The comprehensive review synthesizes 64 empirical studies on communication and transactive memory systems (TMS). The results reveal that (a) a TMS forms through communication about expertise; (b) as a TMS develops, communication to allocate information and coordinate retrieval increases, promoting information exchange; and (c) groups update their TMS through communicative learning. However, direct interpersonal communication is not necessary for TMS development or utilization. Nor do high-quality information-sharing processes always occur within developed TMS structures. For future research, we propose a multidimensional network approach to TMS that incorporates technologies, addresses member characteristics, considers multiple communication types, and situates groups in context.
*AkgunA. E.ByrneJ. C.KeskinH.LynnG. S. (2006). Transactive memory system in new product development teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2005.857570
2.
*ArgoteL.AvenB. L.KushJ. (2018). The effects of communication networks and turnover on transactive memory and group performance. Organization Science, 29(2), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1176
3.
BaumannM. R.BonnerB. L. (2004). The effects of variability and expectations on utilization of member expertise and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93(2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2003.12.004
4.
*BazarovaN. N.YuanY. C. (2013). Expertise recognition and influence in intercultural groups: Differences between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12018
5.
*BorgattiS. P.CrossR. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.432.14428
6.
BonnerB. L.BaumannM. R. (2012). Leveraging member expertise to improve knowledge transfer and demonstrability in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025566
7.
BrandonD. P.HollingsheadA. B. (2004). Transactive memory systems in organizations: Matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organization Science, 15(6), 633–644. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0069
8.
BurkeJ. L.MurphyR. R.CoovertM. D.RiddleD. L. (2004). Moonlight in Miami: A field study of human-robot interaction in the context of an urban search and rescue disaster response training exercise. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1–2), 85–116. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2
9.
BurtR. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787
10.
*Cabeza PullésD.Gutiérrez GutiérrezL. J.Lloréns-MontesF. J. (2013). Transactive memory system and TQM: Exploring knowledge capacities. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113(2), 294–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571311303587
11.
*ChenX.LiX.ClarkJ. G.DietrichG. B. (2013). Knowledge sharing in open source software project teams: A transactive memory system perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 33(3), 553–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.01.008
12.
*ChoiS. Y.LeeH.YooY. (2010). The impact of information technology and transactive memory systems on knowledge sharing, application, and team performance: A field study. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 855–870. https://doi.org/10.2307/25750708
13.
*ChristianJ. S.PearsallM. J.ChristianM. S.EllisA. P. J. (2014). Exploring the benefits and boundaries of transactive memory systems in adapting to team member loss. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035161
14.
*ChungN.LeeS.HanH. (2015). Understanding communication types on travel information sharing in social media: A transactive memory systems perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 32(4), 564–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.02.002
15.
ContractorN. S.MongeP. R.LeonardiP. M. (2011). Multidimensional networks and the dynamics of sociomateriality: Bringing technology inside the network. International Journal of Communication, 5, 682–720. https://doi.org/1932–8036/20110682
16.
*EllisA. P. J. (2006). System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 576–589. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794674
17.
FioreS. M.WiltshireT. J. (2016). Technology as teammate: Examining the role of external cognition in support of team cognitive processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1531. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01531
18.
*GabelicaC.Van den BosscheP.FioreS. M.SegersM.GijselaersW. H. (2016). Establishing team knowledge coordination from a learning perspective. Human Performance, 29(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2015.1120304
19.
*GarnerJ. T. (2006). It’s not what you know: A transactive memory analysis of knowledge networks at NASA. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36(4), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.2190/U636-4844-2323-W071
20.
*GuptaN. (2012). Team responses to noncontributing members: The effects of attribution and knowledge overlap. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(3), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029297
21.
*GuptaN.HollingsheadA. B. (2010). Differentiated versus integrated transactive memory effectiveness: It depends on the task. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(4), 384. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019992
22.
*HealeyM. P.HodgkinsonG. P.TeoS. (2009). Responding effectively to civil emergencies: The role of transactive memory in the performance of multiteam systems. In WongW. B. L.StantonN. A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th bi-annual international conference on naturalistic decision making (pp. 53–59). British Computer Society.
23.
*HeaveyC.SimsekZ. (2015). Transactive memory systems and firm performance: An upper echelons perspective. Organization Science, 26(4), 941–959. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0979
24.
