ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2025
Information vs situation: balancing transparency and autonomy for trustworthy autonomous vehicles.
Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the rapid advancement of autonomous vehicle (AV) technology, AVs move beyond their initial purpose of only providing a self-driving and/or assistive driving experience, and progressively transform into interactive agents with some level of autonomy, as well as some context-dependent social features. This introduces new challenges and questions, already relevant in other areas of human-robot interaction (HRI), such as: if an AV is perceived as a social agent by the human with whom it is interacting or collaborating, how are the various facets of its interface and behaviour impacting its human partner? And how do we foster a successful collaboration between the human driver and the AV, maximizing the driver's comfort, agency, and trust in the AV? Our specific research goal in this area is to explore how the human's perception of the AV can vary across different levels of information sharing and autonomy of the AV. More precisely, in this work we sought to understand the various factors that could influence naïve participants' acceptance and trustworthiness of AV. In a between-subjects online study, informed by participatory design, we investigated the effects of different AV interfaces with different information levels on participants' perceptions of the AV, specifically their trust and comfort ratings. We also sought to understand how much the environment and the AV's behaviour play a role in determining the level of autonomy users will grant to the AV. We found that the transparency of the AV (described by the amount of information shared with the users) had a significant impact on people's trust and comfort in the car. Participants' relationship with the AV's autonomy however was more complex, and was influenced both by the AV's transparency, but also by the driving environment and the specific events happening in the scenes.
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.