ArticleScientific reports2025
Measuring transparency in intelligent robots.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Should robots display what they hear? Mishearing as a practical accomplishment.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
As robots become increasingly integrated into our daily lives, the need to make them transparent has never been more critical. Yet, despite its importance in human-robot interaction, a standardized measure of robot transparency has been missing until now. This paper addresses this gap by presenting the first comprehensive scale to measure perceived transparency in robotic systems, available in English, German, and Italian languages. Our approach conceptualizes transparency as a multidimensional construct, encompassing explainability, legibility, predictability, and meta-understanding. The proposed scale was a product of a rigorous three-stage process involving 1223 participants. Firstly, we generated the items, secondly, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis, and thirdly, a confirmatory factor analysis served to validate the factor structure of the newly developed TOROS scale. The final scale encompasses 26 items and comprises three factors: Illegibility, Explainability, and Predictability. TOROS demonstrates high cross-linguistic reliability, inter-factor correlation, model fit, internal consistency, and convergent validity across the three cross-national samples. This empirically validated tool enables the assessment of robot transparency and contributes to the theoretical understanding of this complex construct. By offering a standardized measure, we facilitate consistent and comparable research in human-robot interaction in which TOROS can serve as a benchmark.
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.