.69, p < 0.01] and a significant interaction between TCC group and period [F(4, 111) = 4.86, p < 0.01]. The NoTCC group did not significantly change manual rates between good and bad weather, while all TCC groups did: visual [F(1, 17) = 9.20, p < 0.01], audio [F(1, 21) = 5.54, p = 0.03], verbal [F(1, 28) = 62.9, p < 0.001], and anthropomorphic [F(1, 18) = 8.55, p < 0.01].
- In bad weather, the verbal TCC group had a significantly higher manual rate than both NoTCC [t(111) = 4.77, adj.p < 0.01] and anthropomorphic TCC [t(111) = 2.74, adj.p = 0.04].
- Sensitivity d′ in bad weather was significantly higher for the verbal group (0.92, SE 0.14) than for NoTCC [t(111) = 2.97, adj.p = 0.04, Cohen’s d = 0.75]; accuracy declined in bad weather but did not differ significantly among groups, though the verbal group had the highest mean accuracy (0.72, SE 0.04).
Methods
- Online experiment using a 3D drone simulator built with CesiumJS and Bing Map API. Participants performed a pothole inspection task over 30 checkpoints (10 with potholes, 20 without), choosing between automatic inspection and manual inspection; they were randomly assigned to NoTCC, visual, audio, verbal, or anthropomorphic TCC groups.
- Automatic inspection reliability Pauto was manipulated: good weather Pauto = 90% and d′ = 1.8; bad weather Pauto = 50% and d′ = 0.1. The framework detected over-trust by observing reliance behavior and comparing Pman and Pauto, then presented a TCC when over-trust was detected.
- Main analyses were two-factor mixed ANOVAs with TCC group as between-subjects and checkpoint period as within-subjects, plus Holm–Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc comparisons and t-tests for Pman.
Limitations
- Stated: the framework focuses only on performance-related factors, ignoring other automation benefits such as faster completion, lighter workload, or fewer risks; it evaluates only an over-trust scenario; it does not guarantee convergence of behavior; and it uses only a pothole inspection/reconnaissance task and four TCC types.
- Stated: correct answers were not shown during the task, and automatic-inspection results were shown only when participants chose automatic inspection, not manual inspection; future work should test combinations of feedback information.
- Evident: attrition was high—78 of 194 participants failed to complete the task within the time limit because they moved the drone away from the checkpoints—so the analyzed sample of 116 may not represent all recruited participants.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 22 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The participants of the group without TCC did not change their behavior when they were in over-trust status, even if the system reliability information was continuously presented.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Introduction
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that adaptively presented TCCs significantly affected the choice behavior of the participants.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Introduction
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while TCC rates in the anthro. TCC group did not follow the decreasing trend.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results > TCC rates
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and that Pman in the bad weather period was significantly larger than Pauto = 0.50 [Mean = 0.86, t(200) = 17.79, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.25].”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results > Performance: Sensitivity d′ and accuracy
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- The authors state this as an assumption: Manual accuracy can be used to estimate Pman.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One-sample t-tests showed that Pman in the good weather period was significantly smaller than Pauto = 0.90 [Mean = 0.81, t(71) = −2.17, p = 0.03, Cohen’s d = 0.26]”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results > Performance: Sensitivity d′ and accuracy
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- The authors state this as an assumption: Manual accuracy can be used to estimate Pman.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A significant interaction was found between the two factors [F(4, 111) = 4.86, p < 0.01, ].”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results > Manual rates
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the anthro. group (t(111) = 2.74, adj.p = 0.04).”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results > Manual rates
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a Welch’s t-test indicated that there was no significant difference between Pman in the good weather period and in the bad one [t(114) = −1.08, p = 0.28, Cohen’s d = 0.16].”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results > Performance: Sensitivity d′ and accuracy
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- The authors state this as an assumption: Manual accuracy can be used to estimate Pman.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No other differences between the groups were found to be significant.”
