Back to all available

Eye-tracking in HRI user studies: A scoping review of research themes and applications

human-computer-interaction
computer-vision
emerging-technologies
robotics
visual-analytics

Abstract

This paper presents a scoping review of eye-tracking applications in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) to map the current research landscape. As robots become more integrated into daily life, understanding human cognitive and emotional responses is crucial. Eye-tracking provides objective, real-time insights into attention, engagement, and trust that complement traditional self-report methods. Following the PRISMA-ScR framework, this review systematically analyzed 40 peer-reviewed studies. The analysis identified seven primary research themes: communication, trust, anthropomorphism, attention, safety, cognitive load, and emotional reactions. The findings indicate a methodological preference for humanoid robots in controlled laboratory settings, which, while ensuring experimental rigor, limits ecological validity. The review highlights eye-tracking's dual role as both a diagnostic tool for assessing users' internal states and an interactive channel for facilitating social engagement through gaze cues. By synthesizing current applications, this paper reveals key theoretical contributions, practical design implications for creating more intuitive robots, and critical gaps in the literature. It concludes by advocating for future research to include more diverse robotic platforms, longitudinal designs, and studies in real-world environments to enhance the generalizability of findings.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].