Robot Transparency and Team Orientation Effects on Human–Robot Teaming

References

• Adams, B. D., Bruyn, L. E., Houde, S., & Angelopoulos, P. (2003). Trust in automated systems literature review (DRDC Toronto No. CR-2003-096). Toronto, Canada: Defence Research and Development Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, N., & Scerbo, M. (2007). Automation- induced complacency for monitoring highly reliable systems: The role of task complexity, system experience and operator trust. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomical Science, 8, 321–348.
   Google Scholar
• Barelka, A. J., Bobko, P., Wesselmann, E. D., & Lyons, J. B. (under review). Investigating user suspicion of human and computer teammates: An exploration in two cyber experiments. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Bruemmer, D. J., Marble, J. L., & Dudenhoeffer, D. D. (2002). Mutual initiative in human machine teams. Proceedings of the 7th Conf. on Human Factors and Power Plants, Scottsdale, AZ, pp. 7-22-7-30.
   Google Scholar
• Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan (Ed.), Current issues in individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, J. Y. C., & Barnes, M. J. (2014). Human-agent teaming for multirobot control: A review of the human factors issues. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 44(1), 13–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, J. Y. C., Haas, E., Pillalamarri, P., & Jacobson, C. (2006). Human- robot interface: issues in operator performance, interface design, and technologies. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, J. Y. C., Lakhmani, S. G., Stowers, K., Selkowitz, A. R., Wright, J. L., & Barnes, M. (2018). Situation awareness-based agent transparency and human-autonomy teaming effectiveness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomical Science, 19, 259–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, J. Y. C., Procci, K., Boyce, M., Wright, J., Garcia, A., & Barnes, M. (2014). Situation awareness–Based agent transparency. U.S. Army Res. Lab., Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA: Tech. Rep. TR-6905.
   Google Scholar
• Eggemeier, F. T., Wilson, G. F., Kramer, A. F., & Damos, D. (1991). Workload assessment in multi- task environments. In D. L. Damos (Ed.), Multiple-task performance (pp. 207–216). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (1987). NOR DOC 87-83, “SAGAT: A methodology for the measurement of situation awareness”. Hawthorne, CA: Northrop Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (1988a). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. Proceedings of the 32nd Human Factors and Erg. Society Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA, USA, vol. 32, pp. 97–101.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (1988b). Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). Paper presented at the National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAECON), New York, IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Everitt, B., & Skrondal, A. (2010). The Cambridge dictionary of statistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, K. (2011). How people talk with robots: Designing dialogue to reduce user uncertainty. AI Magazine, 32, 31–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granda, T., Kirkpatrick, M., Julien, T., & Peterson, L. (1990). The evolutionary role of humans in the human-robot system. Proc. Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 664–668.
   Google Scholar
• Groom, V., & Nass, C. (2007). Can robots be teammates? Benchmarks in human-robot teams. Interaction Studies, 8, 483–500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock, P., Billings, D., Schaefer, K., Chen, J., de Visser, E., & Parasuraman, R. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53, 517–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, S. G., & Stave Land, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload, advances in psych. (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). Amsterdam, NE: N. Holland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Helldin, T., Ohlander, U., Falkman, G., & Riveiro, M. (2014). Transparency of automated combat classification. Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, 8532, 22–33.
   Google Scholar
• Hoeft, R. M., Kochan, J. A., & Jentsch, F. (2006). automated systems in the cockpit: Is the autopilot, “George,” a Team Member? In C. Bowers, E. Salas, & F. Jentsch (Eds.), Creating high-tech teams: Practical guidance on work performance and technology (pp. 243–259). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57, 407–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huey, B., & Wickens, C. (1993). Workload transition: Implications for individual and team performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M., & Vera, A. H. (in press). No AI is an island: The case for teaming intelligence. AI Magazine.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, T., & Hinds, P. (2006). Who should I blame? Effects of autonomy and transparency on attributions in human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the 15th IEEE Int. Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Comm. (RO-MAN), Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK, pp. 80–85.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and post-change performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 27–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. B. (2013). Being transparent about transparency: A model for human-robot interaction. Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Trust in Autonomous Systems, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 48–53.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. B., Clark., M. A., Wagner, A., & Schuelke, M. J. (2017). Certifiable trust in autonomous systems: Making the intractable tangible. AI Magazine, 38, 37–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. B., Koltai, K. S., Ho, N. T., Johnson, W. B., Smith, D. E., & Shively, J. R. (2016). Engineering trust in complex automated systems. Ergonomics in Design, 24, 13–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. B., & Stokes, C. K. (2012). Human-human reliance in the context of automation. Human Factors, 54, 112–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. B., Wynne, K. T., Roebke, M. A., & Mahoney, S. (2018). Viewing machines as teammates: A qualitative study. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium Series, Palo Alto, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Ma, M., Fong, T., Micire, M., Kim, Y., & Feigh, K. (2018). Human-robot teaming: concepts and components for design. In M. Hutter & R. Siegwart (Eds.), Field and service robotics. Springer proceedings in advanced robotics (Vol. 5, pp. 649–663). Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mercado, J. E., Rupp, M. A., Chen, J. Y. C., Barber, D., Procci, K., & Barnes, M. (2015). Effects of agent transparency on multi-robot management effectiveness. U.S. Army Res. Lab., Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA: Human Res. and U.S. Army Engineering Res. Lab., Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA: Human Res. and Engineering Directorate, Tech. Rep. TR-7466.
