ReviewFrontiers in neuroergonomics2026
Error-related potentials detection to enhance human-robot collaboration: a mini review.
Review in Frontiers in neuroergonomics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Error-related potentials (ErrPs) have been studied to evaluate wrong decisions or actions in several contexts. An ErrP is an electrical potential on the scalp generated by the perception of errors and occurs unwittingly. In human-robot collaboration (HRC), ErrP detection can be used to trigger a feedback or an action to adapt the system to the user. This contributes to the improvement of HRC, taking into account user performance. However, to our knowledge, the detection of ErrPs in HRC has not been widely explored, resulting in only a few studies. This systematic review will present work on ErrP-based interfaces related to adaptation, control, and neuroergonomics for HRC. Thirteen articles were included after the exclusion criteria of the review stages. The average accuracy of ErrP detection was between 54 and 87.2%. In most cases, the authors simulated the occurrence of unexpected behavior of the robot. The robot mistakes occurred randomly between 20 and 35% of the total trials. Some works focused on the robot learning process and adaptation between humans and robots. The mental model and the robot behavior policy were updated based on the decoded ErrPs during collaborative interactions. Control-related works have included ErrPs detection/features as input inside the control loop or algorithm. Other studies assessed the influence of mental workload variability in the adaptation process, given that a high mental workload affects the cognitive processes needed to perceive errors. Thus, ErrPs present advantages for enhancing HRC, and this review opens the way to further developments in the robotic 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.