ReviewFrontiers in neuroergonomics2023
A review of mathematical models of human trust in automation.
Review in Frontiers in neuroergonomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trust by design in AI-augmented procurement systems: the roles of explainability, governance, and human oversight.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- An EEG-based non-linear state-space model for trust inference in a space-relevant human-autonomy teaming task.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2026Article
- An EEG-network-metric based approach to real-time trust inference in human-autonomy teaming.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2025Article
- Modeling trust and its dynamics from physiological signals and embedded measures for operational human-autonomy teaming.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding how people trust autonomous systems is crucial to achieving better performance and safety in human-autonomy teaming. Trust in automation is a rich and complex process that has given rise to numerous measures and approaches aimed at comprehending and examining it. Although researchers have been developing models for understanding the dynamics of trust in automation for several decades, these models are primarily conceptual and often involve components that are difficult to measure. Mathematical models have emerged as powerful tools for gaining insightful knowledge about the dynamic processes of trust in automation. This paper provides an overview of various mathematical modeling approaches, their limitations, feasibility, and generalizability for trust dynamics in human-automation interaction contexts. Furthermore, this study proposes a novel and dynamic approach to model trust in automation, emphasizing the importance of incorporating different timescales into measurable components. Due to the complex nature of trust in automation, it is also suggested to combine machine learning and dynamic modeling approaches, as well as incorporating physiological data.
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.