PPTP: Performance-Guided Physiological Signal-Based Trust Prediction in Human-Robot Collaboration

Chunzhi Yi; Feng Jiang; Hao Guo; Shaohui Liu; Wei Fan

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

PPTP: Performance-Guided Physiological Signal-Based Trust Prediction in Human-Robot Collaboration

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that collaboration performance can serve as a guiding signal for physiological trust prediction, achieving 81.1% three-level and 74.3% seven-level classification accuracy in a human-robot construction task.

desk verdict A useful, well-situated HRC trust experiment with a sensible CP-guided fusion idea, but the missing train/test split details currently make the headline accuracies unverifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16677 v1 pith:Q3NMKA7C submitted 2025-06-20 cs.HC cs.RO

Hao Guo , Wei Fan , Shaohui Liu , Feng Jiang , Chunzhi Yi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HCcs.RO

keywords trustpredictionhuman-robotcollaborationphysiologicalsignalsperformancemultimodalfusioncross-modalityattentionconstructionrobotics

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Trust is hard to measure continuously: questionnaires sample before and after a task, while physiological signals are continuous but vary wildly between people. This paper tries to close that gap by using collaboration performance—how well the human-robot team is actually building—as a guiding cue for interpreting ECG, GSR, and EMG signals. In a block-stacking construction task with three difficulty levels, the proposed PPTP framework classifies trust into three levels with 81.1% accuracy and into seven finer levels with 74.3% accuracy, the first reported seven-level trust classification in this line of work. The reason to care is practical: if trust can be read at fine granularity during a task, a robot could adjust its autonomy or request help before trust becomes miscalibrated.

What carries the argument

The two-part mechanism is a collaboration-performance evaluator and a cross-modality fusion block. The evaluator estimates the skewing of every placed block from camera-detected block centers, treats the bottom layer as stable, and converts the skewing history into a discounted failure-risk vector $F \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times 10}$ using a weighted moving average with discount factor $\gamma = 0.8$; a failed placement or collapse enters as $-1$ or $-2$. The fusion module embeds this performance vector and uses it as key/value guidance in a cross-attention layer inserted between the self-attention and feed-forward sections of each block of a Transformer-style physiological signal processor, so performance information steers which physiological patches the model attends to. This design is what lets standardized task outcomes compensate for individual differences in physiological response.

What would settle it

Collect trust ratings at multiple points inside a single block, for example with a continuous slider or repeated short questionnaires, then retrain or re-evaluate the model against those finer labels. If within-block accuracy is substantially lower than the 81.1% and 74.3% figures obtained with held-constant labels, the central claim of dynamic trust tracking fails; if accuracy holds, the constant-label assumption is benign.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that physiological trust signals become substantially more readable when feature extraction is guided by a standardized measure of how well the collaboration is going. The paper constructs a continuous collaboration performance score from the skewing of each stacked block and a discounted history of failure risk, then feeds that score into an attention-based fusion module as a cross-modal guide for selecting relevant patches of ECG, GSR, and EMG. Across 30 participants, this raises three-level trust classification to 81.1% accuracy, 6.7 percentage points above the best baseline, and yields 74.3% accuracy on a seven-level trust scale, whereas the same physiological signals without performance guidance reach 78.5% and 72.9% accuracy respectively. The authors present the seven-level result as the first high-resolution trust prediction in human-robot collaboration research.

Load-bearing premise

Trust is assumed to stay constant between consecutive questionnaire responses, so each post-block questionnaire score labels the entire preceding window of physiological data; if a participant's trust shifts within a block, the ground-truth labels are wrong and the reported accuracy overstates how well the model tracks trust as it changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the 81.1% three-level result holds up, physiological trust monitors for human-robot collaboration can be built around wearable ECG, GSR, and EMG without laboratory EEG equipment.
The 74.3% seven-level result implies that trust is not just low, medium, and high: finer distinctions are accessible, which could support graded robot responses rather than coarse mode switches.
Performance guidance improves accuracy across nearly every signal combination tested, suggesting that standardized task metrics are a general corrective to person-to-person physiological variability.
The model stays above 73% accuracy even when two physiological modalities are missing, so deployment can degrade gracefully when some sensors fail or are removed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same performance-guided fusion recipe could transfer to any collaborative task with a measurable outcome, such as assembly quality, surgical steadiness, or driving errors, where trust is currently inferred from physiology alone; testing that transfer is a natural next step.
If extremely high trust is physiologically saturated, as the label-7 confusions suggest, then the seven-level scale may be capturing roughly five or six distinguishable physiological states, and a finer subjective scale would not automatically yield more distinct signal patterns.
A testable extension the paper does not run is to feed predicted trust back into robot control online, changing autonomy mid-task and comparing task outcomes against a no-adaptation control; that would show whether 81% classification accuracy is enough to improve collaboration in practice.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take on arXiv:2506.16677. The genuinely new piece is using collaboration performance (CP) as a cross-attention guide over physiological signal patches, and pushing trust classification to seven levels. The experiment is also real: 30 participants doing block-stacking with a physical robot, synchronized ECG/GSR/EMG, and a CP metric that is more graded than binary success/failure. That part is worth reading, and the citations look appropriate.

