The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Human Teaming Changes Driven by Expectations of a Synthetic Teammate
Abstract
Current automation that behaves as a teammate may be rejected by human teammates due to a lack of hu-man-like mental models, a sense of self, essential communication and coordination abilities, and trustwor-thiness. This experiment was conducted with all-human teams to 1) establish baseline team performance and communication data for later comparison with human-synthetic teams and 2) to understand how human teammate behavior changes when human teammates believe they are interacting with a synthetic teammate. The teams that were told that the human Air Vehicle Operator (AVO) was synthetic liked the AVO more, perceived less workload, and gave the AVO more suggestions compared to teams told that the AVO was a remote human. These effects speak to human expectations regarding synthetic teammates or more general-ly, automation.
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
“Often measured through an indirect approach by inferring it from behavior or performance (Demir & Cooke, 2014).”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Demir & Cooke, 2014
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
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003
ENDSLEY, M. R., & KABER, D. B. (1999) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/001401399185595 · Cited by 1,088
Ten challenges for making automation a ‘team player’ in joint human-agent activity
Klein, G., Woods, D. D., Bradshaw, J. M., Hoffman, R. R., & Feltovich, P. J. (2004) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2004.74 · Cited by 590
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195324259.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10588-010-9065-3 · DOI
- Cannon-Bowers J., 1995, Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organiza-tions, 333
- 10.1016/S1479-3601(02)02003-9 · DOI · Paper page
- Cooke N. J., 2004, Scaled Worlds: Development, Validation, and Application, 263
- Cuevas H. M., 2007, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medi-cine, 78, B63
- 10.1109/MIS.2004.74 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.ergon.2009.04.002 · DOI
- 10.1007/11775331_3 · DOI
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
Adapt and overcome: Perceptions of adaptive autonomous agents for human-AI teaming
Hauptman, A. I., Schelble, B. G., McNeese, N. J., & Madathil, K. C. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107451 · Cited by 110
Metadata
- Authors
- Demir, M., & Cooke, N. J.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-09
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 16-20
- ISSN
- 1071-1813
- 2169-5067
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 3
- 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.
