The ubiquity of AI has made team cognitive science a foundation for understanding what increasingly complex human-AI interactions can achieve. Different models and theoretical frameworks from human teamwork literature offer varying explanations for what human-AI team (HAT) cognition entails. Predominant theoretical frameworks founded on the Shared Mental Model theory frame team cognition in terms of overlaps between team members’ knowledge structures that help them understand their task context. These techniques remain widely used to model team performance in knowledge-intensive tasks; yet, conceptual and methodological concerns about their applicability in HATs have prompted the use of other frameworks. Among these is Interactive Team Cognition theory, which posits that team interaction is team cognition: a team-level activity observable in real-time. This paper sought to identify key intersections and frictions between these two theories, motivating a panel discussion on the feasibility of a dual-perspective approach to addressing open research questions about HAT cognition.
AndrewsR. W.LillyJ. M.SrivastavaD.FeighK. M. (2023). The role of shared mental models in human-AI teams: A theoretical review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 24(2), 129–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922x.2022.2061080
2.
ArielyD.KahnemanD.LoewensteinG. (2000). Joint comment on “When does duration matter in judgment and decision making?” (Ariely & Loewenstein, 2000). Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 129(4), 524–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.4.524
3.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE.ConverseS. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues, 221, 221–246.
4.
CohenM. C.GrimmD. A.GormanJ. C.CookeN. J. (in press). Human-machine interaction as team cognition: Toward observational, unobtrusive, and real-time models. In KozlowskiS. W. J.HungH.Lehmann-WillenbrockN.SalahA. A. (Eds.), Computational group and team dynamics: Forging an interdisciplinary science. Oxford University Press.
5.
ConverseS. A.Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (1991). Team member shared mental models: A theory and some methodological issues. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 35(19), 1417–1421. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129103501917
6.
CookeN. J.BradleyS.CohenM. C.PeelM. A.TeoA.WillettM. M. (in press). Contributions of the theory of interactive team cognition. In SalasE.RosenM. A. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of team performance measurement. Oxford University Press.
7.
CookeN. J.CohenM. C.FazioW. C.InderbergL. H.JohnsonC. J.LemattaG. J.PeelM.TeoA. (2024). From teams to teamness: Future directions in the science of team cognition. Human Factors, 66(6), 1669–1680. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208231162449
8.
CookeN. J.GormanJ. C.MyersC. W.DuranJ. L. (2013). Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science, 37(2), 255–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12009
DeChurchL. A.Mesmer-MagnusJ. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017328
11.
DemirM.McNeeseN. J.CookeN. J. (2017). Team situation awareness within the context of human-autonomy teaming. Cognitive Systems Research, 46, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2016.11.003
12.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187720810369807
13.
FioreS. M.WiltshireT. J. (2016). Technology as teammate: Examining the role of external cognition in support of team cognitive processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01531
14.
GormanJ. C.DunbarT. A.GrimmD.GipsonC. L. (2017). Understanding and modeling teams as dynamical systems. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1053. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01053
15.
GormanJ. C.GrimmD. A. P.RobinsonF. E.WinnerJ. L.WieseC. W.RoudebushC. (2025). Dynamic measures of team adaptation. Human Factors, 67, 836–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208251314262
16.
HollanJ.HutchinsE.KirshD. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 7(2), 174–196. https://doi.org/10.1145/353485.353487
17.
HollnagelE.WoodsD. D. (Eds.). (2005). Joint cognitive systems: Foundations of cognitive systems engineering (1st ed.). CRC Press.
18.
HutchinsE. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
19.
JohnsonM.BradshawJ. M. (2021). How interdependence explains the world of teamwork. In LawlessW. F.LlinasJ.SofgeD. A.MittuR. (Eds.), Engineering artificially intelligent systems: A systems engineering approach to realizing synergistic capabilities (pp. 122–146). Springer International Publishing.
KahnemanD.KleinG. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755
22.
KozlowskiS. W. J.KleinK. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
23.
LumH. C.PhillipsE. K. (2024). Understanding human−autonomy teams through a human−animal teaming model. Topics in Cognitive Science, 16(3), 554–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12713
24.
LyonsJ. B.WynneK. T. (2021). Human-machine teaming: Evaluating dimensions using narratives. Human-Intelligent Systems Integration, 3(2), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42454-020-00019-7
25.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.2307/259182
26.
MilitelloL.LipshitzR.SchraagenJ. M. (Eds.) (2017). Naturalistic decision making and macrocognition. CRC Press.
27.
MyersC. W.CookeN. J.GormanJ. C.McNeeseN. J. (2024). Introduction to the emerging cognitive science of distributed human-autonomy teams. Topics in Cognitive Science, 16(3), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12744
28.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Human-AI teaming: State-of-the-art and research needs. https://doi.org/10.17226/26355
29.
O’NeillT.McNeeseN.BarronA.SchelbleB. (2022). Human-autonomy teaming: A review and analysis of the empirical literature. Human factors, 64(5), 904–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820960865
30.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.100.3.349
ScheutzM.DeLoachS. A.AdamsJ. A. (2017). A framework for developing and using shared mental models in human-agent teams. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 11(3), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343416682891
33.
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.
