Cited by 404Human-Automation Interaction and SafetySocial Robot Interaction and HRIMilitary Strategy and Technology

Intelligent agent transparency in human–agent teaming for multi-UxV management

Open access
Mercado, Joseph E., Rupp, Michael A., Chen, Jessie Y. C., Barnes, Michael J., Barber, Daniel, Procci, Katelyn·2016·Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Abstract

Objective: We investigated the effects of level of agent transparency on operator performance, trust, and workload in a context of human–agent teaming for multirobot management. Background: Participants played the role of a heterogeneous unmanned vehicle (UxV) operator and were instructed to complete various missions by giving orders to UxVs through a computer interface. An intelligent agent (IA) assisted the participant by recommending two plans—a top recommendation and a secondary recommendation—for every mission. Method: A within-subjects design with three levels of agent transparency was employed in the present experiment. There were eight missions in each of three experimental blocks, grouped by level of transparency. During each experimental block, the IA was incorrect three out of eight times due to external information (e.g., commander’s intent and intelligence). Operator performance, trust, workload, and usability data were collected. Results: Results indicate that operator performance, trust, and perceived usability increased as a function of transparency level. Subjective and objective workload data indicate that participants’ workload did not increase as a function of transparency. Furthermore, response time did not increase as a function of transparency. Conclusion: Unlike previous research, which showed that increased transparency resulted in increased performance and trust calibration at the cost of greater workload and longer response time, our results support the benefits of transparency for performance effectiveness without additional costs. Application: The current results will facilitate the implementation of IAs in military settings and will provide useful data to the design of heterogeneous UxV teams.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0018720815621206

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mercado, J. E., Rupp, M. A., Chen, J. Y. C., Barnes, M. J., Barber, D., & Procci, K.
Affiliations
University of Central Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Mercado, Joseph E.
Venue
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Published
2016-02-11
Volume
58
Issue
3
Pages
401-415
ISSN
  • 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-8181
OpenAlex
W2321972046
Cited by
403
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 1
FWCI
48.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Military Strategy and Technology
Keywords
agent transparency, human-agent teaming, unmanned vehicles, intelligent agents, trust in automation, operator workload, operator performance, usability, military operations, heterogeneous robot teams, trust calibration
MeSH terms
Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Automation, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Male, Man-Machine Systems, Task Performance and Analysis, User-Computer Interface, Young Adult

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