Although previous studies have developed scales to measure levels of robot autonomy and ways to quantify trust in human-robot teams, there is still much interest in determining how trust, individual differences, and levels of autonomy impact these teams. The primary objective of this study is to identify how pre-existing attitudes about robots, individual differences in normal cognition, and levels of robot autonomy affect performance, communication, and trust with a robot teammate. This study pairs participants with a robot teammate to compete against two robotic opponents in a simulated game of capture the flag. Game performance and interactions with the robot teammate will be collected as outcome measures. Subjective measures will include pre-existing negative attitudes toward robots (Nomura et al., 2006a) and trust (Schaefer, 2016).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeerJ. M.FiskA. D.RogersW. A. (2014). Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 3(2), 74. https://doi:10.5898/jhri.3.2.beer
2.
DraheimC.PakR.DraheimA.EngleR. W. (2021). The role of attention control in complex real-world tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi:10.3758/s13423-021-02052-2
3.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.
4.
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y. C.de VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517-527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254
KimW.KimN.LyonsJ. B.NmaC. S. (2020). Factors affecting trust in high-vulnerability human-robot interaction contexts: A structural equation modeling approach. Applied Ergonomics, 85, 103056. https://doi.10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103056
7.
NomuraT.KandaT.SuzukiT. (2006a). Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction. AI & Society, 20(2), 138-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7
8.
NomuraT.SuzukiT.KandaT.KatoK. (2006b) Measurement of anxiety toward robots. In 2006 Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 372-377). https://doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314462
9.
NovitzkyM.RobinetteP.BenjaminM. R.FitzgeraldC.SchmidtH. (2019) Aquaticus: Publicly available datasets from a marine human-robot teaming testbed. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), (pp. 392-400). Daegu, South Korea. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673176
10.
O’NeillT.McNeeseN.BarronA.SchelbleB. (2020). Human-autonomy teaming: A review and analysis of the empirical literature. Human Factors. https://doi:10.1177/0018720820960865.
11.
OswaldF. L.McAbeeS. T.RedickT. S.HambrickD. Z. (2015) The development of a short domain-general measure of working memory capacity. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1343-1355. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0543-2
12.
RoviraE.PakR.McLaughlinA. (2017). Effects of individual differences in working memory on performance and trust with various degrees of automation. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 18(6), 573-591. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2016.1252806
13.
SchaeferK. E. (2016). Measuring trust in human robot interactions: Development of the “trust perception scale-HRI.”Robust Intelligence and Trust in Autonomous Systems, 191-218. https://doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7668-0_10
14.
UnsworthN.SchrockJ. C.EngleR. W. (2004). Working memory capacity and the antisaccade task: individual differences in voluntary saccade control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1302-1321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.13
VolanteW. G.SosnaJ.KesslerT.SandersT.HancockP. A. (2019) Social conformity effects on trust in simulation-based human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 61 (5), 805-815. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818811190
