The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Situation awareness-based agent transparency and human-autonomy teaming effectiveness
Open accessAbstract
Effective collaboration between humans and agents depends on humans maintaining an appropriate understanding of and calibrated trust in the judgment of their agent counterparts. The Situation Awareness-based Agent Transparency (SAT) model was proposed to support human awareness in human–agent teams. As agents transition from tools to artificial teammates, an expansion of the model is necessary to support teamwork paradigms, which require bidirectional transparency. We propose that an updated model can better inform human–agent interaction in paradigms involving more advanced agent teammates. This paper describes the model's use in three programmes of research, which exemplify the utility of the model in different contexts – an autonomous squad member, a mediator between a human and multiple subordinate robots, and a plan recommendation agent. Through this review, we show that the SAT model continues to be an effective tool for facilitating shared understanding and proper calibration of trust in human–agent teams.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Intelligent agents: theory and practice
Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1995) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888900008122 · Cited by 6,810
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605 · cited 2×
“Automation bias has been described as a manifestation of inappropriate trust, i.e. overtrust (Parasura-man, Molloy, and Singh 1993), and can be encouraged by highly reliable systems, as well as operator inexperience and high workload (Chen and Barnes 2010; Lee and See 2004).”
BackgroundHumans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 · Cited by 4,554
Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced 'Complacency'
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993) · The International Journal of Aviation Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0301_1 · Cited by 875
Allen, J. E., Guinn, C. I., & Horvtz, E. (1999) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/5254.796083 · Cited by 442
Intelligent agent transparency in human–agent teaming for multi-UxV management
Mercado, J. E., Rupp, M. A., Chen, J. Y. C., Barnes, M. J., Barber, D., & Procci, K. (2016) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720815621206 · Cited by 403
Self-citationMcGuirl, J. M., & Sarter, N. B. (2006) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872006779166334 · Cited by 212
Transparency in a Human-Machine Context: Approaches for Fostering Shared Awareness/Intent
Lyons, J. B., & Havig, P. R. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07458-0_18 · Cited by 96
Cited by
Stephanidis, C., Salvendy, G., Antona, M., Chen, J. Y. C., Dong, J., Duffy, V. G., Fang, X., Fidopiastis, C., Fragomeni, G., Fu, L. P., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2019.1619259 · Cited by 524
Self-citationTowards a Theory of Longitudinal Trust Calibration in Human–Robot Teams
de Visser, E. J., Peeters, M. M. M., Jung, M. F., Kohn, S., Shaw, T. H., Pak, R., & Neerincx, M. A. (2020) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-019-00596-x · Cited by 447
Tossell, C. C., Tenhundfeld, N. L., Momen, A., Cooley, K., & de Visser, E. J. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2024.3355015 · Cited by 218
Kunze, A., Summerskill, S. J., Marshall, R., & Filtness, A. J. (2019) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2018.1547842 · Cited by 165
Challenges of human—machine collaboration in risky decision-making
Xiong, W., Fan, H., Ma, L., & Wang, C. (2022) · Frontiers of Engineering Management · doi:10.1007/s42524-021-0182-0 · Cited by 95
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, J. Y. C., Lakhmani, S. G., Stowers, K., Selkowitz, A. R., Wright, J. L., & Barnes, M.
- Venue
- Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-02-23
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 259-282
- ISSN
- 1463-922X (ISSN-L)
- 1464-536X
- OpenAlex
- W2791890170
- Cited by
- 351
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 33.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Situation awareness-based agent transparency and human-autonomy teaming effectiveness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/1463922x.2017.1315750
- The paper
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922x.2017.1315750
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
