A significant challenge for the development of artificial social intelligence for effective human-machine teams is defining the forms of artificial knowledge structures needed for machine agents to meaningfully engage in collaboration. Relevant to this, individual and shared knowledge structure concepts have been proposed across a variety of disciplines, resulting in a lack of conceptual clarity and impeding their operationalization for human-machine teaming. To reconcile conceptual differences across disciplines and enable the emergence of complex socio-cognitive abilities in machine agents, research is needed to integrate theory on the knowledge structures that underpin complex cognition. Toward this end, we survey research from the cognitive and computational sciences to develop a framework for the systematic application and evaluation of knowledge structure concepts for machine agents in teams. Our approach focuses on contextual factors, specifically the task environment structure and the situation temporality, that can help guide knowledge structure requirements for artificial social intelligence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbelsonR. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 36(7), 715–729.
2.
CraikK. J. W. (1943). The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge University.
3.
FioreS. M.RosenM. A.Smith-JentschK. A.SalasE.LetskyM.WarnerN. (2010). Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: Predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts. Human Factors, 52(2), 203–224.
4.
FioreS. M.SalasE.CuevasH. M.BowersC. A. (2003). Distributed coordination space: Toward a theory of distributed team process and performance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4(3–4), 340–364.
5.
FioreS. M.WiltshireT. J. (2016). Technology as teammate: Examining the role of external cognition in support of team cognitive processes. Frontiers in Cognitive Science, 7, 1531.
6.
FrederickD. M. (1991). Auditors’ representation and retrieval of internal control knowledge. The Accounting Review, 66(2), 240–258.
7.
GetnerD. (2002). Mental models, Psychology of. In SmelserN. J.BatesP. B. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavior Science (pp. 9683–9687). Elsevier Science.
8.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.
9.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (1989). Mental models. In Foundations of Cognitive Science (pp. 469–499). The MIT Press.
10.
KimE.-S.OnK.-W.ZhangB.-T. (2016). DeepSchema: Automatic schema acquisition from wearable sensor data in restaurant situations. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 834–840.
11.
KlimoskiR.MohammedS. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor?Journal of Management, 20(2), 35.
MandlerJ. M. (1978). Categorical and Schematic Organization in Memory. Center for Human Information Processing, Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego.
14.
MohammedS.DumvilleB. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 89–106.
15.
PhillipsE.OsoskyS.GroveJ.JentschF. (2011). From tools to teammates: Toward the development of appropriate mental models for intelligent robots. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 55(1), 1491–1495.
16.
RiedlM. O. (2016). Computational narrative intelligence: A human-centered goal for artificial intelligence. ArXiv:1602.06484 [Cs].
17.
RouseW. B.MorrisN. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 349–363.
18.
SalasE.DickinsonT. L.ConverseS. A.TannenbaumS. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In SwezeyR. W.SalasE. (Eds.), Teams: Their Training and Performance (pp. 3–29). Ablex Publishing.
19.
SalasE.FioreS. M.LetskyM. (Eds.). (2012). Theories of Team Cognition: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. London: Routledge.
20.
SchankR. C.AbelsonR. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
SundstromE.De MeuseK. P.FutrellD. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133.
22.
WagnerA.BriscoeE. (2017). Psychological modeling of humans by assistive robots. In Human Modelling for Bio-Inspired Robotics (pp. 273–296). Elsevier.
23.
WartaS. F.KapaloK. A.BestA.FioreS. M. (2016). Similarity, complementarity, and agency in HRI: Theoretical issues in shifting the perception of robots from tools to teammates. Proceedings of HFES Annual Meeting, 60(1), 1230–1234.
24.
WesselM.de SouzaB. M.SteinmacherI.WieseI. S.PolatoI.ChavesA. P.GerosaM. A. (2018). The power of bots: Characterizing and understanding bots in OSS projects. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 1–19.
25.
WiltshireT. J.LobatoE. J. C.McConnellD. S.FioreS. M. (2015). Prospects for direct social perception: A multi-theoretical integration to further the science of social cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8.
26.
WiltshireT. J.WartaS. F.BarberD.FioreS. M. (2017). Enabling robotic social intelligence by engineering human social-cognitive mechanisms. Cognitive Systems Research, 43, 190–207.
27.
WhitingM. E.BlaisingA.BarreauC.FiuzaL.MardaN.ValentineM.BernsteinM. S. (2019). Did it have to end this way? Understanding the consistency of team fracture. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–23.
28.
WoolleyA. W.AggarwalI.MaloneT. W. (2015). Collective intelligence and group performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 420–424.
