Repairing Human Trust by Promptly Correcting Robot Mistakes with An Attention Transfer Model

TL;DR

This paper introduces a human-to-robot attention transfer model that promptly corrects robot mistakes to repair human trust in collaborative tasks, validated through experiments and user trust studies.

Contribution

It presents a novel attention transfer framework for real-time mistake correction to maintain and repair human trust during robot collaboration.

Findings

H2R-AT accurately localizes human concerns and corrects robot mistakes.

Prompt corrections significantly improve human trust levels.

The framework effectively handles various types of robot mistakes.

Abstract

In human-robot collaboration (HRC), human trust in the robot is the human expectation that a robot executes tasks with desired performance. A higher-level trust increases the willingness of a human operator to assign tasks, share plans, and reduce the interruption during robot executions, thereby facilitating human-robot integration both physically and mentally. However, due to real-world disturbances, robots inevitably make mistakes, decreasing human trust and further influencing collaboration. Trust is fragile and trust loss is triggered easily when robots show incapability of task executions, making the trust maintenance challenging. To maintain human trust, in this research, a trust repair framework is developed based on a human-to-robot attention transfer (H2R-AT) model and a user trust study. The rationale of this framework is that a prompt mistake correction restores human trust. With H2R-AT, a robot localizes human verbal concerns and makes prompt mistake corrections to avoid task failures in an early stage and to finally improve human trust. User trust study measures trust status before and after the behavior corrections to quantify the trust loss. Robot experiments were designed to cover four typical mistakes, wrong action, wrong region, wrong pose, and wrong spatial relation, validated the accuracy of H2R-AT in robot behavior corrections; a user trust study with $252$ participants was conducted, and the changes in trust levels before and after corrections were evaluated. The effectiveness of the human trust repairing was evaluated by the mistake correction accuracy and the trust improvement.