The soft spots are real, and the stress-test note holds up. Section IV reports mean/stdev accuracy across 30 subjects but never says whether the train/test split is subject-independent, task-independent, window-independent, or random. Given the 108 ms window overlap and the fact that each block's trust label is held constant over the entire inter-block interval, a random window split lets near-identical windows from the same participant appear in both train and test. With a deep cross-attention Transformer and N=30, that leakage path alone could plausibly account for the 81.1% and 74.3% numbers. This is the load-bearing gap.

The label-construction issue is secondary. Holding a Muir questionnaire score constant across a short block is a reasonable approximation; if trust drifts mid-block, the labels get noisy, but that would attenuate accuracy rather than inflate it. I would not make that the main complaint.

There are also smaller reporting problems. The 2.6-point gain from adding CP (78.5 to 81.1) is called "significant" but no significance test is reported, and the same is true for the 6.7-point margin over the Transformer baseline. The "first seven-level trust prediction" claim needs a citation check; I cannot verify it from the text. On the positive side, the CP metric is deterministic from block positions and a hand-set discount factor, not fitted to trust labels, so the circularity concern is unfounded.

Who is this for? People working on multimodal physiological trust prediction and HRC evaluation. The architecture is a reasonable engineering combination, not a conceptual breakthrough, but it is a legitimate extension. If the split is subject-independent and the results hold, this is a solid contribution. As presented, I would not cite the headline accuracy.

Recommendation: send it to a serious referee, but with a pointed request for the exact split protocol, participant independence, and significance tests. Those are fixable in revision, and the underlying experiment deserves the engagement.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PPTP, a Transformer-based multimodal fusion model that combines ECG, GSR, and EMG with a Collaboration Performance (CP) metric computed from block-stacking skewness and failure risk, to classify human trust in a human-robot construction task. Data from 30 participants across three difficulty conditions are segmented into short windows, and each window is assigned the trust score of the surrounding inter-questionnaire interval. The paper reports 81.1% three-level and 74.3% seven-level classification accuracy, ablation results across modality combinations, and comparisons with baseline models.

Significance. If the evaluation protocol is sound, the paper makes a useful contribution: it addresses a realistic construction HRC setting, integrates an interpretable CP measure as guidance, and explores multi-level trust classification beyond the common three-level setup. The CP-guided attention mechanism is a reasonable design, and the modality-combination ablations are informative. However, the absence of a clear data-partitioning protocol leaves the headline accuracies unverifiable, and the label-construction assumption limits what the numbers can support. Subject-independent evaluation and controls for task difficulty would make the results credible to the HRC and affective computing communities. No code or data are provided, so reproducibility currently rests on the textual description.

major comments (3)