- Also stated in: § Effects of TCCs to change the participants’ behavior · plain
“The result, however, showed that its manual choice rate was not significantly larger than the one of NoTCc group.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results > Manual rates
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Effects of TCCs to change the participants’ behavior · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TCC rates in the verbal TCC group were higher in the early part of the period and gradually decreased.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results > TCC rates
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 16
- It may state two separate claims as one. 16
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The participants did the manual inspection 504 times (the choice rate = 0.29).”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, the verbal group showed the highest mean value (0.72 (SE 0.04)), and other groups with TCCs also had better accuracy values (0.6 (SE 0.04)) than the NoTCC group.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results > Performance: Sensitivity d′ and accuracy
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The visual and audio TCC groups also showed a similar trend”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results > TCC rates
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They inspected the total of 1,740 CKPs from the 1st CKP to the 15th CKP, and the results of 1,282 inspections were correct, making the correct answer rate 0.74.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 16Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the bad weather period, post-hoc comparisons indicated that the sensitivity d′ of the verbal group, which was the highest (0.92 (SE 0.14) among all the groups, was significantly higher than the sensitivity d′ of the NoTCC group [t(111) = 2.97, adj.p = 0.04, Cohen’s d = 0.75].”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results > Performance: Sensitivity d′ and accuracy
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Automatic inspection was selected 1,236 times (the choice rate = 0.71).”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Though there was no statistical difference in accuracy among the groups, all the groups with TCCs also showed better accuracy than the NoTCC group.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Discussion > Performance
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To solve this dilemma that could perpetuate an inappropriate status of trust calibration, a new trigger would be necessary in instances of over-trust or under-trust.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Introduction > Our approach: Adaptive trust calibration
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Calibration can only occur in response to new evidence that may change the users’ prevailing recognition, while no new evidence can be learned without changing the current behavior first [5].”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Introduction > Our approach: Adaptive trust calibration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Adams BD, Bruyn LE, Houde S. Trust in automated systems literature review. Defence Research and Development Canada; 2003. Report No. CR-2003-096.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Regarding online experiments in general, Crump et al. [32] showed that the data collected online using a web-browser seemed mostly in line with laboratory results, so long as the experiment methods were solid.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Materials and methods > Participants
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] MJC Crump, 2013, Evaluating amazon’s mechanical turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research, PLoS ONE source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach is to mitigate over-trust or under-trust, in contrast with the traditional approach of trying to maintain appropriate trust calibration with continuous system transparency.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Introduction > Our approach: Adaptive trust calibration
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Behaviors might not be observable if there is no interaction; nevertheless, behavioral measures are practical and can easily be used as a basis for modeling and prediction [25].”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Introduction > Measuring trust
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] K Drnec, 2016, From trust in automation to decision neuroscience: applying cognitive neuroscience methods to understand and improve interaction decisions involved in human automation interaction, Frontires In Human Neuroscience
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead of directly measuring Ptrust or , the first inequalities of (1) and (2) can be estimated by observing the user’s reliance behavior; thus, the trust calibration status can be detected, if the second inequalities of Pman and Pauto can be estimated.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Introduction > Our approach: Adaptive trust calibration
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“194 participants joined the experiment online.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Materials and methods > Participants
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 194Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As for the successful participants, their ages ranged from 20 to 69 years old (M = 43.25, SD = 14.01), 66 participants were male and 50 were females.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 16Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“28 were in the NoTCC group, 18 in the visual group, 22 in the audio group, 29 in the verbal group, and 19 in the anthro. group.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 16Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seventy eight participants unintentionally moved the drone far from the area where the CKPs were located, and they failed to complete the tasks within the time limit.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 78Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One hundred sixteen participants successfully inspected 15 CKPs or more within the time limit.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 116Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups with the corresponding TCCs: NoTCC group (without TCCs), visual group (with the visual sign TCC), audio group (with the audio TCC), verbal group (with the verbal TCC), and anthro. group (with the anthropomorphic TCC).”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Materials and methods > Procedure
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TCCs were given right after the behavior only if the participants were judged to over-trust, so that it would be easier for the participants to understand the implication of the cues and to move forward in the trust calibration process.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Discussion > Adaptive method vs. continuous method
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, automation could be beneficial beyond a better performance, such as for faster task completion, lighter workloads, fewer risks, etc. [3]”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Discussion > Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] R Parasuraman, 1997, Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse, Human Factors source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Previous studies emphasized the importance of the system transparency for proper trust calibration.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Conclusion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results indicated that adaptively presenting TCCs promoted appropriate trust calibration leading to the better performance in the bad weather period.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Discussion > Performance
