ArticleScientific reports2026
Predictive robot eyes shape visual attention, performance, and trust in interaction with an industrial CoBot.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Collaborative robots increasingly share workspaces with humans, making the predictability of robot actions critical for efficient and safe coordination. Predictive visual cues, such as gaze or arrows, may reduce uncertainty, yet their effectiveness and robustness, especially under failure conditions, remain insufficiently understood. Across two laboratory studies with an industrial CoBot, we examined how predictive cues influence visual attention, prediction, and trust. Participants predicted the movement target of a robotic arm displaying eyes, arrows, or no cues across pre-failure, failure, and post-failure phases, while eye movements, reaction times, and trust were recorded. The second study served as a full replication. Across both studies, gaze cues accelerated visual orienting toward the target, as reflected in earlier target fixations, and improved prediction time when cues were reliable. A cue-action mismatch led to a temporary delayed target fixation and slower responses in both cue conditions. Importantly, performance and attentional guidance largely recovered during subsequent error-free interaction, with gaze cues tending to regain their advantage over no cues. Trust mostly showed the expected dynamic pattern of formation, dissolution, and restoration. Together, the findings demonstrate that predictive cues in industrial HRI enhance action anticipation by guiding visual attention, but their benefits are sensitive to cue reliability.
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.