[Section IV (Tables I–IV) and Section III-C] The manuscript never states how training and test sets were formed. Section III-C segments signals into 3 s (ECG/GSR) and 216 ms (EMG) windows with 108 ms overlap and assigns each window the trust score of the surrounding inter-questionnaire interval. If windows are assigned to train/test randomly, overlapping windows from the same block can appear in both sets, and because all windows of a participant share that participant's physiological baseline, the model can memorize subject-specific patterns with only N=30 participants. This could account for the 81.1% three-level and 74.3% seven-level accuracies and for the 6.7% margin over the Transformer baseline. Please specify whether partitioning was subject-independent, task-independent, window-independent, or random, and report accuracy under a strict subject-independent split. This is required to interpret Table I and Table IV.
[Section III-C and Section IV-E] Ground-truth trust labels are constructed by holding each post-step Muir questionnaire score constant across the entire inter-block interval. Section III-C explicitly states, "we assumed constant trust levels between consecutive recording points." The paper therefore assumes that trust does not change within a block, even though the introduction and Section IV-E motivate continuous monitoring of trust dynamics. If a participant's trust changes during a block, the labels are wrong, and the reported classification accuracy overstates the model's ability to track dynamic trust. Please quantify the distribution of label durations, discuss the temporal-resolution limits of this labeling, or provide an auxiliary analysis (e.g., using only the first or second half of each interval) to justify the assumption.
[Section III-B, Section IV-A, Eq. (2)] The three difficulty conditions produce significantly different trust scores (Section IV-A), and the CP metric in Eq. (2) is computed from block skewing and failure events that are likely affected by the same difficulty manipulation (e.g., inverted camera views in the HD condition). Consequently, CP guidance may serve as a proxy for task difficulty rather than for collaboration performance per se, making the causal interpretation that performance guides physiology ambiguous. Please report an ablation that includes task condition (LD/MD/HD) as an input feature or otherwise controls for difficulty, and discuss the sensitivity of the result to the discount factor gamma=0.8.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV-B and IV-C] The text states that CP guidance "significantly improves" performance (e.g., Fig. 6), but no statistical test or confidence interval accompanies the per-subject accuracy comparisons; the 2.6-point gain over all physiological signals in Table I is within one standard deviation. Please add paired tests or confidence intervals.
[Sections I, III-A, IV-A] There are several typos and formatting issues: "correponding" in Section I, "Data Acquasition" in Fig. 1, and "ANOV A" in Section IV-A. Please proofread the manuscript.
[Section IV-E] The claim of being "a first in trust prediction research" for seven-level classification needs a literature search or at least a delimiting statement, since seven-level labels from a Likert questionnaire are a natural extension and prior work may have used them.
[Section IV-D] Baseline implementations (CPM-Nets, RNN, LSTM, Transformer) are not described beyond a CP embedding module; please provide architecture and training details so that the 6.7% margin can be reproduced.
[Section III-C and IV-A] The sampling rates and window lengths are given, but the number of windows per participant, the class distribution after labeling, and any class-balancing strategy are not reported. Please add these details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: PPTP's CP metric is a hand-set visual-performance input, not fitted to trust labels, and supervised training is a standard input-output mapping.

full rationale

The PPTP derivation is self-contained. Trust ground truth is the Muir questionnaire score per block (Section III-C), while the collaboration performance (CP) metric is computed from YOLO-detected block positions and a hand-set discount factor gamma=0.8 (Eq. 2), with no fitted parameters drawn from the trust labels. The model is trained by standard supervised classification from physiological signals plus CP embeddings to the questionnaire-derived labels; no equation reduces the predicted trust to a fitted value of CP or to the label-construction rule. The only self-citation, [30], supports the peripheral physiological statement that EMG activity is millisecond-level and is not load-bearing for the central accuracy claim. The constant-trust labeling assumption and the unspecified train/test split are threats to external validity and could inflate reported accuracy due to window overlap or same-subject leakage, but they are evaluation-protocol concerns, not circularity: the inputs and predicted targets are not the same object by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on three hand-set parameters (gamma, trust thresholds, window sizes), four domain assumptions about signal-trust validity and label construction, and a constructed performance metric. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)

Discount factor gamma in CP evaluation (Eq. 2) = 0.8
Hand-set to weight recent blocks more heavily; no sensitivity analysis or fitting to trust labels is reported.
Three-level trust thresholds = Not reported
The seven-point Muir scores are collapsed into low/medium/high, but the cutoff values are not given, making the classification task ambiguous.
Window sizes and overlap = 3 s ECG/GSR, 216 ms EMG, 108 ms overlap
Chosen based on typical physiological response scales; no optimization or ablation of these windows is reported.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Muir questionnaire scores are a valid ground-truth measure of trust in human-robot collaboration.
Trust labels are derived from the Muir questionnaire (Section III-C); the paper does not validate the questionnaire against other trust measures in this scenario.
domain assumption ECG, GSR, and EMG signals carry information about trust states.
The paper cites prior work for signal-trust correlations but does not establish the effect size in its own data; the classification results implicitly test this.
domain assumption YOLO-v5 block detection with IoU greater than 0.85 provides accurate block positions for the collaboration performance metric.
The skewing S and failure risk F depend on detected block centers; detection errors propagate into the CP representation.
ad hoc to paper Trust is constant between consecutive questionnaire recordings.
The labels for physiological windows are assigned by holding the post-block questionnaire score constant until the next block (Section III-C).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PPTP: Performance-Guided Physiological Signal-Based Trust Prediction in Human-Robot Collaboration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q3NMKA7C