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It was obvious that the participants recognized these visually impressive TCCs; however, the results suggested that just being salient on the screen was not enough for some of the participants to change their choice behavior [31, 40].”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Discussion > Effects of TCCs to change the participants’ behavior
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] KR Laughery, 2014, A three-stage model summarizes product warning and environmental sign research, Safety Science source
- Not checked yetcites [40] VC Conzola, 2001, A Communication—Human Information Processing (C–HIP) approach to warning effectiveness in the workplace, Journal of Risk Research source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The proposed method deals with users’ behaviors to choose Auto or Manual and does not guarantee the convergence of the behaviors, which is the result of trust calibration by users.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Discussion > Limitations and future research
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Therefore, trust as the observable and rational choice behavior can be a product of believing that these benefits will outweigh the costs [5].”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Discussion > Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Adams BD, Bruyn LE, Houde S. Trust in automated systems literature review. Defence Research and Development Canada; 2003. Report No. CR-2003-096.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The feedback information given for each inspection was very important for the participants to make decisions.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Discussion > Limitations and future research
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pothole inspection task in the experiment is a remote sensing task, and it would be quite difficult for the system to know the correct answer (ground truth) at the time of each inspection in practical situations because the only information available is the image data and the results of automatic recognition.”
§ Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration > Discussion > Limitations and future research
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Pauto fluctuates more widely than Pman under changing weather conditions.
“Therefore, we assumed that Pauto would fluctuate more widely than Pman under changing weather conditions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Trust is a latent construct and cannot be directly measured; measuring trust experimentally is difficult in general.
“Trust is a latent construct and cannot be directly measured; measuring trust experimentally is difficult in general.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Users often fail to calibrate their trust in the agent and end up in over-trust or under-trust.
“While an agent’s reliability changes for various reasons in an environment, the users often fail to calibrate their trust in the agent and end up in the status called over-trust or under-trust.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Self-report measures are too intrusive to be viable in applied settings.
“Most previous literature used self-report measures such as subjective rating with questionnaires [18] or rating scales [19, 20]; however, self-report measures are too intrusive to be viable in applied settings.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Physiological and neural measures usually require special hardware.
“Although these measures can be used for dynamic tracking of trust, they usually require special hardware.”
The paper relies on this without support.
TCC rates are a valid indicator of over-trust or trust calibration status.
“TCC rates in the verbal TCC group were higher in the early part of the period and gradually decreased. This indicates that over-trust decreased during this period.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Manual accuracy can be used to estimate Pman.
“The results of the manual accuracy were consistent with our assumption to estimate Pman − Pauto in this experiment.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Notwithstanding a clear agenda on the issues that we should explore further, we still have limited evidence-based knowledge of the context, design, and psychological mechanisms that would craft an optimal human–ai team15–17.”
From Experimental evidence of effective human–AI collaboration in medical decision-making (2022) · cites this paper as [16]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“They also found that giving additional trigger signals was effective in resolving this problem [16].”
From Dynamic Selection of Reliance Calibration Cues With AI Reliance Model (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Avoiding misplaced trust in AI results is not essentially a technical challenge (Okamura and Yamada 2020).”
From Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as Okamura and Yamada 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In their experiment, participants did not change their over-reliance in spite of a reliability indicator being continuously displayed to them.”
From Dynamic Selection of Reliance Calibration Cues With AI Reliance Model (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Various interventions have been explored to foster trust calibration, such as displaying confidence scores that indicate the likelihood of a model's outputs being correct to end users [124], and designing adaptive monitoring systems that visually prompt users to calibrate their trust when over-trust or under-trust is detected during human-AI collaboration [87]”
From Understanding the Practices, Perceptions, and (Dis)Trust of Generative AI among Instructors: A Mixed-methods Study in the U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [87]
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(1, 111) = 51.69reported p < .01 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 111) = 51.69, p < .01”
- ConsistentF(4, 111) = 4.86reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .001
“F(4, 111) = 4.86, p < .01”
- ConsistentF(1, 17) = 9.2reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .008
“F(1, 17) = 9.20, p < .01”
- ConsistentF(1, 21) = 5.54reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .028
“F(1, 21) = 5.54, p = .03”
- ConsistentF(1, 28) = 62.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 28) = 62.9, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 18) = 8.55reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .009
“F(1, 18) = 8.55, p < .01”
- Consistentt(114) = -1.08reported p = .28 · recomputed p = .282
“t(114) = −1.08, p = .28”
- Consistentt(71) = -2.17reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .033
“t(71) = −2.17, p = .03”
- Consistentt(200) = 17.79reported p < .01 · recomputed p < .001
“t(200) = 17.79, p < .01”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
CKP9 has nonzero TCC rates despite a stated no-presentation period
MinorThe text says no TCCs were presented from CKP7 through CKP9, but Table 1 reports nonzero TCC presentation rates at CKP9 for all four TCC groups.
