团队情境意识与冲突:人机协同研究

IF 2.2 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making Pub Date : 2021-05-19 DOI:10.1177/15553434211017354
Nathan J. Mcneese, Mustafa Demir, Nancy J. Cooke, Manrong She
{"title":"团队情境意识与冲突:人机协同研究","authors":"Nathan J. Mcneese, Mustafa Demir, Nancy J. Cooke, Manrong She","doi":"10.1177/15553434211017354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on two fundamental human–human teamwork behaviors and seeks to understand them better in human–machine teams. Specifically, team situation awareness (TSA) and team conflict are examined in human–machine teams. There is a significant need to identify how TSA and team conflict occur during human–machine teaming, in addition to how they impact each other. In this work, we present an experiment aimed at understanding TSA and team conflict in the context of human–machine teaming in a remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS). Three conditions were tested: (1) control: teams consisted of all humans; (2) synthetic: teams consisted of the pilot role being occupied by a computational agent based on ACT-R architecture that employed AI capabilities, with all other team roles being humans; and (3) experimenter: an experimenter playing the role of the pilot as a highly effective computational agent, with the other roles being humans. The results indicate that TSA improved over time in synthetic teams, improved and then stabilized over time in experimenter teams, and did not improve in control teams. In addition, results show that control teams had the most team conflict. Finally, in the control condition, team conflict negatively impacts TSA.","PeriodicalId":46342,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/15553434211017354","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Team Situation Awareness and Conflict: A Study of Human–Machine Teaming\",\"authors\":\"Nathan J. Mcneese, Mustafa Demir, Nancy J. Cooke, Manrong She\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15553434211017354\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article focuses on two fundamental human–human teamwork behaviors and seeks to understand them better in human–machine teams. Specifically, team situation awareness (TSA) and team conflict are examined in human–machine teams. There is a significant need to identify how TSA and team conflict occur during human–machine teaming, in addition to how they impact each other. In this work, we present an experiment aimed at understanding TSA and team conflict in the context of human–machine teaming in a remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS). Three conditions were tested: (1) control: teams consisted of all humans; (2) synthetic: teams consisted of the pilot role being occupied by a computational agent based on ACT-R architecture that employed AI capabilities, with all other team roles being humans; and (3) experimenter: an experimenter playing the role of the pilot as a highly effective computational agent, with the other roles being humans. The results indicate that TSA improved over time in synthetic teams, improved and then stabilized over time in experimenter teams, and did not improve in control teams. In addition, results show that control teams had the most team conflict. Finally, in the control condition, team conflict negatively impacts TSA.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46342,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/15553434211017354\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434211017354\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434211017354","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

本文关注两种基本的人-人团队合作行为,并试图在人机团队中更好地理解它们。具体而言,团队情境意识(TSA)和团队冲突在人机团队中进行了检验。除了TSA和团队冲突如何相互影响外,还需要确定它们在人机团队合作过程中是如何发生的。在这项工作中,我们提出了一个实验,旨在了解远程驾驶飞机系统(RPAS)中人机协同背景下的TSA和团队冲突。测试了三种条件:(1)对照:团队由所有人组成;(2) 合成:团队由飞行员角色组成,由基于ACT-R架构的计算代理占据,该架构使用了人工智能能力,所有其他团队角色都是人类;和(3)实验者:实验者扮演飞行员的角色,作为一个高效的计算代理,其他角色是人类。结果表明,TSA在合成团队中随着时间的推移而改善,在实验者团队中随时间的推移不断改善然后稳定,而在对照团队中没有改善。此外,研究结果显示,控制团队的团队冲突最多。最后,在控制条件下,团队冲突对TSA产生负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Team Situation Awareness and Conflict: A Study of Human–Machine Teaming
This article focuses on two fundamental human–human teamwork behaviors and seeks to understand them better in human–machine teams. Specifically, team situation awareness (TSA) and team conflict are examined in human–machine teams. There is a significant need to identify how TSA and team conflict occur during human–machine teaming, in addition to how they impact each other. In this work, we present an experiment aimed at understanding TSA and team conflict in the context of human–machine teaming in a remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS). Three conditions were tested: (1) control: teams consisted of all humans; (2) synthetic: teams consisted of the pilot role being occupied by a computational agent based on ACT-R architecture that employed AI capabilities, with all other team roles being humans; and (3) experimenter: an experimenter playing the role of the pilot as a highly effective computational agent, with the other roles being humans. The results indicate that TSA improved over time in synthetic teams, improved and then stabilized over time in experimenter teams, and did not improve in control teams. In addition, results show that control teams had the most team conflict. Finally, in the control condition, team conflict negatively impacts TSA.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Introduction to the Special Issue on Automation Failure Augmenting Human Cognition With a Digital Submarine Periscope Get on the Round Dial: Fighter Pilot Strategies for Recovering Situation Awareness After Disorienting Physiological Events Distinguishing Urgent From Non-urgent Communications: A Mixed Methods Study of Communication Technology Use in Perinatal Care Wrong, Strong, and Silent: What Happens when Automated Systems With High Autonomy and High Authority Misbehave?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1