*HeJ.ButlerB. S.KingW. R. (2007). Team cognition: Development and evolution in software project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240210
25.
*HewittL. Y.RobertsL. D. (2015). Transactive memory systems scale for couples: Development and validation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 516. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00516
26.
*HollingsheadA. B. (1998a). Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1358
27.
*HollingsheadA. B. (1998b). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 659–671. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.3.659
28.
HollingsheadA. B. (2000). Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relationships. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430200033002
29.
HollingsheadA. B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1080–1089. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.6.1080
30.
HollingsheadA. B.BrandonD. P. (2003). Potential benefits of communication in transactive memory systems. Human Communication Research, 29(4), 607–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00859.x
31.
HollingsheadA. B.BrandonD. P.YoonK.GuptaN. (2010). Communication and knowledge-sharing errors in groups: A transactive memory perspective. In CanaryT. H. E.McPheeR. D. (Eds.), Communication and organizational knowledge: Contemporary issues for theory and practice (pp. 133–150). Routledge.
32.
HollingsheadA. B.FraidinS. N. (2003). Gender stereotypes and assumptions about expertise in transactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00549-8
33.
HollingsheadA. B.GuptaN.YoonK.BrandonD. P. (2012). Transactive memory theory and teams: Past, present, and future. In SalasE.FioreS. M.LetskyM. P. (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 421–455). Routledge.
34.
HollingsheadA. B.WittenbaumG. M.PaulusP. B.HirokawaR. Y.AnconaD. G.PetersonR. S.JehnK. A.YoonK. (2005). A look at groups from the functional perspective. In PooleM. S.HollingsheadA. B. (Eds.), Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 21–62). SAGE Publications.
35.
*HsuJ. S.-C.ShihS.-P.ChiangJ. C.LiuJ. Y.-C. (2012). The impact of transactive memory systems on IS development teams’ coordination, communication, and performance. International Journal of Project Management, 30(3), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.08.003
36.
*HuangC. C.HuangT. J. (2007). Knowledge sharing and KM effectiveness in technology R&D teams: Transactive memory system and team-based outcome expectations perspectives. In HelanderM.XieM.JiaoR.RanK. C. (Eds.), 2007 IEEE International conference on industrial engineering and engineering management (pp. 2124–2128). IEEE.
37.
*HuangM.BarbourJ.SuC.ContractorN. (2013). Why do group members provide information to digital knowledge repositories? A multilevel application of transactive memory theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(3), 540–557. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22805
38.
*HuangQ.LiuH.ZhongX. (2013). The impact of transactive memory systems on team performance. Information Technology & People, 26(2), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2013-0068
*JarvenpaaS. L.MajchrzakA. (2008). Knowledge collaboration among professionals protecting national security: Role of transactive memories in ego-centered knowledge networks. Organization Science, 19(2), 260–276. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0315
41.
*KanawattanachaiP.YooY. (2007). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 783–808. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148820
*KotlarskyJ.van den HooffB.HoutmanL. (2015). Are we on the same page? Knowledge boundaries and transactive memory system development in cross-functional teams. Communication Research, 42(3), 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212469402
44.
KrackhardtD. (1988). Predicting with networks: Nonparametric multiple-regression analysis of dyadic data. Social Networks, 10(4), 359–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(88)90004-4
45.
LaughlinP. R.EllisA. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(3), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90022-3
46.
*LazzaraE. H.BenishekL. E.PatzerB.GregoryM. E.HughesA. M.HeyneK.SalasE.KuchkarianF.MarttosA.SchulmanC. (2015). Utilizing telemedicine in the trauma intensive care unit: Does it impact teamwork?Telemedicine and E-Health, 21(8), 670–676. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2014.0074
47.
*LeeJ.-Y.BachrachD. G.LewisK. (2014). Social network ties, transactive memory, and performance in groups. Organization Science, 25(3), 951–967. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0884
48.
LewisK. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587
49.
*LewisK. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50(11), 1519–1533. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0257
50.
*LewisK.BelliveauM.HerndonB.KellerJ. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.01.005
51.
LewisK.HerndonB. (2011). Transactive memory systems: Current issues and future research directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1254–1265. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0647
52.