@misc{pith2026250616677,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PPTP: Performance-Guided Physiological Signal-Based Trust Prediction in Human-Robot Collaboration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q3NMKA7C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16677}
}

read the original abstract

Trust prediction is a key issue in human-robot collaboration, especially in construction scenarios where maintaining appropriate trust calibration is critical for safety and efficiency. This paper introduces the Performance-guided Physiological signal-based Trust Prediction (PPTP), a novel framework designed to improve trust assessment. We designed a human-robot construction scenario with three difficulty levels to induce different trust states. Our approach integrates synchronized multimodal physiological signals (ECG, GSR, and EMG) with collaboration performance evaluation to predict human trust levels. Individual physiological signals are processed using collaboration performance information as guiding cues, leveraging the standardized nature of collaboration performance to compensate for individual variations in physiological responses. Extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of our cross-modality fusion method in significantly improving trust classification performance. Our model achieves over 81% accuracy in three-level trust classification, outperforming the best baseline method by 6.7%, and notably reaches 74.3% accuracy in high-resolution seven-level classification, which is a first in trust prediction research. Ablation experiments further validate the superiority of physiological signal processing guided by collaboration performance assessment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16677 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Architecture of the Proposed PPTP Framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Collaboration Performance Evaluation Process: Block [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Architecture of cross-modality fusion module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Confusion Matrix for Three-Level Trust Classification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Classification Accuracy With and Without CP Guid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Confusion Matrix for High-Resolution Seven-Level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

Brainwave-driven human- robot collaboration in construction,

Y . Liu, M. Habibnezhad, and H. Jebelli, “Brainwave-driven human- robot collaboration in construction,”Automation in Construction, vol. 124, p. 103556, 2021

work page 2021
[2]

Human–robot collaboration for on-site construction,

M. Zhang, R. Xu, H. Wu, J. Pan, and X. Luo, “Human–robot collaboration for on-site construction,”Automation in Construction, vol. 150, p. 104812, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Human- object integrated assembly intention recognition for context-aware human-robot collaborative assembly,

Y . Zhang, K. Ding, J. Hui, J. Lv, X. Zhou, and P. Zheng, “Human- object integrated assembly intention recognition for context-aware human-robot collaborative assembly,”Advanced Engineering Infor- matics, vol. 54, p. 101792, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

Advancing healthcare through intelligent human-robot collaboration: overview, challenges and opportunities,

M. A. Ait Ameur, E. Yang, and S. Brady, “Advancing healthcare through intelligent human-robot collaboration: overview, challenges and opportunities,” in2024 29th International Conference on Automa- tion and Computing (ICAC), pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

A unified bi-directional model for natural and artificial trust in human–robot collaboration,

H. Azevedo-Sa, X. J. Yang, L. P. Robert, and D. M. Tilbury, “A unified bi-directional model for natural and artificial trust in human–robot collaboration,”IEEE robotics and automation letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 5913–5920, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

Planning with trust for human-robot collaboration,

M. Chen, S. Nikolaidis, H. Soh, D. Hsu, and S. Srinivasa, “Planning with trust for human-robot collaboration,” inProceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, pp. 307–315, 2018

work page 2018
[7]

Trust-aware decision making for human-robot collaboration: Model learning and planning,

M. Chen, S. Nikolaidis, H. Soh, D. Hsu, and S. Srinivasa, “Trust-aware decision making for human-robot collaboration: Model learning and planning,”ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–23, 2020

work page 2020
[8]

Assessing trust in construction ai-powered collaborative robots using structural equation modeling,

N. Emaminejad, L. Kath, and R. Akhavian, “Assessing trust in construction ai-powered collaborative robots using structural equation modeling,”Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, vol. 38, no. 3, p. 04024011, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 41 references

[9]

Measuring human trust in a virtual assistant using physiological sensing in virtual reality,

K. Gupta, R. Hajika, Y . S. Pai, A. Duenser, M. Lochner, and M. Billinghurst, “Measuring human trust in a virtual assistant using physiological sensing in virtual reality,” in2020 IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR), pp. 756–765, IEEE, 2020

2020
[10]

Predicting human trust in human- robot collaborations using machine learning and psychophysiological responses,

H. Chauhan, Y . Jang, and I. Jeong, “Predicting human trust in human- robot collaborations using machine learning and psychophysiological responses,”Advanced Engineering Informatics, vol. 62, p. 102720, 2024

2024
[11]

