Research Appraisalother

Predictive robot eyes shape visual attention, performance, and trust in interaction with an industrial CoBot.

Scientific reportsNaendrup-Poell, Lara, Onnasch, Linda4 May 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

75CEBM
Evidence: Moderateother

PICO Framework

P — PopulationHealthy adults participating in laboratory-based human-robot interaction studies
I — InterventionExposure to collaborative robot (CoBot) with predictive visual cues (eyes or arrows)
C — ComparatorCoBot with no predictive cues
O — OutcomesVisual attention patterns (eye movements, target fixations), prediction performance (reaction times), and trust measures during pre-failure, failure, and post-failure phases

Bottom Line

This controlled laboratory study demonstrates that predictive visual cues (particularly gaze) on collaborative robots can enhance human performance by guiding visual attention and improving prediction times. However, the benefits are contingent on cue reliability, with temporary performance decrements when cues are misleading. While the replication strengthens confidence in findings, the laboratory setting limits direct applicability to real industrial environments. The research provides valuable insights for robot design but requires validation in actual workplace settings before implementation. Trust dynamics showed expected patterns of formation and recovery, suggesting resilience in human-robot relationships. These findings may inform safety protocols and training for collaborative robotics in Australian manufacturing contexts.

Evidence: Moderate

Key Findings

  • P Value: Not specified in abstract

  • Effect Size: Earlier target fixations and improved prediction times with reliable gaze cues

  • Primary Outcome: Visual attention patterns and prediction performance with predictive robot cues

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Temporary performance degradation during cue-action mismatch with subsequent recovery

  • Confidence Interval: Not reported in abstract

Clinical Application

Implementation requires consideration of robot design and cue reliability in industrial environments Relevant to Australian manufacturing and Industry 4.0 initiatives, though workplace safety regulations and training protocols would need consideration Industrial workers interacting with collaborative robots in manufacturing settings

Abstract

Collaborative robots increasingly share workspaces with humans, making the predictability of robot actions critical for efficient and safe coordination. Predictive visual cues, such as gaze or arrows, may reduce uncertainty, yet their effectiveness and robustness, especially under failure conditions, remain insufficiently understood. Across two laboratory studies with an industrial CoBot, we examined how predictive cues influence visual attention, prediction, and trust. Participants predicted the movement target of a robotic arm displaying eyes, arrows, or no cues across pre-failure, failure, and post-failure phases, while eye movements, reaction times, and trust were recorded. The second study served as a full replication. Across both studies, gaze cues accelerated visual orienting toward the target, as reflected in earlier target fixations, and improved prediction time when cues were reliable. A cue-action mismatch led to a temporary delayed target fixation and slower responses in both cue conditions. Importantly, performance and attentional guidance largely recovered during subsequent error-free interaction, with gaze cues tending to regain their advantage over no cues. Trust mostly showed the expected dynamic pattern of formation, dissolution, and restoration. Together, the findings demonstrate that predictive cues in industrial HRI enhance action anticipation by guiding visual attention, but their benefits are sensitive to cue reliability.

References

  1. 1.Naendrup-Poell, L., & Onnasch, L. (2026). Predictive robot eyes shape visual attention, performance, and trust in interaction with an industrial CoBot. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000353
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service