*LiangD. W.MorelandR.ArgoteL. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295214009
53.
*LiaoJ.O’BrienA. T.JimmiesonN. L.RestubogS. L. D. (2015). Predicting transactive memory systems in multidisciplinary teams: The interplay between team and professional identities. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 965–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.024
54.
*LittlepageG. E.HollingsheadA. B.DrakeL. R.LittlepageA. M. (2008). Transactive memory and performance in work groups: Specificity, communication, ability differences, and work allocation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.3.223
55.
LittlepageG. E.MuellerA. L. (1997). Recognition and utilization of expertise in problem-solving groups: Expert characteristics and behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(4), 324–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.1.4.324
56.
LittlepageG. E.SchmidtG. W.WhislerE. W.FrostA. G. (1995). An input-process-output analysis of influence and performance in problem-solving groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 877–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.877
57.
MajchrzakA.JarvenpaaS. L.HollingsheadA. B. (2007). Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organization Science, 18(1), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0228
58.
*ManteliC.van den HooffB.van VlietH. (2014). The effect of governance on global software development: An empirical research in transactive memory systems. Information and Software Technology, 56(10), 1309–1321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.04.012
59.
MarlowS. L.LacerenzaC. N.PaolettiJ.BurkeC. S.SalasE. (2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001
60.
MaynardM. T.GilsonL. L. (2014). The role of shared mental model development in understanding virtual team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 39(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113475361
61.
*MellJ. N.van KnippenbergD.van GinkelW. P. (2014). The catalyst effect: The impact of transactive memory system structure on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1154–1173. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0589
62.
MongeP. R.ContractorN. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford University Press.
63.
*MorelandR. L.MyaskovskyL. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2891
64.
*NeffJ. J.FulkJ.YuanY. C. (2014). Not in the mood? Affective state and transactive communication. Journal of Communication, 64(5), 785–805. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12109
65.
*OertelR.AntoniC. H. (2015). Phase-specific relationships between team learning processes and transactive memory development. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(5), 726–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.1000872
*OshriI.Van FenemaP.KotlarskyJ. (2008). Knowledge transfer in globally distributed teams: The role of transactive memory. Information Systems Journal, 18(6), 593–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00243.x
68.
*PalazzoloE. T. (2005). Organizing for information retrieval in transactive memory systems. Communication Research, 32(6), 726–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205281056
69.
PearsallM. J.EllisA. P. J. (2006). The effects of critical team member assertiveness on team performance and satisfaction. Journal of Management, 32(4), 575–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306289099
70.
*PearsallM. J.EllisA. P. J.BellB. S. (2010). Building the infrastructure: The effects of role identification behaviors on team cognition development and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017781
PeltokorpiV.HoodA. C. (2018). Communication in theory and research on transactive memory systems: A literature review. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(4), 644–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12359
73.
*PeltokorpiV.MankaM. L. (2008). Antecedents and the performance outcome of transactive memory in daycare work groups. European Psychologist, 13(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.2.103
74.
PentlandA. (2010). Honest signals: How they shape our world. MIT Press.
75.
PooleM. S.HollingsheadA. B. (Eds.). (2005). Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Sage.
76.
*PrichardJ. S.AshleighM. J. (2007). The effects of team-skills training on transactive memory and performance. Small Group Research, 38(6), 696–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407304923
77.
RenY.ArgoteL. (2011). Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 189–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.590300
78.
*RulkeD. L.RauD. (2000). Investigating the encoding process of transactive memory development in group training. Group & Organization Management, 25(4), 373–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601100254004
79.
*RyanS.O’ConnorR. V. (2013). Acquiring and sharing tacit knowledge in software development teams: An empirical study. Information and Software Technology, 55(9), 1614–1624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2013.02.013
80.
*SarcevicA.MarsicI.LeskM. E.BurdR. S. (2008). Transactive memory in trauma resuscitation. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 215–224). Association for Computing Machinery.
81.
SeiboldD. R.HollingsheadA. B.YoonK. (2014). Embedded teams and embedding organizations. In PutnamL. L.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 327–349). Sage.
82.
ShaikhS. J.CruzI. (2019). “Alexa, do you know anything?” The impact of an intelligent assistant on team interactions and creative performance under time scarcity. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.12914
83.
