Bringing Together Ergonomic Concepts and Cognitive Mechanisms for Human—AI Agents Cooperation

References

• Abbink, D. (2006). Neuromuscular analysis of haptic gas pedal feedback during car following [Dissertation], TU Delft.
   Google Scholar
• Abbott, K., Slotte, S. M., & Stimson, D. K. (1996). The interfaces between flightcrews and modern flight deck systems [Technical report]. United States Federal Aviation Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Aliseda, A. (2006). Abductive reasoning: Logical investigations into discovery and explanation. Number 330 in synthese library. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Bang, D., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., & Frith, C. (2012). Together, slowly but surely: The role of social interaction and feedback on the build-up of benefit in collective decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 38(1), 3–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks, V. A., Stanton, N. A., & Harvey, C. (2013). What the crash dummies don’t tell you: The interaction between driver and automation in emergency situations [Paper presentation]. 16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC 2013) (pp. 2280–2285).
   Google Scholar
• Billings, C. E. (1995). Situation awareness measurement and analysis: A commentary. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Experimental Analysis and Measurement of Situation Awareness (Vol. 1). Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bolstad, C. A., & Endsley, M. R. (1999). Shared mental models and shared displays: An empirical evaluation of team performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 43(3), 213–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931299043003
   Google Scholar
• Carberry, S. (1988). Modeling the user’s plans and goals. Computational Linguistics, 14(3), 23–37. https://aclanthology.org/J88-3003
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, M., Shah, R., Ho, M. K., Griffiths, T. L., Seshia, S. A., Abbeel, P., & Dragan, A. (2020). On the Utility of Learning about Humans for Human-AI Coordination. arXiv:1910.05789 [cs, stat] arXiv: 1910.05789.
   Google Scholar
• Chapanis, A. (1965). On the allocation of functions between men and machines. Occupational Psychology, 39(1), 1–11.
   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 Ergonomics Science, 19(3), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2017.1315750
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, J. Y., Procci, K., Boyce, M., Wright, J., Garcia, A., & Barnes, M. (2014). Situation awareness-based agent transparency [Technical report]. Defense Technical Information Center.
   Google Scholar
• Choudhury, R., Swamy, G., Hadfield-Menell, D., & Dragan, A. D. (2019). On the utility of model learning in HRI [Paper presentation]. 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Daegu, Korea (South) (pp. 317–325). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673256
   Google Scholar
• Converse, S., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221–246). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, N. J., & Shope, S. M. (2002). The CERTT-UAV task: A synthetic task environment to facilitate team research. In Proceedings of the Advanced Simulation Technologies Conference: Military, Government, and Aerospace Simulation Symposium (pp. 25–30). The Society for Modeling and Simulation International.
   Google Scholar
• Craft, J. L., & Simon, J. R. (1970). Processing symbolic information from a visual display: Interference from an irrelevant directional cue. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83(3), 415–420.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DARPA. (2016). Broad Agency Announcement Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/DARPA-BAA-16-53.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Degani, A., & Heymann, M. (2000). Pilot-autopilot interaction: A formal perspective (pp. 157–168). Cite-seer.
   Google Scholar
• Dekker, S. W. A., & Woods, D. D. (2002). MABA-MABA or Abracadabra? Progress on human-automation co-ordination. Cognition, Technology & Work, 4(4), 240–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101110200022
   Google Scholar
• Dennett, D. C. (1971). Intentional systems. Journal of Philosophy, 68(4), 87–106.
