Learning From the Slips of Others: Neural Correlates of Trust in Automated Agents

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Volumn 12, Issue , 2018, Pages

  de Visser, Ewart J ^a,b   Beatty, Paul J ^a   Estepp, Justin R ^c   Kohn, Spencer ^a   Abubshait, Abdulaziz ^a   Fedota, John R ^d   McDonald, Craig G ^a  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY   (United States)

^c AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE   (United States)

Author keywords

Anterior cingulate cortex (ACC); Automation; Error positivity (Pe); Error processing; Error related negativity (ERN); Event related potentials (ERP); Human error; Neuroergonomics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANTERIOR CINGULATE; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CALIBRATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; ERROR; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EXPECTATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; MONITORING; PERCEPTION; RELIABILITY; SELF REPORT; TRUST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85054824309     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16625161     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00309     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Abubshait A., Wiese E., (2017). You look human, but act like a machine: agent appearance and behavior modulate different aspects of human–robot interaction. Front. Psychol. 8:1393. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.0139328878703.
2. Adolphs R., (2002). Trust in the brain. Nat. Neurosci. 5 192–193. 10.1038/nn0302-19211865307.
3. Barr A., (2015). Google Mistakenly Tags Black People as ‘Gorillas,’ Showing Limits of Algorithms. Available at: https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/07/01/google-mistakenly-tags-black-people-as-gorillas-showing-limits-of-algorithms/.
4. Bates D., Mächler M., Bolker B., Walker S., (2015). lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1. 1–7. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
5. Berberian B., Somon B., Sahaï A., Gouraud J., (2017). The out-of-the-loop Brain: a neuroergonomic approach of the human automation interaction. Annu. Rev. Control 44 303–315. 10.1016/J.ARCONTROL.2017.09.010.
6. Bryk A. S., Raudenbush S. W., (1987). Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change. Psychol. Bull. 101 147–158. 10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.147.
7. Byrne E., Parasuraman R., (1996). Psychophysiology and adaptive automation. Biol. Psychol. 42 249–268. 10.1016/0301-0511(95)05161-9.
8. Carp J., Halenar M. J., Quandt L. C., Sklar A., Compton R. J., (2009). Perceived similarity and neural mirroring: evidence from vicarious error processing. Soc. Neurosci. 4 85–96. 10.1080/1747091080208316718633841.
9. Chavarriaga R., del Millán R. J., (2010). Learning from EEG error-related potentials in noninvasive brain-computer interfaces. IEEE Trans. Neural. Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 18 381–388. 10.1109/TNSRE.2010.205338720570777.
10. Chavarriaga R., Sobolewski A., del R., Millán J., (2014). Errare machinale est: the use of error-related potentials in brain-machine interfaces. Front. Neurosci. 8:208. 10.3389/fnins.2014.0020825100937.
11. Chen J. Y. C., Barnes M. J., Wright J. L., Stowers K., Lakhmani S. G., (2017). “Situation awareness-based agent transparency for human-autonomy teaming effectiveness,” in International Society for Optics and Photonics Vol. 10194 eds George T., Dutta A. K., Islam M. S., (Bellingham, WA: SPIE), 101941V. 10.1117/12.2263194.
12. de Visser E. J., Monfort S. S., McKendrick R., Smith M. A. B., McKnight P. E., Krueger F., (2016). Almost human: anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 22 331–349. 10.1037/xap000009227505048.
13. de Visser E. J., Parasuraman R., (2011). Adaptive aiding of human-robot teaming: effects of imperfect automation on performance, trust, and workload. J. Cogn. Eng. Dec. Mak. 5 209–231. 10.1177/1555343411410160.
14. Delgado M., Frank R., Phelps E., (2005). Perceptions of moral character modulate the neural systems of reward during the trust game. Nat. Neurosci. 8 1611–1618. 10.1038/nn157516222226.
15. Delorme A., Makeig S., (2004). EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods 134 9–21. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.00915102499.
16. Desmet C., Deschrijver E., Brass M., (2014). How social is error observation? The neural mechanisms underlying the observation of human and machine errors. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 9 427–435. 10.1093/scan/nst00223314011.