*Smith-JentschK. A.KraigerK.Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (2009). Do familiar teammates request and accept more backup? Transactive memory in air traffic control. Human Factors, 51(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720809335367
84.
SnijdersT. A. B.BoskerR. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
85.
SparrowB.LiuJ.WegnerD. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745
86.
*SuC. (2012). Who knows who knows what in the group? The effects of communication network centralities, use of digital knowledge repositories, and work remoteness on organizational members’ accuracy in expertise recognition. Communication Research, 39(5), 614–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211433825
87.
*TangF. (2015). When communication quality is trustworthy? Transactive memory systems and the mediating role of trust in software development teams. R&D Management, 45(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12051
88.
*TangF.MuJ.ThomasE. (2015). Who knows what in NPD teams: Communication context, mode, and task contingencies. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 404–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12226
89.
Thomas-HuntM. C.PhillipsK. W. (2003). Managing teams in the dynamic organization: The effects of revolving membership and changing task demands on expertise and status in groups. In PetersonR. S.MannixE. A. (Eds.), Leading and managing people in the dynamic organization (pp. 115–133). Lawrence Erlbaum.
90.
TubbsS. L. (2011). A systems approach to small group interaction (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
*VernhamZ.VrijA.LealS.MannS.HillmanJ. (2014). Collective interviewing: A transactive memory approach towards identifying signs of truthfulness. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.01.001
93.
WangP.RobinsG.PattisonP.KoskinenJ. (2014). MPNet: Program for the simulation and estimation of (p*) exponential random graph models for multilevel networks. The University of Melbourne.
94.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
95.
WegnerD. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In MullenB.GoethalsG. R. (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). Springer.
WegnerD. M.GiulianoT.HertelP. T. (1985). Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In IckesW. (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 253–276). Springer.
98.
*WhelanE.TeiglandR. (2013). Transactive memory systems as a collective filter for mitigating information overload in digitally enabled organizational groups. Information and Organization, 23(3), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.06.001
99.
YanB.FiggeP.LewisK.HollingsheadA. B.AlexanderK. S.KimY. J.ShaikhS.CruzI.FangC.WilkenfeldJ. N. (2019, July). Alexa, what is the Pythagorean theorem? The influence of intelligent personal assistants on transactive memory systems. Paper presented at the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research (INGRoup) 14th Annual Conference, Lisbon, Portugal.
100.
YanB.KimY.HollingsheadA. B.BrandonD. P. (2019). Conceptualizing online groups as multidimensional networks. In Attrill-SmithA.FullwoodC.KeepM.KussD. J. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cyberpsychology (pp. 308–327). Oxford University Press.
101.
*YoonK.HollingsheadA. B. (2010). Cultural stereotyping, convergent expectations, and performance in cross-cultural collaborations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(2), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610362597
102.
*YooY.KanawattanachaiP. (2001). Developments of transactive memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028933
103.
*YuanY. C.BazarovaN. N.FulkJ.ZhangZ. X. (2013). Recognition of expertise and perceived influence in intercultural collaboration: A study of mixed American and Chinese groups. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 476–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12026
104.
*YuanY. C.CarboniI.EhrlichK. (2010). The impact of awareness and accessibility on expertise retrieval: A multilevel network perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. American Society for Information Science, 61(4), 700–714. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21287
105.
*YuanY. C.CarboniI.EhrlichK. (2014). The impact of interpersonal affective relationships and awareness on expertise seeking: A multilevel network investigation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(4), 554–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.766393
106.
*YuanY. C.FulkJ.MongeP. R. (2007). Access to information in connective and communal transactive memory systems. Communication Research, 34(2), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206298067
107.
*YuanY. C.FulkJ.MongeP. R.ContractorN. (2010). Expertise directory development, shared task interdependence, and strength of communication network ties as multilevel predictors of expertise exchange in transactive memory work groups. Communication Research, 37(1), 20–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209351469
108.
*ZhangC. H.HongD. C.LingH. (2012). A study on the mechanism of tacit knowledge integration: The role of social ties and transactive memory systems. International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control, 8(8), 5847–5857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.08.107
109.
*ZhangX.ChenH.Ordóñez de PablosP.LytrasM.SunY. (2016). Coordinated implicitly? An empirical study on the role of social media in collaborative learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2622
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
