Objective The objective of this meta-analysis is to explore the presently available, empirical findings on transfer of training from virtual (VR), augmented (AR), and mixed reality (MR) and determine whether such extended reality (XR)-based training is as effective as traditional training methods. Background MR, VR, and AR have already been used as training tools in a variety of domains. However, the question of whether or not these manipulations are effective for training has not been quantitatively and conclusively answered. Evidence shows that, while extended realities can often be time-saving and cost-saving training mechanisms, their efficacy as training tools has been debated. Method The current body of literature was examined and all qualifying articles pertaining to transfer of training from MR, VR, and AR were included in the meta-analysis. Effect sizes were calculated to determine the effects that XR-based factors, trainee-based factors, and task-based factors had on performance measures after XR-based training. Results Results showed that training in XR does not express a different outcome than training in a nonsimulated, control environment. It is equally effective at enhancing performance. Conclusion Across numerous studies in multiple fields, extended realities are as effective of a training mechanism as the commonly accepted methods. The value of XR then lies in providing training in circumstances, which exclude traditional methods, such as situations when danger or cost may make traditional training impossible.

Objective The objectives of this meta-analysis are to explore the presently available empirical findings on the antecedents of trust in robots and use this information to expand upon a previous meta-analytic review of the area. Background Human–robot interaction (HRI) represents an increasingly important dimension of our everyday existence. Currently, the most important element of these interactions is proposed to be whether the human trusts the robot or not. We have identified three overarching categories that exert effects on the expression of trust. These consist of factors associated with (a) the human, (b) the robot, and (c) the context in which any specific HRI event occurs. Method The current body of literature was examined and all qualifying articles pertaining to trust in robots were included in the meta-analysis. A previous meta-analysis on HRI trust was used as the basis for this extended, updated, and evolving analysis. Results Multiple additional factors, which have now been demonstrated to significantly influence trust, were identified. The present results, expressed as points of difference and points of commonality between the current and previous analyses, are identified, explained, and cast in the setting of the emerging wave of HRI. Conclusion The present meta-analysis expands upon previous work and validates the overarching categories of trust antecedent (human-related, robot-related, and contextual), as well as identifying the significant individual precursors to trust within each category. A new and updated model of these complex interactions is offered. Application The identified trust factors can be used in order to promote appropriate levels of trust in robots.

Objective The present meta-analysis sought to determine significant factors that predict trust in artificial intelligence (AI). Such factors were divided into those relating to (a) the human trustor, (b) the AI trustee, and (c) the shared context of their interaction. Background There are many factors influencing trust in robots, automation, and technology in general, and there have been several meta-analytic attempts to understand the antecedents of trust in these areas. However, no targeted meta-analysis has been performed examining the antecedents of trust in AI. Method Data from 65 articles examined the three predicted categories, as well as the subcategories of human characteristics and abilities, AI performance and attributes, and contextual tasking. Lastly, four common uses for AI (i.e., chatbots, robots, automated vehicles, and nonembodied, plain algorithms) were examined as further potential moderating factors. Results Results showed that all of the examined categories were significant predictors of trust in AI as well as many individual antecedents such as AI reliability and anthropomorphism, among many others. Conclusion Overall, the results of this meta-analysis determined several factors that influence trust, including some that have no bearing on AI performance. Additionally, we highlight the areas where there is currently no empirical research. Application Findings from this analysis will allow designers to build systems that elicit higher or lower levels of trust, as they require.

To understand the influence of trust on use choice in human-robot interaction via experimental investigation. Background: The general assumption that trusting a robot leads to using that robot has been previously identified, often by asking participants to choose between manually completing a task or using an automated aid. Our work further evaluates the relationship between trust and use choice and examines factors impacting choice. Method: An experiment was conducted wherein participants rated a robot on a trust scale, then made decisions about whether to use that robotic agent or a human agent to complete a task. Participants provided explicit reasoning for their choices. Results: While we found statistical support for the "trust leads to use" relationship, qualitative results indicate other factors are important as well. Conclusion: Results indicated that while trust leads to use, use is also heavily influenced by the specific task at hand. Users more often chose a robot for a dangerous task where loss of life is likely, citing safety as their primary concern. Conversely, users chose humans for the mundane warehouse task, mainly citing financial reasons, specifically fear of job and income loss for the human worker. Application: Understanding the factors driving use choice is key to appropriate interaction in the field of human-robot teaming.

No abstract