ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2026
Psychophysiological markers of trust in automation: insights from ERP responses in a modified flanker task.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the sensitivity of event-related potentials (ERP) to factors influencing trust in machine learning (ML) automation, specifically ML reliability, bias, and transparency, with the goal of identifying an electrophysiological marker of trust in automation. Participants performed a flanker task and observed a simulated ML algorithm perform a modified flanker task, while ERP data were collected. The performance flanker task showed canonical patterns in behavioral responses, including fewer errors and shorter response times to congruent trials. We also observed the expected ERP components, including the error-related negativity (ERN) and positivity (Pe), alongside a significant late positive component (LPC) associated with error processing. Contrary to predictions, no differences in oERN amplitudes were observed across model error conditions. The oPe component was elicited by model errors, yet was insensitive to model reliability or bias. Notably, an LPC was also observed to model errors and was larger for errors from the more reliable model (90% vs. 60%). LPC amplitude was negatively correlated with subjective trust ratings in the 60% reliable biased condition, indicating that reduced LPC effects were associated with higher trust levels. These implications of these results are discussed in the context of the P3b and P600 ERP components. Additionally, there were no effects of model transparency on ERP results or subjective trust ratings, suggesting that trust is primarily developed through direct observation of model performance. Our results contribute to understanding the neural mechanisms underlying trust in automation, highlighting the potential of ERP methodologies to advance our understanding in this domain.
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.