17. Dijkstra J., Liebrand W., Timminga E., (1998). Persuasiveness of expert systems. Behav. Inform. Technol. 17 155–165. 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.04.00524732098.
18. Drnec K., Marathe A. R., Lukos J. R., Metcalfe J. S., (2016). From trust in automation to decision neuroscience: applying cognitive neuroscience methods to understand and improve interaction decisions involved in human automation interaction. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10:290. 10.3389/fnhum.2016.0029027445741.
19. Dzindolet M., Peterson S., Pomranky R., Pierce L., Beck H., (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 58 697–718. 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-715151155.
20. Dzindolet M., Pierce L. G., Beck H. P., Dawe L. A., (2002). The perceived utility of human and automated aids in a visual detection task. Hum. Factors 44 79–94. 10.1518/001872002449485612118875.
21. Economist (2018). Facebook Faces a Reputational Meltdown. London: Economist.
22. Erchov S., (2017). Reconceptualizing Trust: Defining, Modeling, and Measuring Trust. Doctoral dissertation, Fairfax, VA, George Mason University.
23. Eriksen B. A., Eriksen C. W., (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept. Psychophys. 16 143–149. 10.3758/BF03203267.
24. Falkenstein M., (2004). Errors, conflicts, and the brain. J. Psychophysiol. 18 153–163. 10.1027/0269-8803.18.4.153.
25. Falkenstein M., Hohnsbein J., Hoormann J., Blanke L., (1991). Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. II. Error processing in choice reaction tasks. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 78 447–455. 10.1016/0013-4694(91)90062-91712280.
26. Fedota J. R., Parasuraman R., (2010). Neuroergonomics and human error. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 11 402–421. 10.1080/14639220902853104.
27. Fischer A. G., Klein T. A., Ullsperger M., (2017). Comparing the error-related negativity across groups: the impact of error- and trial-number differences. Psychophysiology 54 998–1009. 10.1111/psyp.1286328369880.
28. Gehring W. J., Goss B., Coles M. G. H., Meyer D. E., Donchin E., (1993). A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychol. Sci. 4 385–390. 10.1118/1.486845924694128.
29. Goodyear K., Parasuraman R., Chernyak S., de Visser E., Madhavan P., Deshpande G., (2017). An fMRI and effective connectivity study investigating miss errors during advice utilization from human and machine agents. Soc. Neurosci. 12 570–581. 10.1080/17470919.2016.120513127409387.
30. Goodyear K., Parasuraman R., Chernyak S., Madhavan P., Deshpande G., Krueger F., (2016). Advice taking from humans and machines: an fMRI and effective connectivity study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10:542. 10.3389/fnhum.2016.0054227867351.
31. Gramann K., Fairclough S. H., Zander T. O., Ayaz H., (2017). Editorial: trends in neuroergonomics. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11:165. 10.3389/fnhum.2017.0016528424601.
32. Grissmann S., Spuler M., Faller J., Krumpe T., Zander T., Kelava A., (2017). Context sensitivity of EEG-based workload classification under different affective valence. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 1. 10.1109/TAFFC.2017.2775616.
33. Hoff K., Bashir M., (2015). Trust in automation: integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum. Factors 57 407–434. 10.1177/001872081454757025875432.
34. King-Casas B., Tomlin D., Anen C., Camerer C. F., Quartz S. R., Montague P. R., (2005). Getting to know you: reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange. Science 308 78–83. 10.1126/science.110806215802598.
35. Koban L., Pourtois G., (2014). Brain systems underlying the affective and social monitoring of actions: an integrative review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 46 71–84. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.02.01424681006.
36. Krach S., Hegel F., Wrede B., Sagerer G., Binkofski F., Kircher T., (2008). Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via fMRI. PLoS One 3:e2597. 10.1371/journal.pone.000259718612463.
37. Krueger F., McCabe K., Moll J., Kriegeskorte N., Zahn R., Strenziok M., (2007). Neural correlates of trust. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 20084–20089. 10.1073/pnas.071010310418056800.