“TCCs were not presented in the period from the 7th CKP to the 9th CKP”
“| Visual TCC | 0.78 (0.10) | 0.67 (0.11) | 0.56 (0.12) | 0.67 (0.11) | 0.67 (0.11) | 0.50 (0.12) | 0.56 (0.12) |”
Citations
Cites
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605
Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 · Cited by 4,554
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×
“A possible explanation for the result could be made by discussing models for the trust process [1, 27, 41].”
BackgroundTrust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust
Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720814547570 · Cited by 2,817
Calculation of signal detection theory measures
Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03207704 · Cited by 2,673
A 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×
“[10] examined factors that affect trust by applying meta-analysis methods to existing empirical studies.”
MethodFoundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems
Jian, J.-Y., Bisantz, A. M., & Drury, C. G. (2000) · International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics · doi:10.1207/s15327566ijce0401_04 · Cited by 1,799
Evaluating amazon’s mechanical turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research
Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057410 · Cited by 1,617
The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle
Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005 · Cited by 1,439
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Adams BD, Bruyn LE, Houde S. Trust in automated systems literature review. Defence Research and Development Canada; 2003. Report No. CR-2003-096.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 248
Enhancing Special Education Using AI
Scott, L. M., Wilder, T. L., Zaugg, T., & Romualdo, A. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-5538-1.ch002 · Cited by 8
Need for Trust Calibration in Takeover request Performance in Level 3 Automated vehicles
Jui, J. J., Hettiarachchi, I. T., & Mohajer, N. (2025) · International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI) · doi:10.1145/3744333.3747816 · Cited by 6
Effects of knowledge and importance on responsibility in human-AI decision making
Tsumura, T., & Yamada, S. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-32513-w · Cited by 6
Self-citationElgohr, A. T., Rashad, M., El-Gendy, E. M., Shaaban, W., & Saafan, M. M. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-026-11554-1 · Cited by 6
Syiem, B. V., Kelly, R., Dingler, T., Gonçalves, J., & Velloso, E. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103324 · Cited by 6
Human Factors in AI-Driven Cybersecurity: Cognitive Biases and Trust Issues
Hagen, R. A., Øverlier, L., & Helkala, K. M. (2025) · Digital Threats Research and Practice · doi:10.1145/3759260 · Cited by 6
Collaborative Appropriation of AI in the Context of Interacting with AI
Herrmann, T. A. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35894-4_18 · Cited by 6
Performance-Aware Trust Modeling within a Human–Multi-Robot Collaboration Setting
Rabby, M. K. M., Khan, M. A., Jiang, S. X., & Karimoddini, A. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3660648 · Cited by 6
From Black Box to Trustworthy AI: A Secure Framework for Explainable Cybersecurity Decision-Making
Safavi, S., Abdulnabi, M. S. H., Rana, M. E., & Alizadeh, S. (2025) · International Conference on Advancements in Smart, Secure and Intelligent Computing (ASSIC) · doi:10.1109/assic64892.2025.11158699 · Cited by 6
Calibration-informed metrics for instance-level predictive reliability in medical AI
Cabitza, F. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2026.103366 · Cited by 5
Leszczyński, G., Gaczek, P., & Munzel, A. (2026) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2026.103519 · Cited by 4
Adaptive Trust-Aware SOC Human–AI Teaming for resilient operations
Kumar, M., Rani, R., Epiphaniou, G., & Maple, C. (2026) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2026.104971 · Cited by 5
Measuring and Calibrating Trust in Artificial Intelligence
Bollaert, M., Augereau, O., & Coppin, G. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61698-3_22 · Cited by 5
Trust in AI is dynamically updated based on users' expectations
