Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34720895›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2021

Trust as Extended Control: Human-Machine Interactions as Active Inference.

Felix Schoeller, Mark Miller, Roy Salomon, Karl J Friston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Felix SchoellerMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Mark MillerCenter for Human Nature, Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Roy SalomonGonda Multidisciplinary Brain Research Center, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Karl J FristonWellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In order to interact seamlessly with robots, users must infer the causes of a robot's behavior-and be confident about that inference (and its predictions). Hence, trust is a necessary condition for human-robot collaboration (HRC). However, and despite its crucial role, it is still largely unknown how trust emerges, develops, and supports human relationship to technological systems. In the following paper we review the literature on trust, human-robot interaction, HRC, and human interaction at large. Early models of trust suggest that it is a trade-off between benevolence and competence; while studies of human to human interaction emphasize the role of shared behavior and mutual knowledge in the gradual building of trust. We go on to introduce a model of trust as an agent' best explanation for reliable sensory exchange with an extended motor plant or partner. This model is based on the cognitive neuroscience of active inference and suggests that, in the context of HRC, trust can be casted in terms of virtual control over an artificial agent. Interactive feedback is a necessary condition to the extension of the trustor's perception-action cycle. This model has important implications for understanding human-robot interaction and collaboration-as it allows the traditional determinants of human trust, such as the benevolence and competence attributed to the trustee, to be defined in terms of hierarchical active inference, while vulnerability can be described in terms of information exchange and empowerment. Furthermore, this model emphasizes the role of user feedback during HRC and suggests that boredom and surprise may be used in personalized interactions as markers for under and over-reliance on the system. The description of trust as a sense of virtual control offers a crucial step toward grounding human factors in cognitive neuroscience and improving the design of human-centered technology. Furthermore, we examine the role of shared behavior in the genesis of trust, especially in the context of dyadic collaboration, suggesting important consequences for the acceptability and design of human-robot collaborative systems.

Indexed as

active inferencecoboticscontrolextended mind hypothesishuman computer interactionhuman-robot interactiontrust

Identifiers

PMID34720895
PMCPMC8548360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.