Dispositional trust—do we trust au- tonomous cars?,

K. Lazanyi and G. Maraczi, “Dispositional trust—do we trust au- tonomous cars?,” in2017 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics (SISY), pp. 000135–000140, IEEE, 2017

2017
[12]

A review on trust in human-robot interaction,

Z. R. Khavas, “A review on trust in human-robot interaction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.10045, 2021

2021 arXiv
[13]

Fabrication of a portable device for stress monitoring using wearable sensors and soft computing algorithms,

A. Golgouneh and B. Tarvirdizadeh, “Fabrication of a portable device for stress monitoring using wearable sensors and soft computing algorithms,”Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 7515–7537, 2020

2020
[14]

A classification model for sensing human trust in machines using eeg and gsr,

K. Akash, W.-L. Hu, N. Jain, and T. Reid, “A classification model for sensing human trust in machines using eeg and gsr,”ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1–20, 2018

2018
[15]

Trust: Recent concepts and evaluations in human-robot interaction,

T. Law and M. Scheutz, “Trust: Recent concepts and evaluations in human-robot interaction,”Trust in human-robot interaction, pp. 27–57, 2021

2021
[16]

Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review,

P. Madhavan and D. A. Wiegmann, “Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review,”Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 277–301, 2007

2007
[17]

Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust,

K. A. Hoff and M. Bashir, “Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust,”Human factors, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 407–434, 2015

2015
[18]

A review on human–machine trust evaluation: Human-centric and machine-centric perspectives,

B. Gebru, L. Zeleke, D. Blankson, M. Nabil, S. Nateghi, A. Homai- far, and E. Tunstel, “A review on human–machine trust evaluation: Human-centric and machine-centric perspectives,”IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 952–962, 2022

2022
[19]

Initial validation of the trust of automated systems test (toast),

H. M. Wojton, D. Porter, S. T. Lane, C. Bieber, and P. Madhavan, “Initial validation of the trust of automated systems test (toast),”The Journal of social psychology, vol. 160, no. 6, pp. 735–750, 2020

2020
[20]

A multidimensional conception and measure of human-robot trust,

B. F. Malle and D. Ullman, “A multidimensional conception and measure of human-robot trust,” inTrust in human-robot interaction, pp. 3–25, Elsevier, 2021

2021
[21]

Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation,

J. D. Lee and N. Moray, “Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation,”International journal of human-computer studies, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 153–184, 1994

1994
[22]

Real-time estimation of drivers’ trust in automated driving systems,

H. Azevedo-Sa, S. K. Jayaraman, C. T. Esterwood, X. J. Yang, L. P. Robert Jr, and D. M. Tilbury, “Real-time estimation of drivers’ trust in automated driving systems,”International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1911–1927, 2021

1911
[23]

Team development and func- tioning.,

J. A. Cannon-Bowers and C. Bowers, “Team development and func- tioning.,” 2011

2011
[24]

Optimo: Online probabilistic trust inference model for asymmetric human-robot collaborations,

A. Xu and G. Dudek, “Optimo: Online probabilistic trust inference model for asymmetric human-robot collaborations,” inProceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, pp. 221–228, 2015

2015
[25]

Modeling and predicting trust dynamics in human–robot teaming: A bayesian inference approach,

Y . Guo and X. J. Yang, “Modeling and predicting trust dynamics in human–robot teaming: A bayesian inference approach,”International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1899–1909, 2021

1909
[26]

A bayesian trust inference model for human-multi-robot teams,

M. Fooladi Mahani, L. Jiang, and Y . Wang, “A bayesian trust inference model for human-multi-robot teams,”International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1951–1965, 2021

1951
[27]

Cognitive load prediction from multimodal physiological signals using multiview learning,

Y . Liu, Y . Yu, H. Tao, Z. Ye, S. Wang, H. Li, D. Hu, Z. Zhou, and L.- L. Zeng, “Cognitive load prediction from multimodal physiological signals using multiview learning,”IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2023

2023
[28]

Towards a real-time cognitive load assessment system for industrial human-robot cooperation,

A. Rajavenkatanarayanan, H. R. Nambiappan, M. Kyrarini, and F. Makedon, “Towards a real-time cognitive load assessment system for industrial human-robot cooperation,” in2020 29th IEEE interna- tional conference ON robot AND human interactive communication (Ro-Man), pp. 698–705...