Cooper, P. S., Lim, A., Irons, J. L., McGrath, M. J., Jarvis, H., & Duenser, A. (2025) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3706599.3719870 · Cited by 6
Comparing Socio-technical Design Principles with Guidelines for Human-Centered AI
Herrmann, T. A. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-60611-3_5 · Cited by 5
In search of a Goldilocks zone for credible AI
Allan, K., Oren, N., Hutchison, J., & Martin, D. S. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-93109-8 · Cited by 5
Dekarske, J., & Joshi, S. S. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS) · doi:10.1109/ichms53169.2021.9582622 · Cited by 5
Augmented Reality, Trust and Technology Malfunctions: An Initial Theory and Empirical Study
Konopka, B., Hönemann, K., & Wiesche, M. (2024) · ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research (SIGCPR) · doi:10.1145/3632634.3655884 · Cited by 4
Trust in Medical AI: The Case of mHealth Diabetes Apps
Materne, S., Canali, S., & Chiffi, D. (2025) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.70216 · Cited by 4
Trust‐Affording Action: Citizens’ Everyday Relations With Algorithmized Public Services
Rannisto, A., & Vainionpää, F. (2025) · Social Inclusion · doi:10.17645/si.10001 · Cited by 4
Multidisciplinary perspectives on human‑AI team trust
Tielman, M. L., Bailey, M. E., Frattolillo, F., Jorge, C. C., Ulfert, A., & Meyer-Vitali, A. (2025) · Interaction Studies Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems · doi:10.1075/is.24048.tie · Cited by 5
Governance of Collaborative AI Development Strategies
Wiesmüller, S., & Bauer, M. (2023) · CSR, sustainability, ethics & governance · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-09245-9_4 · Cited by 4
Agents facilitate one category of human empathy through task difficulty
Tsumura, T., & Yamada, S. (2022) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/ro-man53752.2022.9900686 · Cited by 4
Self-citationDetecting Distrust Towards the Skills of a Virtual Assistant Using SpeechPreprint
Pepino, L., Riera, P., Gauder, L., Gravano, A., & Ferrer, L. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.15711 · Cited by 4
A Study on the Manifestation of Trust in SpeechPreprint
Gauder, L., Pepino, L., Riera, P., Brussino, S., Vidal, J., Gravano, A., & Ferrer, L. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09370 · Cited by 4
Evaluation of Human Factors–Related Risks in AI-Enabled Medical Devices — A Practical Guide
Mathias, R., Schmitt, A., Campos, M., Vasey, B., Lorenz, S., McCulloch, P. G., & Gilbert, S. (2026) · NEJM AI · doi:10.1056/aipc2501297 · Cited by 4
Dept. of Cybersecurity, B. C., & Mathew, A. (2025) · International Journal of Computer Technology and Electronics Communication · doi:10.15680/ijctece.2025.0805010 · Cited by 3
Self-assessment in machines boosts human Trust
Warmsley, D., Choudhary, K., Rego, J., Viani, E., & Pilly, P. K. (2025) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2025.1557075 · Cited by 3
Mehrotra, S., Gadiraju, U., Bittner, E. A. C., van Delden, F., Jonker, C. M., & Tielman, M. L. (2025) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3699682.3728343 · Cited by 6
From ChatGPT to Custom GPTs: Scaffolding Conceptual Learning in Adult Education
Masalaci, Z., Shalawadi, S., & Papachristos, E. (2025) · International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM) · doi:10.1145/3771882.3771907 · Cited by 4
Human-Centered AI Design Principles for Generative AI
Weisz, J. D., He, J., & Muller, M. J. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-3658-0_74 · Cited by 4
Organizational Practices and Socio-Technical Design of Human-Centered AI
Herrmann, T. A. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-8440-0_66-1 · Cited by 3
Trust in automation: A survey of neurophysiological perspectives on measurement and modelling
Jui, J. J., Hettiarachchi, I. T., & Bhatti, A. (2026) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2026.133505 · Cited by 3
Oh, J., Jin, H., & Nah, S. (2026) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2026.102403 · Cited by 3
Cognitive Readiness for Human-AI Collaboration
Tremblay, S., de Hemptinne, D., Teyssier‐Roberge, G., Gallant, A., Marois, A., & Lafond, D. (2026) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208261474345 · Cited by 3
