ReviewFrontiers in psychology2018
Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing trust in healthcare robotics: implications derived from medical professionals' perspectives.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- ROS 4 healthcare: a framework for physiological human sensing for social, assistive, rehabilitation, and medical robotics.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Article
- Politeness cannot make up for robots' errors.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Article
- Attitudes of Arab Family Caregivers in Israel Toward Robot-Delivered Care For ADL-Dependent (Activities of Daily Living-Dependent) Older People: Identifying Ethical and Social Issues.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Helping or watching it happen: how participants respond to robot failures in a turn-taking game.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
- Should robots display what they hear? Mishearing as a practical accomplishment.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
- The impact of intelligent robot service failures on customer responses --a perspective based on mind perception theory.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Review
- Editorial: Human-robot interaction in industrial settings: new challenges and opportunities.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
- Considerations for designing socially assistive robots for older adults.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Review
- Trust with increasing and decreasing reliability.Human factors · 2024Article
- Research perspectives and trends in Artificial Intelligence-enhanced language education: A review.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Human-in-the-loop error detection in an object organization task with a social robot.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2024Article
- Building for speech: designing the next-generation of social robots for audio interaction.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2024Article
- The theory of mind and human-robot trust repair.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- When neuro-robots go wrong: A review.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2023Review
- Failure of motor function-A Developmental Embodiment Research perspective on the systemic effects of stress.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Working with roubles and failures in conversation between humans and robots: workshop report.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2023Article
- The potential scope of a humanoid robot in anatomy education: a review of a unique proposal.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2022Review
- Is It Personal? The Impact of Personally Relevant Robotic Failures (PeRFs) on Humans' Trust, Likeability, and Willingness to Use the Robot.International journal of social robotics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While substantial effort has been invested in making robots more reliable, experience demonstrates that robots operating in unstructured environments are often challenged by frequent failures. Despite this, robots have not yet reached a level of design that allows effective management of faulty or unexpected behavior by untrained users. To understand why this may be the case, an in-depth literature review was done to explore when people perceive and resolve robot failures, how robots communicate failure, how failures influence people's perceptions and feelings toward robots, and how these effects can be mitigated. Fifty-two studies were identified relating to communicating failures and their causes, the influence of failures on human-robot interaction (HRI), and mitigating failures. Since little research has been done on these topics within the HRI community, insights from the fields of human computer interaction (HCI), human factors engineering, cognitive engineering and experimental psychology are presented and discussed. Based on the literature, we developed a model of information processing for robotic failures (Robot Failure Human Information Processing, RF-HIP), that guides the discussion of our findings. The model describes the way people perceive, process, and act on failures in human robot interaction. The model includes three main parts: (1) communicating failures, (2) perception and comprehension of failures, and (3) solving failures. Each part contains several stages, all influenced by contextual considerations and mitigation strategies. Several gaps in the literature have become evident as a result of this evaluation. More focus has been given to technical failures than interaction failures. Few studies focused on human errors, on communicating failures, or the cognitive, psychological, and social determinants that impact the design of mitigation strategies. By providing the stages of human information processing, RF-HIP can be used as a tool to promote the development of user-centered failure-handling strategies for HRIs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.