The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Team Coordination and Strategies Under Automation
Abstract
This study evaluated the effects of different forms of automation on team communication and coordination in a complex decision making task. Two person teams performed a Theatre Defense task in which they defended a home base from enemy aircraft attack using two networked computer workstations. Four automation conditions were simulated with computer assistance applied to information acquisition, information analysis, and decision making functions across two levels of task difficulty. Dependent measures for the experiment included team performance, counts of different types of verbal communication, team coordination ratings by external observers, and team member subjective workload ratings. Results on coordination ratings, communication counts, and correlations between communication and team effectiveness measures agreed with historical research showing that high performing teams exhibit efficient communication and frequent planning and situation assessments. In general, it was observed that automation conditions that support these behaviors by removing or reducing requirements for continuous verbal information transfer allow more time for sharing of a wider range of situation assessment information and development of more effective team strategies.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“but also stronger shared mental models (Wright & Kaber, 2003)”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Wright & Kaber, 2003
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
A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans · doi:10.1109/3468.844354 · Cited by 4,195
ENDSLEY, M. R., & KABER, D. B. (1999) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/001401399185595 · Cited by 1,088
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- Bainbridge L., 1987, New Technology and Human Error, 271
- Bolstad C. A., 1999, Shared mental models and shared displays: an empirical evaluation of team performance
- Bowers C., Deaton J., Oser R., Prince C., Kolb M. (1993a). The impact of automation on crew communication and performance. Proceedings of the Seventh International Aviation Psychology , pp. 758–761. Columbus: Ohio State University.
- 10.1518/001872095779049372 · DOI
- Clothier C. (1991). Behavioral interactions across various aircraft types: Results of systematic observations of line operations and simulations. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 332–337). Columbus: Ohio State University.
- Costley J., Johnson D., Lawson D. (1989). A comparison of cockpit communication B737–B757. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. (pp. 413–418). Columbus: Ohio State University.
- Coury B. G., 1996, Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications, 201
- Dickinson T. L., 1997, Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods and Applications.
- Foushee H. C., 1986, Crew factors in flight operations III: The operational significance of exposure to short-haul air transport operations.
- Jentsch F.G., Sellin-Wolters S., Bowers C. A., Salas E. (1995). Crew coordination behaviors as predictors of problem detection and decision making times. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39 th Annual Meeting , 1350–1353. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. · doi:10.1177/154193129503902024
- Johannesen L. J., Cook R. I., Woods D. D. (1994). Cooperative communications in dynamic fault management. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38 th Annual Meeting , 225–229. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. · DOI
- MacMillan J., Entin E., Serfaty D. (2002). From team structure to team performance: A framework. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46 th Annual Meeting , 408–412. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. · doi:10.1177/154193120204600341
- Orasanu J. M., 1990, Shared mental models and crew decision making.
- Sarter N. B., 1994, Strong Silent, and “Out of the Loop”: Properties of Advanced (Cockpit) Automation and their Impact on Human-Automation Interaction.
- 10.1037/10278-008 · DOI
- Urban J. M., Bowers C. A., Monday S. D., Morgan B. B. (1993). Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37 th Annual Meeting, 1233–1237. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. · doi:10.1177/154193129303701807
- Wiener E. L., 1993, Cockpit Resource Management.
- Wise J. A., 1992, Human factors in aviation safety: The effects of automation on corporate pilots
- Woods D. D., 1996, Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications., 3
Cited by
Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature
O’Neill, T., McNeese, N., Barron, A., & Schelble, B. (2022) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720820960865 · Cited by 695
Metadata
- Authors
- Wright, M. C., & Kaber, D. B.
- Affiliations
- Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
- Department of Industrial Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-10
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 553-557
- ISSN
- 1071-1813
- 2169-5067
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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.