Integrating Agent Transparency Adaptation Mechanisms into Human Machine Cooperation
Simon, L., Guerin, C., Pacaux‐Lemoine, M., & Rauffet, P. (2024) · Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/smc54092.2024.10831996 · Cited by 3
Alignment in Decision-Making Attributes Predicts Trust and Delegation to AI Systems
Summerville, A. L., de Visser, E. J., McVay, J., Martí, L., Leung, A., & Widmer, C. L. (2025) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/15553434251390012 · Cited by 4
Ding, H., Shen, Y., Chen, J., & Wang, P. (2026) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2026.105046 · Cited by 4
Meyer, K., & Voigt, B.-F. (2022) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-14844-6_23 · Cited by 3
Promoting the Adoption of AI-Based Recommendations Through Organizational Practices
Herrmann, T. A., & Nolte, A. (2024) · Lecture notes in information systems and organisation · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-76970-2_13 · Cited by 3
Herrmann, T. A. (2023) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-49215-0_4 · Cited by 3
The Enterprising and Elusive Prospects of Human-AI Collaboration
Gadiraju, U., & Balayn, A. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-01940-0_7 · Cited by 5
Saoud, L. S., & Qureshi, O. A. (2026) · Strategic Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.sbr.2026.100157 · Cited by 2
Li, Z., Sun, H., Yang, T., & Zeng, K. (2026) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-11-2025-1496 · Cited by 2
Simon, L., Rauffet, P., & Guerin, C. (2026) · Cognition Technology & Work · doi:10.1007/s10111-026-00890-5 · Cited by 2
Trust and Automation- A Systematic Literature Review
Kennedy, G. R., & Duffy, V. G. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-48057-7_26 · Cited by 2
Selective Presentation of AI Object Detection Results While Maintaining Human Reliance
Fukuchi, Y., & Yamada, S. (2023) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros55552.2023.10341684 · Cited by 2
Self-citationBakogeorge, A., Imtiaz, S. A., Hantash, N. A., Manshaei, R., & Mazalek, A. (2024) · International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI) · doi:10.1145/3623509.3633370 · Cited by 2
Interactive and Explainable Robot Learning: A Comprehensive Review
Seraj, E., Lee, K. M., Zaidi, Z., Xiao, Q., Li, Z., Nascimento, A., van Waveren, S., Tambwekar, P., Paleja, R., Das, D., et al. (2024) · Foundations and Trends in Robotics · doi:10.1561/2300000081 · Cited by 2
Estimating Belief Updates in AI-Driven Drone Controls for Urban Search and Rescue Operations
Sun, B., Wu, J., You, H., & Du, J. (2025) · Journal of Construction Engineering and Management · doi:10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-15747 · Cited by 2
Seböck, W., Biron, B., & Lampoltshammer, T. J. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-41617-0_5 · Cited by 5
Kolb, J., Srivastava, D., & Feigh, K. M. (2023) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/ro-man57019.2023.10309505 · Cited by 2
Human-Agent Teaming: A System-Theoretic OverviewPreprint
Meimandi, K. J., Bolton, M. L., & Beling, P. A. (2024) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.170629550.02125312/v1 · Cited by 2
Calibrating trust in AI-assisted pituitary surgeryPreprint
Hudson, G. R., Khan, D. Z., Fayez, F., Bhatia, S., Bano, S., Costanza, E., BLANDFORD, A. E., Stoyanov, D. V., McCulloch, P. G., Marcus, H. J., et al. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.06.02.26354735 · Cited by 2
Exploring Human-Drone Collaboration Through Contact Improvisation
Wilson-Small, N. J., Pancoast, L., Petersen, K. H., & Azenkot, S. (2023) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1145/3568294.3580050 · Cited by 1
Neigel, P., Vargo, A. W., & Kise, K. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61698-3_21 · Cited by 1
Changing human’s impression of empathy from agent by verbalizing agent’s position
Tsumura, T., & Yamada, S. (2024) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/ro-man60168.2024.10731291 · Cited by 1
Self-citationThe Contextual Framing of the Interplay Between Human and AI: A Socio-technical Perspective