   Google Scholar
• Mercado, J. E., Rupp, M. A., Chen, J. Y. C., Barnes, M. J., Procci, B., & Procci, K. (2016). Intelligent agent transparency in human-agent teaming for multi-UvX management. Human Factors, 58, 401–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merritt, S. M., LaChapell, J., & Lee, D. (2012). The perfect automation schema: Measure development and validation. U.S. Air Force Res. Lab., Dayton, OH, USA: Human Effectiveness Directorate Tech. Rep. FA8650-09-D-6939.
   Google Scholar
• Merritt, S. M., LaChapell, J., & Lee, D. (2013). Continuous calibration of trust in automated systems-phase 2. U.S. Air Force Res. Lab., Dayton, OH, USA: Human Effectiveness Directorate Tech. Rep. TR-0026.
   Google Scholar
• Merritt, S. M., Unnerstall, J. L., Lee, D., & Huber, K. (2015). Measuring individual differences in the perfect automation schema. Human Factors, 57, 740–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moran, S., Pantidi, N., Bachour, K., Fischer, J. E., Flintham, M., Rodden, T., … Johnson, S. (2013). Team reactions to voiced agent instructions in a pervasive game. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 371–382.
   Google Scholar
• Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygren, T. E. (1991). Psychometric properties of subjective workload measurement techniques: Implications for their use in the assessment of perceived mental workload. Human Factors, 33, 17–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ososky, S., Schuster, D., Phillips, E., & Jentsch, F. (2013). Building appropriate trust in human robot teams. In Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Trust in Autonomous Systems, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 60–65.
   Google Scholar
• Pak, R., Fink, N., Price, M., Bass, B., & Sturre, L. (2012). Decision support aids with anthropomorphic characteristics influence trust and performance in younger and older adults. Ergonomics, 55, 1059–1072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, E., Jenkins, Q., & Jiang, X. (2008). Measuring trust of human operators in new generation rescue robots. Paper presented at the 7th JFPS International Symposium on Fluid Power, Toyama, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Prewett, M., Johnson, R., Saboe, K., Elliott, L., & Coovert, M. (2010). Managing workload in human-robot interaction: A review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 840–856.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, G., Battiste, H., Ho, N. T., Hoffmann, L., Johnson, W., Shively, R., … Smith, D. (2016). Effects of transparency on pilot trust and agreement in the autonomous constrained flight planner. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/AIAA 35th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), Sacramento, CA, USA, pp. 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50, 540–547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, S. C. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555–599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. L., Wixon, T., Schafer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., & Hancock, P. (2014). The influence of modality and transparency on trust in human-robot interaction. IEEE Int. Inter-Disciplinary Conf. on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA), San Antonio, TX, USA, pp. 156–159.
   Google Scholar
• Scheutz, M., Schermerhorn, P., & Kramer, J. (2006). The utility of affect expression in natural language interactions in joint human-robot tasks. ACM International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Utah, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Selkowitz, A. R., Lakhmani, S. G., Larios, C. N., & Chen, Y. C. (2016). Agent transparency and the autonomous squad member. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, pp. 1319–1323.
   Google Scholar
• Stedmon, A. W., Sharples, S., Littlewood, R., Cox, G., Patel, H., & Wilson, J. R. (2007). Datalink in air traffic management: Human factors issues in communications. Applied Ergonomics, 38, 473–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinfeld, A. (2004). Interface lessons for fully and semi-autonomous mobile robots. Proc. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Stowers, K., Kasdaglis, N., Newton, O., Lakhmani, S., Wohleber, R., & Chen, J. (2016). Intelligent agent transparency: The design and evaluation of an interface to facilitate human and intelligent agent collaboration. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, pp. 1706–1710.
   Google Scholar
• Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynne, K. T., & Lyons, J. B. (2018). An integrative model of autonomous agent teammate likeness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomical Science, 19, 353–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar