Cited by 5Human-Automation Interaction and SafetySocial Robot Interaction and HRITeam Dynamics and Performance

From testbeds to high-stakes work: a review of human-AI teaming domains and teaming factors

Open access
Kargarnovin, Shaida, Hernandez, Christopher Ivan, Reiners, Dirk, Cruz-Neira, Carolina, Bochenek, Grace, Karwowski, Waldemar·2026·Frontiers in Robotics and AI

Abstract

Introduction: Human-AI teaming is increasingly being studied in applied and high-stakes settings, yet the evidence remains dispersed across domains, constructs, and research traditions. This fragmentation also limits efforts to connect broader human-AI findings to human-robot teaming (HRT), where embodied systems make issues such as coordination, autonomy management, communication, and safety more immediate in real-world interaction. Methods: To provide a clearer picture of the field, we conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review with bibliometric analysis of 104 peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2015 and 2025 and identified through Engineering Village, IEEE Xplore, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science. Results: The review maps where human-AI teaming has been evaluated and what teaming aspects are most frequently examined. Cross-domain and interdisciplinary studies were the largest category, representing broad workplace or team-based investigations not tied to a single industry and instead focused on general collaboration issues such as communication, teamwork, coordination, and coworker interaction. Gaming and entertainment, aviation, military and defense operations, emergency response and public safety, and healthcare also represented substantial portions of the literature. Across studies, performance was the most frequently examined aspect, followed by trust, explainability and transparency, decision-making, and team processes. Bibliometric patterns suggest a shift since 2020 from foundational demonstrations in controlled settings toward applied, higher-stakes contexts where trust dynamics, communication, and ethical accountability more directly shape adoption and sustained performance. Discussion: Evidence points to a practical conclusion that human-AI teaming works best when the interaction supports coordination, allowing users to form accurate expectations of the AI, adjust autonomy and delegation across task phases, and use transparency cues that calibrate reliance without adding burden. For HRT, these findings reinforce the importance of shared control, mixed-initiative interaction, and designs that help humans and robots coordinate action over time rather than simply divide functions. We conclude by outlining implications for designing and evaluating human-AI teams as socio-technical systems and for prioritizing longitudinal and in-context studies that capture how teaming evolves over time.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/frobt.2026.1733942

Cites

141 of 141 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Gopinath D. DeCastro J. Rosman G. Sumner E. Morgan A. Hakimi S. (2022). “ HMIway-Env: a framework for simulating behaviors and preferences to support Human-AI teaming in driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
  2. Kamar E. (2016). Directions in hybrid intelligence: complementing AI systems with human intelligence. IJCAI.
  3. Li M. Erickson I. M. Cross E. V. Lee J. D. (2024). It’s not only what you say, but also how you say it: machine learning approach to estimate trust from conversation. Hum. Factors 66 (6), 1724– 1741. 10.1177/0087208231166624 37116009 PMC11044523 · DOI
  4. National Academies of Sciences Medicine, Social Sciences, Integration, and Laboratory (2022). Human-AI teaming: state-of-the-art and research needs. 1st ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  5. Paleja R. Ghuy M. Arachchige N. R. Jensen R. Gombolay M. (2021). “ The utility of explainable AI in Ad hoc human-machine teaming,” in Advances in neural information processing systems 35th conference on neural information processing systems, NeurIPS 2021, December 6, 2021 - december 14, 2021, Virtual, Online.
  6. SharifHeravi M. Taylor J. R. Stanton C. J. Lambeth S. Shanahan C. (2020). “ It’s a disaster! factors affecting trust development and repair following agent task failure,” in Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation, ACRA 2020 Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation, ACRA 2020, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, December 8, 2020 - December 10, 2020.
  7. Siu H. C. Pena J. D. Zhou Y. Chen E. Lopez V. J. Palko K. (2021). “ Evaluation of Human-AI teams for learned and rule-based agents in hanabi,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NeurIPS 2021, December 6, 2021 - December 14, 2021 (Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation, Inc. (NeurIPS)).
  8. Tejeda Lemus H. Kumar A. Steyvers M. (2023). “ How displaying AI confidence affects reliance and hybrid Human-AI performance,” in Hhai 2023: augmenting human intellect (Munich, Germany: IOS Press), 234– 242.
  9. Veitch E. Christensen K. A. Log M. Valestrand E. T. Lundheim S. H. Nesse M. (2022a). “ From captain to button-presser: operators' perspectives on navigating highly automated ferries,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series International Maritime and Port Technology and Development Conference, MTEC 2022 and 4th International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships, ICMASS 2022, Singapore, Singapore, April 5, 2022 - April 7, 2022.
  10. Zhang Y. Sreedharan S. Kulkarni A. Chakraborti T. Zhuo H. H. Kambhampati S. (2017). “ Plan explicability and predictability for robot task planning,” in 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA).
  11. Zhang R. McNeese N. J. Freeman G. Musick G. (2021a). An ideal human expectations of AI teammates in human-AI teaming. Proc. ACM Human-Computer Interact. 4 (CSCW3), 1– 25.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kargarnovin, S., Hernandez, C. I., Reiners, D., Cruz-Neira, C., Bochenek, G., & Karwowski, W.
Affiliations
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • Department of Computer Science, University of Central Florida
Corresponding author
Kargarnovin, Shaida
Venue
Frontiers in Robotics and AI
Published
2026-05-07
Volume
13
Pages
1733942-1733942
ISSN
2296-9144 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7160513770
Cited by
2
References
135
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Robotics and AI (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
human-AI teaming, human-robot teams, coordination, trust in AI, mixed-initiative interaction, shared control, delegation, teamwork, socio-technical systems, team performance

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