Beringer, J., & Herrmann, T. A. (2025) · Progress in IS · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-83512-4_7 · Cited by 1
Kim, B., Jannone, J., Rodriguez, Z. L., Huerta, R., Sagaran, E., Ochoa, N., Shubina, D., Morrell, B. J., Milano, M., Kaufmann, M., et al. (2025) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/ro-man63969.2025.11217894 · Cited by 1
Akbar, H., Arshad, I., Rahman, S., Aamir, F., Fatima, M., & Khan, H. U. R. (2025) · International Conference on Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1109/icet66147.2025.11321422 · Cited by 1
A HumanAI Digital Health Architecture for Scalable Visually Impaired People (VIP) Navigation
Chaudary, B., Pulli, P. J., & Harjula, E. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-28819-6_29 · Cited by 1
Medical student reliance on artificial intelligence in nephrology education
Kirpalani, A., & Wang, P. Z. T. (2026) · Journal of Nephrology · doi:10.1093/joneph/aajag033 · Cited by 2
Security Issues of Human Computer Fusion Complex Systems: A Review
Qi, L., Ma, X., Shao, Y., Fakhrabadi, A. K., Attar, H. H., Liu, Y., Xie, J., Li, H., Zhang, D., Song, T., et al. (2025) · Tsinghua Science & Technology · doi:10.26599/tst.2024.9010244 · Cited by 1
Designing Conversational Agents in Copilot Studio for Enterprise Automation and Compliance
Piridi, S., Koduri, N. K., & Asundi, S. (2025) · International Conference on Sustainable Computing and Data Communication Systems (ICSCDS) · doi:10.1109/icscds65426.2025.11165793 · Cited by 1
How Should Your Artificial Teammate Tell You How Much It Trusts You?
Jorge, C. C., Dumitrescu, E., Jonker, C. M., Loghin, R., Marossi, S., Uleia, E., & Tielman, M. L. (2025) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA) · doi:10.1145/3717511.3747086 · Cited by 1
Chaudhry, Z. S., & Choudhury, A. (2025) · Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000003609 · Cited by 1
CAAD: A Cognitive-Aware Framework for AI Agent Design in Complex Tasks
Luo, J.-Y., & Xinxiong, L. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12392-3_14 · Cited by 1
Measuring trust in artificial intelligence with the N2pc component
Wiese, E., & Feldmann‐Wüstefeld, T. (2026) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2026.121720 · Cited by 1
CHIPS: Human-AI collaborative prompt generation for industrial defect segmentation
Wu, L., Xu, S., Liao, W., & Fujimura, S. (2026) · The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · doi:10.1007/s00170-026-17765-8 · Cited by 1
Fischer, K., & Jelínek, M. (2026) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1145/3757279.3785626 · Cited by 1
The Teammate Divide: How Humans Approach Teamwork Differently with Human and AI Teammates
Flathmann, C., Nguyen, H., André, K., & Guynup, C. (2026) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3799452 · Cited by 3
Kleine, A., Schaffernak, I., & Lermer, E. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100310 · Cited by 2
Nguyen, H., Zhang, Y., Noel, Z. R., & McLaughlin, J. (2026) · Information and Learning Sciences · doi:10.1108/ils-08-2025-0147 · Cited by 1
Petchprayoon, C., Maneengam, R., Maneengam, A., & Chantarakamol, P. (2026) · Human Behavior, Development and Society · doi:10.62370/hbds.v27i2.283345 · Cited by 1
Yao, X., Chen, C., Liu, B., Zhou, Y., & Yu, X. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2689527 · Cited by 1
Gong, L., & Gong, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1886229 · Cited by 1
Batool, S., & Adeel, A. (2026) · Innovation Management Frontiers · doi:10.36923/imf.v1i1.432 · Cited by 1
Analysis of approaches to study identification in social media
Орлова, В. В., Goiko, V. L., Aleksandrova, Y. K., & Petrov, E. Y. (2020) · E3S Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202021016034 · Cited by 1
Potential of the dynamic approach to data analysis
Орлова, В. В., Goiko, V. L., Aleksandrova, Y. K., & Petrov, E. Y. (2021) · E3S Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202125807012 · Cited by 1
Improving of Robotic Virtual Agent’s Errors Accepted by Agent’s Reaction and Human’s Preference
Tsumura, T., & Yamada, S. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-8715-3_25 · Cited by 1
Self-citationFostering Trust In Collaborative: Building Child-Friendly Cities in Emerging Industrial Landscapes
