Industrial human-robot collaboration (HRC) is not yet widely spread but on the rise. This development raises the question about properties collaborative robots (cobots) need, to enable a pleasant and smooth interaction. Therefore, this study investigated the influence of transparency and reliability on perception of and trust towards cobots. A video-enhanced online study with 124 participants was conducted. Transparency was provided through the presentation of differing information, and reliability was manipulated through differing error rates. The results showed a positive effect of transparency on perceived safety and intelligence. Reliability had a positive effect on perceived intelligence, likeability and trust. The effect of reliability on trust was more pronounced for low transparent robots. The results indicate the relevance of carefully selected information to counteract negative effects of failures. Future research should transfer the study design into a real-life experiment with more fine-grained levels of transparency and reliability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnjomshoaeS.NajjarA.CalvaresiD.FrämlingK. (2019). Explainable Agents and Robots: Results from a Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the AAMAS ‘19: 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (pp. 1078–1088). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. doi:10.1145/2658861.2658871
2.
BartneckC.KulićD.CroftE.ZoghbiS. (2009). Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71–81. doi:10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3
3.
BrooksD. J.BegumM.YancoH. A. (2016). Analysis of reactions towards failures and recovery strategies for autonomous robots. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 487–492). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745162.
4.
CharalambousG.FletcherS.WebbP. (2016). The Development of a Scale to Evaluate Trust in Industrial Human-robot Collaboration. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(2), 193–209. doi:10.1007/s12369-015-0333-8.
5.
ColgateJ. E.EdwardJ.PeshkinM. A.WannasuphoprasitW. (1996). Cobots: Robots for Collaboration with Human Operators. Paper presented at the International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exhibition, Atlanta, GA.
6.
GervasiR.MastrogiacomoL.FranceschiniF. (2020). A conceptual framework to evaluate human-robot collaboration. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 108(3), 841–865. doi:10.1007/s00170-020-05363-1
7.
HancockP. A.KesslerT. T.KaplanA. D.BrillJ. C.SzalmaJ. L. (2020). Evolving Trust in Robots: Specification Through Sequential and Comparative Meta-Analyses. Human Factors [online first]. doi:10.1177/0018720820922080
8.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407–434. doi:10.1177/0018720814547570
9.
LewisM.SycaraK.WalkerP. (2018). The Role of Trust in Human-Robot Interaction. In AbbassH. A.ScholzJ.ReidD. J. (Eds.), Foundations of Trusted Autonomy (pp. 135–159). Springer.
10.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors, 46(1), 50–80. doi: 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
11.
LyonsJ. (2013). Being Transparent about Transparency: A Model for Human-Robot Interaction. Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium: Trust and Autonomous Systems, Palo Alto.
12.
OreF.Jiménez SánchezJ. L.WiktorssonM.HansonL. (2020). Design method of human–industrial robot collaborative workstation with industrial application, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 33(9), 911–924. doi: 10.1080/0951192X.2020.1815844
13.
OsoskyS.SandersT.JentschF.HancockP.ChenJ. (2014). Determinants of system transparency and its influence on trust in and reliance on unmanned robotic systems. Paper presented at the Defense + Security Symposium.
14.
RosenP. H.SommerS.WischniwskiS. (2019). Evaluation of Human-Robot Interaction Quality: A Toolkit for Workplace Design. In BagnaraS.TartagliaR.AlbolinoS.AlexanderT.FujitaY. (Eds.), 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association - Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing: Vol 824 (pp. 1649–1662). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3319-96071-5_169
SchaferK. E.SandersT.KesslerT. T.DunfeeM.WildT.HancockP. A. (2015). Fidelity & validity in robotic simulation. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision (pp. 113–117). doi:10.1109/COGSIMA.2015.7108184
17.
WangN.PynadathD. V.HillS. G. (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) (pp. 109–116). doi:10.1109/HRI.2016.7451741
18.
WickensC. D.DixonS. R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(3), 201–212.
19.
WorthamR. H.TheodorouA.BrysonJ. (2016). What Does the Robot Think? Transparency as a Fundamental Design Requirement for Intelligent Systems. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Ethics for Artificial Intelligence.
20.
WrightJ. L.ChenJ. Y. C.LakhmaniS. G. (2019). Agent Transparency and Reliability in Human–Robot Interaction: The Influence on User Confidence and Perceived Reliability. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 50(3), 254–263. doi:10.1109/THMS.2019.2925717
