Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 380Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyTeam Dynamics and PerformanceSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Teaming With a Synthetic Teammate: Insights into Human-Autonomy Teaming

McNeese, Nathan J., Demir, Mustafa, Cooke, Nancy J., Myers, Christopher·2018·Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Abstract

Objective: Three different team configurations are compared with the goal of better understanding human-autonomy teaming (HAT). Background: Although an extensive literature on human-automation interaction exists, much less is known about HAT in which humans and autonomous agents interact as coordinated units. Further research must be conducted to better understand how all-human teams compare to HAT. Methods: In an unmanned aerial system (UAS) context, a comparison was made among three types of three-member teams: (1) synthetic teams in which the pilot role is assigned to a synthetic teammate, (2) control teams in which the pilot was an inexperienced human, and (3) experimenter teams in which an experimenter served as an experienced pilot. Ten of each type of team participated. Measures of team performance, target processing efficiency, team situation awareness, and team verbal behaviors were analyzed. Results: Synthetic teams performed as well at the mission level as control (all human) teams but processed targets less efficiently. Experimenter teams performed better across all other measures compared to control and synthetic teams. Conclusion: Though there is potential for a synthetic agent to function as a full-fledged teammate, further advances in autonomy are needed to improve team-level dynamics in HAT teams. Application: This research contributes to our understanding of how to make autonomy a good team player.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0018720817743223

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

5 more claims about this paper

Create a free account to see every claim other papers make about this one.

See all claims — free account

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Mcintyre, R. M. & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Emerging principles from complex environments. In R. Guzzo, & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 149–203). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  2. USAF, 2013, Autonomy science and technology strategy

Cited by

See all 380

Metadata

Authors
McNeese, N. J., Demir, M., Cooke, N. J., & Myers, C.
Affiliations
  • Clemson University (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • United States Air Force Research Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
McNeese, Nathan J.
Venue
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Published
2017-11-29
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
262-273
ISSN
  • 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-8181
OpenAlex
W2770836081
Cited by
380
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
17.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Office of Naval Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
human-autonomy teaming, unmanned aerial systems, team performance, team situation awareness, human-automation interaction, team structure, pilot experience
MeSH terms
Pilots, Adult, Automation, Awareness, Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Man-Machine Systems, Psychomotor Performance, Verbal Behavior

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

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.