Tobirin, T., Hongwiset, S., Rosyadi, S., Kunarti, S., & Sahat, D. (2023) · Jurnal Antropologi Isu-Isu Sosial Budaya · doi:10.25077/jantro.v25.n2.p233-243.2023 · Cited by 1
Numerical versus graphical aids for decision-making in a multi-cue signal identification task
Szulc, J., & Fletcher, K. I. (2024) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104260 · Cited by 1
Lu, Q., & Peng, X. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57867-0_16 · Cited by 1
Evolution of interaction-free usage in the wake of AI
Herrmann, T. A. (2024) · i-com · doi:10.1515/icom-2024-0005 · Cited by 1
Confidence in conditions of social uncertainty
Орлова, В. В., & Sokolovskaya, I. (2020) · E3S Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202021017034 · Cited by 1
An Epistemic Approach to Cultivating Appropriate Trust in Autonomous Vehicles
Chilson, K. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197639191.003.0014 · Cited by 2
Krämer, N. C., Wischnewski, M., & Müller, E. (2023) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/h32ze · Cited by 2
Artificial Intelligence Powered Facial Recognition in the Public Eye
Orr, J., Waite, L., TAYLOR, T. D., & Ulmishek-Anderson, P. (2021) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech)
Uncertainty Communication by AI Assistants: The Effects on User Trust
Siegling, L. B. (2020) · Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University)
Rust, P., & Piper, L. (2024) · AIAA Regional Student Conferences · doi:10.2514/6.2024-77397
Stull, M. P., Lohrmann, C., & Hayes, B. (2024) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/ro-man60168.2024.10731361
Does human-AI trust affect human-AI interaction in the metaverse? Insight from a pilot study
Wu, T., Song, Y., Chai, C. S., King, R. B., Zhai, Y., Ren, X., & Zhai, X. (2024) · International Symposium on Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (ISBDAI) · doi:10.1145/3723366.3723397 · Cited by 1
Classification of human trust in AI using brain activity data
Bandara, D., Liao, R., Chowdhury, F., & Abbott, L. (2025) · Northeast Journal of Complex Systems · doi:10.63562/2577-8439.1108
Retrieving Under Uncertainty: Towards a Chatbot Uncertainty Taxonomy (CUT) for Information Retrieval
Asisof, A. (2025) · ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval (ICTIR) · doi:10.1145/3731120.3744580
Cabitza, F., Fregosi, C., & Vicente, L. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-08317-3_11
Trust between humans and robots: Do people perceive that robots trust them?
Tsumura, T., & Yamada, S. (2025) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/ro-man63969.2025.11217751
Self-citationTrust Estimation of Manipulator’s Behaviors for Human-Robot Interaction
Kaneko, S., Yun, N., & Yamada, S. (2025) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/ro-man63969.2025.11217678
Self-citationGharaibeh, M., Al‐Rousan, A. H., Ayasrah, M. N., & Khasawneh, M. A. S. (2025) · Journal of Religion and Health · doi:10.1007/s10943-025-02511-3
Metadata
- Authors
- Okamura, K., & Yamada, S.
- Affiliations
- The Graduate University for Advanced Studies, SOKENDAI (JP)
- National Institute of Informatics (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Okamura, Kazuo
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2020-02-21
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e0229132
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7034851
- OpenAlex
- W2954555759
- Semantic Scholar
- acc10c9ebf9456d71474d79a61b2f0af3d3b29b2
- Cited by
- 239
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 65 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 7
- FWCI
- 19.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- The Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence
- Funders
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (26118005)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- trust calibration, human-AI collaboration, cognitive cues, adaptive prompts, system transparency, trust in AI, drone inspection, human-AI decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Artificial Intelligence, Calibration, Female, Humans, Male, Man-Machine Systems, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Young Adult
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