2020
[29]

A review of yolo algo- rithm developments,

P. Jiang, D. Ergu, F. Liu, Y . Cai, and B. Ma, “A review of yolo algo- rithm developments,”Procedia computer science, vol. 199, pp. 1066– 1073, 2022

2022
[30]

Continuous prediction of lower-limb kinematics from multi-modal biomedical signals,

C. Yi, F. Jiang, S. Zhang, H. Guo, C. Yang, Z. Ding, B. Wei, X. Lan, and H. Zhou, “Continuous prediction of lower-limb kinematics from multi-modal biomedical signals,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 2592–2602, 2022

2022
[31]

Trust in automation: Part i. theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems,

B. M. Muir, “Trust in automation: Part i. theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems,”Ergonomics, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 1905–1922, 1994

1905
[32]

Trust in automation. part ii. experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simula- tion,

B. M. Muir and N. Moray, “Trust in automation. part ii. experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simula- tion,”Ergonomics, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 429–460, 1996

1996
[33]

Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years later,

S. G. Hart, “Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years later,” in Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol. 50, pp. 904–908, Sage publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2006

2006
[34]

The weighted moving average technique,

M. B. Perry, “The weighted moving average technique,”Wiley Ency- clopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, 2010

2010
[35]

Attention augmented convolutional networks,

I. Bello, B. Zoph, A. Vaswani, J. Shlens, and Q. V . Le, “Attention augmented convolutional networks,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp. 3286–3295, 2019

2019
[36]

Image transformer,

N. Parmar, A. Vaswani, J. Uszkoreit, L. Kaiser, N. Shazeer, A. Ku, and D. Tran, “Image transformer,” inInternational conference on machine learning, pp. 4055–4064, PMLR, 2018

2018
[37]

Attention is all you need,

A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

2017
[38]

Layer normalization,

J. L. Ba, J. R. Kiros, and G. E. Hinton, “Layer normalization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.06450, 2016

2016 arXiv
[39]

Deep residual learning for image recognition,

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 770–778, 2016

2016
[40]

Self-attention with relative position representations,

P. Shaw, J. Uszkoreit, and A. Vaswani, “Self-attention with relative position representations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02155, 2018

2018 arXiv
[41]

Deep partial multi-view learning,

C. Zhang, Y . Cui, Z. Han, J. T. Zhou, H. Fu, and Q. Hu, “Deep partial multi-view learning,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 2402–2415, 2020

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Brainwave-driven human- robot collaboration in construction,

Y . Liu, M. Habibnezhad, and H. Jebelli, “Brainwave-driven human- robot collaboration in construction,”Automation in Construction, vol. 124, p. 103556, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Human–robot collaboration for on-site construction,

M. Zhang, R. Xu, H. Wu, J. Pan, and X. Luo, “Human–robot collaboration for on-site construction,”Automation in Construction, vol. 150, p. 104812, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Human- object integrated assembly intention recognition for context-aware human-robot collaborative assembly,

Y . Zhang, K. Ding, J. Hui, J. Lv, X. Zhou, and P. Zheng, “Human- object integrated assembly intention recognition for context-aware human-robot collaborative assembly,”Advanced Engineering Infor- matics, vol. 54, p. 101792, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Advancing healthcare through intelligent human-robot collaboration: overview, challenges and opportunities,

M. A. Ait Ameur, E. Yang, and S. Brady, “Advancing healthcare through intelligent human-robot collaboration: overview, challenges and opportunities,” in2024 29th International Conference on Automa- tion and Computing (ICAC), pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

A unified bi-directional model for natural and artificial trust in human–robot collaboration,

H. Azevedo-Sa, X. J. Yang, L. P. Robert, and D. M. Tilbury, “A unified bi-directional model for natural and artificial trust in human–robot collaboration,”IEEE robotics and automation letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 5913–5920, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Planning with trust for human-robot collaboration,

M. Chen, S. Nikolaidis, H. Soh, D. Hsu, and S. Srinivasa, “Planning with trust for human-robot collaboration,” inProceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, pp. 307–315, 2018

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Trust-aware decision making for human-robot collaboration: Model learning and planning,

M. Chen, S. Nikolaidis, H. Soh, D. Hsu, and S. Srinivasa, “Trust-aware decision making for human-robot collaboration: Model learning and planning,”ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–23, 2020

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Assessing trust in construction ai-powered collaborative robots using structural equation modeling,

N. Emaminejad, L. Kath, and R. Akhavian, “Assessing trust in construction ai-powered collaborative robots using structural equation modeling,”Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, vol. 38, no. 3, p. 04024011, 2024

work page 2024