   Google Scholar
• Dennett, D. C. (1989). The intentional stance. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M., & Jones, W. M. (1997). Situation awareness information dominance & information warfare [Technical report]. Logicon Technical Services Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (2017). From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human–automation research. Human Factors, 59(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816681350
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (2018a). Expertise and situation awareness. In K. A. Ericsson, R. R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (2nd ed., pp. 714–742). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (2018b). Level of automation forms a key aspect of autonomy design. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 12(1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343417723432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R., Mogford, R. H., & Stein, E. (1997). Controller situation awareness in free flight. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 41(1), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/107118139704100102
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson, A., & Stanton, N. A. (2015). When communication breaks down or what was that? – The importance of communication for successful coordination in complex systems. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2418–2425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.501
   Google Scholar
• Finin, T., & Drager, D. (1986). GUMS: A general user modeling system [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Workshop on Strategic Computing Natural language – HLT ’86, Marina del Rey, California (p. 224). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Flemisch, F., Abbink, D. A., Itoh, M., Pacaux-Lemoine, M.-P., & Weßel, G. (2019). Joining the blunt and the pointy end of the spear: Towards a common framework of joint action, human–machine cooperation, cooperative guidance and control, shared, traded and supervisory control. Cognition, Technology & Work, 21(4), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00576-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flemisch, F., Abbink, D., Itoh, M., Pacaux-Lemoine, M.-P., & Weßel, G. (2016). Shared control is the sharp end of cooperation: Towards a common framework of joint action, shared control and human machine cooperation. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(19), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.10.464
   Google Scholar
• Frith, C. D. (2012). The role of metacognition in human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 367(1599), 2213–2223. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorman, J. C., Cooke, N. J., & Winner, J. L. (2006). Measuring team situation awareness in decentralized command and control environments. Ergonomics, 49(12–13), 1312–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600612788
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimm, D. A., Demir, M., Gorman, J. C., & Cooke, N. J. (2018). Team situation awareness in human-autonomy teaming: A systems level approach. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), 149–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621034
   Google Scholar
• Gunning, D., & Aha, D. W. (2019). DARPA’s explainable artificial intelligence program. AI Magazine, 40(2), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v40i2.2850
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hesslow, G. (1988). The problem of causal selection. In D. J. Hilton (Ed.), Contemporary science and natural explanation: Commonsense conceptions of causality (pp. 11–32). New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• High-Level Expert Group on AI. (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI [Report]. European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Hilton, D. J., & Slugoski, B. R. (1986). Knowledge-based causal attribution: The abnormal conditions focus model. Psychological Review, 93(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.75
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoc, J.-M. (2001). Towards a cognitive approach to human–machine cooperation in dynamic situations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(4), 509–540. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0454
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoc, J.-M., & Lemoine, M.-P. (1998). Cognitive evaluation of human-human and human-machine cooperation modes in air traffic control. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0801_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoc, J.-M., Young, M. S., & Blosseville, J.-M. (2009). Cooperation between drivers and automation: Implications for safety. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10(2), 135–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220802368856
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, R. R., Mueller, S. T., Klein, G., & Litman, J. (2019). Metrics for explainable AI: Challenges and prospects [Technical report]. arXiv:1812.04608 [cs] type: article.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. A Bradford book. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M., Bradshaw, J. M., Feltovich, P., Jonker, C., Riemsdijk, B. v., & Sierhuis, M. (2012). Autonomy and interdependence in human-agent-robot teams. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 27(2), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2012.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, S. C. (2003). Detecting agents. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaber, D. B., & Endsley, M. R. (2004). The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(2), 113–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922021000054335
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 198–205). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kass, R., & Finin, T. (1988). Modeling the user in natural language systems. Computational Linguistics, 14(3), 18.
   Google Scholar
• Kazi, S., Khaleghzadegan, S., Dinh, J. V., Shelhamer, M. J., Sapirstein, A., Goeddel, L. A., Chime, N. O., Salas, E., & Rosen, M. A. (2019). Team physiological dynamics: A critical review. Human Factors, 63(1), 32–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819874160
   Google Scholar
• Kieras, D. E., & Bovair, S. (1984). The role of a mental model in learning to operate a device. Cognitive Science, 8(3), 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0803_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, G., Woods, D., Bradshaw, J., Hoffman, R., & Feltovich, P. (2004). Ten challenges for making automation a “team player” in joint human-agent activity. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(06), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2004.74
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoblich, G., Butterfill, S., & Sebanz, N. (2011). Psychological research on joint action. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 54, pp. 59–101). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Kourtis, D., Knoblich, G., Woźniak, M., & Sebanz, N. (2014). Attention allocation and task representation during joint action planning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(10), 2275–2286. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00634
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kourtis, D., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2013). Predictive representation of other people’s actions in joint action planning: An EEG study. Social Neuroscience, 8(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2012.694823