38. Lee J., Moray N., (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35 1243–1270. 10.1080/001401392089673921516577.
39. Lee J., See K., (2004). Trust in automation?: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors 46 50–80. 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.3039215151155.
40. Lopez-Calderon J., Luck S. J., (2010). ERPLAB (Version 1.0. 0.33 a)(Computer Software). Davis, CA: UC-Davis Center for Mind & Brain.
41. Lyons J., Havig P., (2014). “Transparency in a human-machine context: approaches for fostering shared awareness/intent,” in Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Designing and Developing Virtual and Augmented Environments. VAMR 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 8525 eds Shumaker R., Lackey S., (Cham: Springer), 10.1007/978-3-319-07458-0_18.
42. Madhavan P., Wiegmann D., (2005). Cognitive anchoring on self-generated decisions reduces operator reliance on automated diagnostic aids. Hum. Factors 47 332–341. 10.1518/001872005467948916170942.
43. Madhavan P., Wiegmann D., (2007a). Effects of information source, pedigree, and reliability on operator interaction with decision support system. Hum. Factors 49 773–785. 10.1518/001872007X23015417915596.
44. Madhavan P., Wiegmann D., (2007b). Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 8 277–301. 10.1080/14639220500337708.
45. Madhavan P., Wiegmann D., Lacson F., (2006). Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids. Hum. Factors 48 241–256. 10.1518/00187200677772440816884046.
46. Mayer R., Davis J., Schoorman F., (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 709–734. 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335.
47. Mercado J. E., Rupp M. A., Chen J. Y. C., Barnes M. J., Barber D., Procci K., (2016). Intelligent agent transparency in human-agent teaming for multi-UxV management. Hum. Factors 58 401–415. 10.1177/001872081562120626867556.
48. Merritt S., Heimbaugh H., LaChapell J., Lee D., (2013). I trust it, but I don’t know why: effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Hum. Factors 55 520–534. 10.1177/001872081246508123829027.
49. Merritt S., Ilgen D. R., (2008). Not all trust is created equal: dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Hum. Factors 50 194–210. 10.1518/001872008X28857418516832.
50. Merritt S., Lee D., Unnerstall J. L., Huber K., (2014). Are well-calibrated users effective users? Associations between calibration of trust and performance on an automation-aided task. Hum. Factors 57 34–47. 10.1177/001872081456167525790569.
51. Merritt S., Unnerstall J. L., Lee D., Huber K., (2015). Measuring individual differences in the perfect automation schema. Hum. Factors 57 740–753. 10.1177/001872081558124725882304.
52. Mirnig N., Stollnberger G., Miksch M., Stadler S., Giuliani M., Tscheligi M., (2017). To Err is robot: how humans assess and act toward an erroneous social robot. Front. Robot. AI 4:21. 10.3389/frobt.2017.00021.
53. Moray N., (2000). Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 6 44–58. 10.1037//0278-7393.6.1.4410937311.
54. Mosier K. L., Skitka L. J., Heers S., Burdick M., (1998). Automation bias: decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 8 47–63. 10.1207/s15327108ijap0801_311540946.
55. Parasuraman R., (2003). Neuroergonomics: research and practice. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 4 5–20. 10.1080/14639220210199753.
56. Parasuraman R., (2011). Neuroergonomics: brain, cognition, and performance at work. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20 181–186. 10.1177/0963721411409176.
57. Parasuraman R., Manzey D. H., (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: an attentional integration. Hum. Factors 52 381–410. 10.1177/001872081037605521077562.
58. Parasuraman R., Riley V., (1997). Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum. Factors 39 230–253. 10.1518/00187209777854388618689046.
59. Pop V. L., Shrewsbury A., Durso F. T., (2015). Individual differences in the calibration of trust in automation. Hum. Factors 57 545–556. 10.1177/001872081456442225977317.
60. Prinzel L. J., Freeman F. G., Scerbo M., Mikulka P. J., Pope A. T., (2003). Effects of a psychophysiological system for adaptive automation on performance, workload, and the event-related potential P300 component. Hum. Factors 45 601–614. 10.1518/hfes.45.4.601.2709215055457.
61. Rice S., (2009). Examining single- and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. J. Gen. Psychol. 136 303–319. 10.3200/GENP.136.3.303-32219650524.
62. Rovira E., McGarry K., Parasuraman R., (2007). Effects of imperfect automation on decision making in a simulated command and control task. Hum. Factors 49 76–87. 10.1518/00187200777959808217315845.
63. Salazar-Gomez A. F., Delpreto J., Gil S., Guenther F. H., Rus D., (2017). “Correcting robot mistakes in real time using EEG signals,” in Proceeding of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation, (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE). 10.1109/ICRA.2017.7989777.
64. Sarter N., Woods D., Billings C., (1997). “Automation surprises,” in Handbook of Human Factors & Ergonomics, 2nd Edn, ed. Salvendy G., (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing), 1926–1943.
65. Scerbo M., (1996). “Theoretical perspectives on adaptive automation,” in Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications, eds Parasuraman R., Mouloua M., (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc), 37–63.
66. Scerbo M., Freeman F. G., Mikulka P. J., (2003). A brain-based system for adaptive automation. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 4 200–219. 10.1080/1463922021000020891.
67. Somon B., Campagne A., Delorme A., Berberian B., (2017). Performance monitoring applied to system supervision. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11:360. 10.3389/fnhum.2017.0036028744209.
68. Steinhauser M., Yeung N., (2010). Decision processes in human performance monitoring. J. Neurosci. 30 15643–15653. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1899-10.2010.
69. Ullsperger M., Danielmeier C., Jocham G., (2014a). Neurophysiology of performance monitoring and adaptive behavior. Physiol. Rev. 94 35–79. 10.1152/physrev.00041.201224382883.
70. Ullsperger M., Fischer A. G., Nigbur R., Endrass T., (2014b). Neural mechanisms and temporal dynamics of performance monitoring. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18 259–267. 10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.00924656460.
71. van Schie H. T., Mars R. B., Coles M. G. H., Bekkering H., (2004). Modulation of activity in medial frontal and motor cortices during error observation. Nat. Neurosci. 7 549–554. 10.1038/nn123915107858.
72. Wessel J. R., Danielmeier C., Morton J. B., Ullsperger M., (2012). Surprise and error: common neuronal architecture for the processing of errors and novelty. J. Neurosci. 32 7528–7537. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6352-11.201222649231.
73. Wessel J. R., (2017). An adaptive orienting theory of error processing. Psychophysiology 55:e13041. 10.1111/psyp.1304129226960.
74. Wickens C. D., Xu X., (2002). Automation trust, reliability and attention. Technical Report No. AHFD-02-14/MAAD-02-2. Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Lab.
75. Wiese E., Metta G., Wykowska A., (2017). Robots as intentional agents: using neuroscientific methods to make robots appear more social. Front. Psychol. 8:1663. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.0166329046651.
76. Winkler I., Debener S., Müller K. R., Tangermann M., (2015). “On the influence of high-pass filtering on ICA-based artifact reduction in EEG-ERP,” in Proceedings of the 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Milan, 4101–4105. 10.1109/EMBC.2015.731929626737196.
77. Yeh M., Wickens C. D., (2001). Display signaling in augmented reality: effects of cue reliability and image realism on attention allocation and trust calibration. Hum. Factors 43 355–365. 10.1518/00187200177589826911866192.
78. Zander T., Kothe C., (2011). Towards passive brain–computer interfaces: applying brain–computer interface technology to human–machine systems in general. J. Neural Eng. 8:025005. 10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/02500521436512.
79. Zander T., Kothe C., Jatzev S., Gaertner M., (2010). “Enhancing human-computer interaction with input from active and passive brain-computer interfaces,” in Brain-Computer Interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction Series, eds Tan D., Nijholt A., (London: Springer).
80. Zander T., Krol L. R., Birbaumer N. P., Gramann K., (2016). Neuroadaptive technology enables implicit cursor control based on medial prefrontal cortex activity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 14898–14903. 10.1073/pnas.160515511427956633.