Bidirectional Communication for Effective Human-Agent Teaming

Marathe, Amar R.; Schaefer, Kristin E.; Evans, A. William; Metcalfe, J. Stanley

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91581-4_25

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Findings in Paper I-III show that bi-directional communication is essential for upholding shared awareness of the situation and intent in Manned-Unmanned Teaming. This notion corresponds well with current research in hybrid teaming (Chen et al, 2018;Marathe et al, 2018). In the following, Bi-directional communication is further divided into Constraining communication and Tracking intent.…”

Section: Bi-directional Communicationsupporting

confidence: 70%

“…Addressing these challenges, researchers have focused their work on areas such as bi-directional communication, bi-directional (or teamwork) transparency, and various control methods. For instance, it has been argued that bi-directional communication is necessary for a shared understanding of the mission space and task coordination (Marathe, Schaefer, Evans, & Metcalfe, 2018). Additionally, bi-directional communication may facilitate shared situation awareness and engender trust (Schaefer, Straub, Chen, Putney, & Evans, 2017), in which a shared semantic space can support a shared mental model (Schneider & Miller, 2018).…”

Section: Current Research In Hybrid Teamingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While bi-directional communication is important, Paper II and Paper III also indicate that degrading or unavailable data links are often both expected and accepted, implying data link availability and bi-directional communication are not always warranted. Indeed, bi-directional communication requires the capability to deliver information at the appropriate time (Marathe et al, 2018), preferably in anticipation of events and actions (Lyons et al, 2021). Considering that intent tends to be stable and largely inertia, except in situations with new relevant information (Bratman, 1987), it is reasonable that communication can be partly constrained to such new information and the possible changes of intent thereof.…”

Section: Constraining Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modelling intent for Manned-Unmanned Teaming : Exploring human-centric approaches for future combat aircraft systems

Hammarbäck

2022

Linköping Studies in Science and Technology. Licentiate Thesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I once was asked what I was doing in my work. After thinking a while, I answered, "I am trying to understand fighter pilots". Thinking about it, I am trying to understand what they intend to do and do intentionally. In this sense, I may have the same questions as unmanned aircraft ought to have if they are supposed to work as human-like wingmen. Addressing these questions in my research, I am thankful to those who made it possible to walk this path.First and foremost, I wish to thank my SAAB Aeronautics managers for providing me with the opportunity to grow in this undertaking and for continuously showing support and interest in my work. I am also grateful to my supervisor and co-supervisor at Linköping University, Jonas Lundberg and Björn Johansson, who showed me a research landscape and helped me shape a path. I am also grateful to my co-supervisor at SAAB Aeronautics, Jens Alfredson, who motivated me to walk the path and clear the obstructions along the way. Last but not least, I am grateful to my family, Madeleine, for her patience and support, and Cornelia for coming into our lives.

show abstract

Section: Bi-directional Communicationsupporting

confidence: 70%

Section: Current Research In Hybrid Teamingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Constraining Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modelling intent for Manned-Unmanned Teaming : Exploring human-centric approaches for future combat aircraft systems

Hammarbäck

2022

Linköping Studies in Science and Technology. Licentiate Thesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To achieve this, autonomy must be able to incorporate information beyond transcripts, such as where people are looking (Altmann and Kamide 2007;Knoeferle and Kreysa 2012;Staudte et al 2014) or gesturing (Beilock and Goldin-Meadow 2010;Galati and Brennan 2014;Goodwin 1986). For autonomy to be fully participatory, it must also have the capacity to learn to adapt its own communication to its human teammates to ensure optimal efficiency and efficacy of bidirectional human-autonomy communication (Marathe et al 2018). Importantly, autonomy must also understand when similarity is an appropriate indicator; for instance, scholars are beginning to explore joint action dynamics beyond synchrony, such as complementarity (Dale et al 2013) and antisynchrony (Wallot et al 2016).…”

Section: Linguistic Synchronymentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches for assessing communication in human-autonomy teams

Baker

Fitzhugh

Huang

et al. 2021

Hum.-Intell. Syst. Integr.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of team communication can provide critical insights into team dynamics, cohesion, trust, and performance on joint tasks. Although many communication-based measures have been tested and validated for human teams, this review article extends this research by identifying key approaches specific to human-autonomy teams. It is not possible to identify all approaches for all situations, though the following seem to generalize and support multi-size teams and a variety of military operations. Therefore, this article will outline several key approaches to assessing communication, associated data requirements, example applications, verification of methods through HAT use cases, and lessons learned, where applicable. Some approaches are based on the structure of team communication; others draw from dynamical systems theory to consider perspectives across different timescales; other approaches leverage features of team members’ voices or facial expressions to detect emotional states that can provide windows into other workings of the team; still others consider the content of communication to produce insights. Taken together, these approaches comprise a varied toolkit for deriving critical information about how team interactions affect, and are affected by, coordination, trust, cohesion, and performance outcomes. Future research directions describe four critical areas for further study of communication in human-autonomy teams.

show abstract

“…Procedural decision making gives both entities insight into how a decision was made, learn from that decision and teach correct behavior if one was sub-optimal. This process emphasizes the importance of bi-directional communication between humans and artificial agents for improving both team cohesiveness and performance (Marathe, Schaefer, Evans, & Metcalfe, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing for Mutually Beneficial Decision Making in Human-Agent Teaming

Mallick

Sawant

McNeese

et al. 2022

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a joint decision-making framework between human and artificial intelligent agents in an effort to create a cohesive team uninhibited by each other’s actions. Based on the well-known Recognition Primed Decision-Making Model, our framework expands upon RPD’s single decision maker to be more Human-Agent Teaming (HAT) oriented. Specifically, our framework includes three layers of shared cognition to ensure both a consistent level of transparency between members and the efficient completion of the task. The first layer provides itself as a foundation of expectations that provides familiarity recognition in a situation. The second layer categorizes the environmental features into relevant decisions informing the symbiotic nature of who should and how to enact decisions collaboratively, which is the third layer. Altogether, this mutually beneficial decision-making model emphasizes transparency so that both humans and artificial agents are equal partners in completing tasks in unique situations.

show abstract

Bidirectional Communication for Effective Human-Agent Teaming

Cited by 14 publications

References 47 publications

Modelling intent for Manned-Unmanned Teaming : Exploring human-centric approaches for future combat aircraft systems

Modelling intent for Manned-Unmanned Teaming : Exploring human-centric approaches for future combat aircraft systems

Approaches for assessing communication in human-autonomy teams

Designing for Mutually Beneficial Decision Making in Human-Agent Teaming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About