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lausic, D., Tennebaum, G., Eccles, D., Jeong, A., & Johnson, T. (2009). Intrateam communication and performance in doubles tennis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(2), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2009.10599563
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Goff, K., Rey, A., Haggard, P., Oullier, O., & Berberian, B. (2018). Agency modulates interactions with automation technologies. Ergonomics, 61(9), 1282–1297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1468493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemoine, M. P., Debernard, S., Crevits, I., & Millot, P. (1996). Cooperation between humans and machines: First results of an experiment with a multi-level cooperative organisation in air traffic control. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 5(2–3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133661
   Google Scholar
• Lim, B.-C., & Klein, K. J. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.387
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipton, P. (1990). Contrastive Explanation. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 27, 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246100005130
   Google Scholar
• Lombrozo, T. (2007). Simplicity and probability in causal explanation. Cognitive Psychology, 55(3), 232–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.09.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. B. (2013). Being transparent about transparency: A model for human-robot interaction [Paper presentation]. 2013 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. B., Sadler, G. G., Koltai, K., Battiste, H., Ho, N. T., Hoffmann, L. C., Smith, D., Johnson, W., & Shively, R. (2017). Shaping trust through transparent design: Theoretical and experimental guidelines. In P. Savage-Knepshield & J. Chen (Eds.), Advances in human factors in robots and unmanned systems (Vol. 499, pp. 127–136). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Manzey, D., Reichenbach, J., & Onnasch, L. (2012). Human performance consequences of automated decision aids: The impact of degree of automation and system experience. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 6(1), 57–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343411433844
   Google Scholar
• Mar, R. A., & Macrae, C. N. (2008). Triggering the Intentional Stance. In G. Bock & J. Goode (Eds.), Novartis foundation symposia (pp. 111–133). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClure, J., Hilton, D. J., & Sutton, R. M. (2007). Judgments of voluntary and physical causes in causal chains: Probabilistic and social functionalist criteria for attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(5), 879–901. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.394
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeese, N. J., Demir, M., Cooke, N. J., & Myers, C. (2018). Teaming with a synthetic teammate: Insights into human-autonomy teaming. Human Factors, 60(2), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817743223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercado, J. E., Rupp, M. A., Chen, J. Y. C., Barnes, M. J., Barber, D., & Procci, K. (2016). Intelligent agent transparency in human–agent teaming for multi-UxV management. Human Factors, 58(3), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815621206
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mertes, F., & Jenney, L. (1974). Automation applications in an advanced air traffic management system: Volume 3. Methodology for man-machine task allocation [Technical report]. United States Dept. of Transportation. Office of the Secretary.
   Google Scholar
• Metzger, U., & Parasuraman, R. (2001). The role of the air traffic controller in future air traffic management: An empirical study of active control versus passive monitoring. Human Factors, 43(4), 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872001775870421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C. A., & Parasuraman, R. (2007). Designing for flexible interaction between humans and automation: Delegation interfaces for supervisory control. Human Factors, 49(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007779598037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, T. (2018). Contrastive explanation: A structural-model approach. arXiv:1811.03163 [cs] arXiv: 1811.03163.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, T. (2019). Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence. arXiv: 1706.07269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007
   Google Scholar
• Miller, T., Howe, P., & Sonenberg, L. (2017). Explainable AI: Beware of inmates running the asylum or: How I learnt to stop worrying and love the social and behavioural sciences. arXiv:1712.00547 [cs] arXiv: 1712.00547.
   Google Scholar
• Millot, P., & Lemoine, M. (1998). An attempt for generic concepts toward human-machine cooperation [Paper presentation]. SMC’98 Conference Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Cat. No.98CH36218), San Diego, CA (Vol. 1, pp. 1044–1049). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Millot, P., & Pacaux-Lemoine, M.-P. (2013). A common work space for a mutual enrichment of human-machine cooperation and team-situation awareness. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 46(15), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.3182/20130811-5-US-2037.00061
   Google Scholar
• Mueller, S. T., & Klein, G. (2011). Improving users’ mental models of intelligent software tools. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 26(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2011.32
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuhuis, H. (1999). Automation strategies: Evaluation of some concepts [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Third EUROCONTROL Human Factors Workshop Integrating Human Factors into the Life Cycle of ATM Systems (pp. 27–33).
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill, T., McNeese, N., Barron, A., & Schelble, B. (2020). Human–autonomy teaming: A review and analysis of the empirical literature. Human Factors, 64(5), 904–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820960
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ososky, S., Schuster, D., Jentsch, F., Fiore, S., Shumaker, R., Lebiere, C., Kurup, U., Oh, J., & Stentz, A. (2012). The importance of shared mental models and shared situation awareness for transforming robots from tools to teammates [Paper presentation]. Unmanned Systems Technology XIV, Baltimore, Maryland (p. 838710). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.923283
   Google Scholar
• Pacaux, M.-P., Godin, S. D., Rajaonah, B., Anceaux, F., & Vanderhaegen, F. (2011). Levels of automation and human-machine cooperation: Application to human-robot interaction. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 44(1), 6484–6492. https://doi.org/10.3182/20110828-6-IT-1002.00312
   Google Scholar
• Pacaux-Lemoine, M. P., & Debernard, S. (2000). A common work space to support the air traffic control. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 33(12), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)37280-4
   Google Scholar
• Pacherie, E. (2008). The phenomenology of action: A conceptual framework. Cognition, 107(1), 179–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.09.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pacherie, E. (2012). The phenomenology of joint action: Self-agency versus joint agency. In A. Seemann (Ed.), Joint attention. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pacherie, E., & Nicod, I. J. (2007). The sense of control and the sense of agency. Psyche, 13(1), 1–30. https://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, E. (1995). Oops, it didn’t arm-a case study of two automation surprises [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 227–232).
   Google Scholar
• Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T., & Wickens, C. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Part A, Systems and Humans : a Publication of the IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society, 30(3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez-Osorio, J., & Wykowska, A. (2020). Adopting the intentional stance toward natural and artificial agents. Philosophical Psychology, 33(3), 369–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2019.1688778
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrault, R., Shoam, Y., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2019). The AI Index 2019 annual report [Technical report]. Stanford Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.
   Google Scholar
• Ramnani, N., & Miall, R. C. (2004). A system in the human brain for predicting the actions of others. Nature Neuroscience, 7(1), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1168
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahaï, A., Pacherie, E., Grynszpan, O., & Berberian, B. (2017). Predictive mechanisms are not involved the same way during human-human vs. human-machine interactions: A review. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 11, 52. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2017.00052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salas, E., Prince, C., Baker, D. P., & Shrestha, L. (1995). Situation awareness in team performance: Implications for measurement and training. Human Factors, 37(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D. (1994). Pilot interaction with cockpit automation II: An experimental study of pilots’ model and awareness of the flight management system. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0401_1
   Google Scholar
• Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D. (1995). How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors, 37(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049516
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scharre, P., & Horowitz, M. C. (2015). An introduction to autonomy in weapon systems [Technical report]. Center for a new American Security.
   Google Scholar
• Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88(3), B11–B21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00043-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How two share a task: Corepresenting stimulus-response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(6), 1234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shea, N., Boldt, A., Bang, D., Yeung, N., Heyes, C., & Frith, C. D. (2014). Supra-personal cognitive control and metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(4), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheridan, T., & Verplank, W. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA057655
   Google Scholar
• Sheridan, T. B. (1987). Supervisory control In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors (pp. 1243–1268). Wiley-Interscience.
   Google Scholar
• Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Panneershelvam, V., Lanctot, M., Dieleman, S., Grewe, D., Nham, J., Kalchbrenner, N., Sutskever, I., Lillicrap, T., Leach, M., Kavukcuoglu, K., Graepel, T., & Hassabis, D. (2016). Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529(7587), 484–489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional CUE on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Advances in psychology, volume 65 of stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 31–86). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Stanton, N. A. (2016). Distributed situation awareness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 17(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2015.1106615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanton, N. A., Dunoyer, A., & Leatherland, A. (2011). Detection of new in-path targets by drivers using Stop & Go Adaptive Cruise Control. Applied Ergonomics, 42(4), 592–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Adaptive computation and machine learning. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, A. D., & Guttmann, H. E. (1983). Handbook of human-reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications [Final report. Technical report NUREG/CR-1278, SAND-80-0200, 5752058]. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Tsai, C.-C., Kuo, W.-J., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. L. (2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(11), 2015–2024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Charante, E. M., Cook, R. I., Woods, D. D., Yue, L., & Howie, M. B. (1992). Human-computer interaction in context: Physician interaction with automated intravenous controllers in the heart room. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 25(9), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)50202-5
   Google Scholar
• Vantrepotte, Q., Berberian, B., Pagliari, M., & Chambon, V. (2022). Leveraging human agency to improve confidence and acceptability in human-machine interactions. Cognition, 222, 105020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vezhnevets, A. S., Osindero, S., Schaul, T., Heess, N., Jaderberg, M., Silver, D., & Kavukcuoglu, K. (2017). FeUdal networks for hierarchical reinforcement learning. arXiv:1703.01161 [cs] arXiv: 1703.01161.
   Google Scholar
• Wiener, E. L. (1989). Human factors of advanced technology (glass cockpit) transport aircraft [Technical report]. NASA Ames Research Center.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, J. R., & Rutherford, A. (1989). Mental models: Theory and application in human factors. Human Factors, 31(6), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088903100601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods, D. D., & Tinapple, D. (1999). W3: Watching human factors watch people at work [Paper presentation]. Presidential Address, Presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Houston, TX. Multimedia production. http://csel.eng.ohiostate.edu/hf99/.
   Google Scholar
• Woods, D., Tittle, J., Feil, M., & Roesler, A. (2004). Envisioning human-robot coordination in future operations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 34(2), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2004.826272
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshida, W., Dolan, R. J., & Friston, K. J. (2008). Game theory of mind. PLoS Computational Biology, 4(12), e1000254. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000254
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshida, W., Seymour, B., Friston, K. J., & Dolan, R. J. (2010). Neural mechanisms of belief inference during cooperative games. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(32), 10744–10751. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5895-09.2010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar