Cited by 69Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyTeam Dynamics and PerformanceSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

The Impact of Training on Human–Autonomy Team Communications and Trust Calibration

Johnson, Craig J., Demir, Mustafa, McNeese, Nathan J., Gorman, Jamie C., Wolff, Alexandra T., Cooke, Nancy J.·2023·Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Abstract

Objective: This work examines two human–autonomy team (HAT) training approaches that target communication and trust calibration to improve team effectiveness under degraded conditions. Background: Human–autonomy teaming presents challenges to teamwork, some of which may be addressed through training. Factors vital to HAT performance include communication and calibrated trust. Method: Thirty teams of three, including one confederate acting as an autonomous agent, received either entrainment-based coordination training, trust calibration training, or control training before executing a series of missions operating a simulated remotely piloted aircraft. Automation and autonomy failures simulating degraded conditions were injected during missions, and measures of team communication, trust, and task efficiency were collected. Results: Teams receiving coordination training had higher communication anticipation ratios, took photos of targets faster, and overcame more autonomy failures. Although autonomy failures were introduced in all conditions, teams receiving the calibration training reported that their overall trust in the agent was more robust over time. However, they did not perform better than the control condition. Conclusions: Training based on entrainment of communications, wherein introduction of timely information exchange through one team member has lasting effects throughout the team, was positively associated with improvements in HAT communications and performance under degraded conditions. Training that emphasized the shortcomings of the autonomous agent appeared to calibrate expectations and maintain trust. Applications: Team training that includes an autonomous agent that models effective information exchange may positively impact team communication and coordination. Training that emphasizes the limitations of an autonomous agent may help calibrate trust.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00187208211047323

Cites

63 of 63 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

1 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, C. J., Demir, M., McNeese, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Wolff, A. T., & Cooke, N. J.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Clemson University (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Johnson, Craig J.
Venue
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Published
2021-10-01
Volume
65
Issue
7
Pages
1554-1570
ISSN
  • 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-8181
OpenAlex
W3202857488
Cited by
68
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3
FWCI
7.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TigerPrints (Clemson University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Office of Naval Research (N000141712382)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › 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, team training, trust calibration, team communication, unmanned aerial vehicles, team effectiveness
MeSH terms
Automation, Calibration, Communication, Humans, Task Performance and Analysis, Trust

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