The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of team size, communication modality, and team role on measures of team process over time. As the use of semiautonomous, unmanned vehicles increases, it is pertinent to investigate issues associated with the human teams that will control them, including consideration of team roles and the design of systems to support these roles. Using a 1:35 scale facility for military operations in urban terrain, distributed teams of two or three operators used a simulated, unmanned aerial vehicle and a scaled, unmanned ground vehicle to complete two distinct phases of a mission. The teams used either audio or instant messaging for communication, and the analysis of communication assessed their discussion of target identification, target classification, object localization, and vehicle navigation. Findings indicate that the addition of a third teammate resulted in greater role specificity, and the use of audio increased communication of task-relevant content. The proper assignment of team roles can improve the ability of a team to both acquire and synthesize information from remote environments. Furthermore, proper system design can improve the flow of information between teammates over time.
AllenderL.McDermottP.LuckJ.FisherA. (2006). Team communication with and without aids for transmitting remote information. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 492–496). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
2.
BalakrishnanB.PfaffM.McNeeseM.AdibhatlaV. (2009). NeoCITIES geo-tools: Assessing impact of perceptual anchoring and spatially annotated chat on geo collaboration. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 294–298). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
3.
BurkeC.StaglK.SalasE.PierceL.KendalD. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1189–1207.
4.
BurkeJ. L.MurphyR. R. (2007). RSVP: An investigation of remote shared visual presence as common ground for human-robot teams. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 161–168). Arlington, VA: ACM.
5.
BurkeJ. L.MurphyR. R. (2004). Human-robot interaction in USAR technical search: Two heads are better than one. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 13, 307–312.
6.
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, 85–116.
7.
CarlsonJ.MurphyR. R. (2005). How UGVs physically fail in the field. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 21, 423–437.
8.
CasperJ.MurphyR. R. (2003). Human-robot interactions during the robot-assisted urban search and rescue response at the World Trade Center. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B, 33, 367–385.
9.
ChadwickR. (2005). The impacts of multiple robots and displays views: An urban search and rescue simulation. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 387–391). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
10.
ChenJ.DurlachP.SloanJ.BowensL. (2008). Human-robot interaction in the context of simulated route reconnaissance missions. Military Psychology, 20, 135–150.
11.
CookeN.DursoF. (2008). Stories of modern technology failures and cognitive engineering successes. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group.
12.
CurralL.ForresterR.DawsonJ.WestM. (2001). It’s what you do and the way that you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation-related group process. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 187–204.
DiazD.SimsV. (2003). Augmenting virtual environments: The influence of spatial ability on learning from integrated displays. Journal of High Ability Studies, 14, 191–212.
15.
DriskellJ.SalasE. (1992). Can you study real teams in contrived settings? The value of small group research to understanding teams. In SwezeyE.SalasE. (Eds.), Teams: their training and performance (pp. 101–124). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
16.
FincannonT.EvansA.W.IIIJentschF.KeeblerJ. (2008). Interactive effects of backup behavior and spatial abilities in the prediction of teammate workload using multiple unmanned vehicles. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 995–999). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
17.
FincannonT.EvansA. W.JentschF.KeeblerJ. (2009). Dimensions of spatial ability and their influence on performance with unmanned systems. In AndrewsD. H.HullT. (Eds.), Human factors in defense: Human factors in combat identification (pp. 67–81). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
18.
FincannonT.EvansA. W.JentschF.PhillipsE.KeeblerJ. (2009). The effects of sharing control of unmanned vehicles on backup behavior and workload in distributed teams. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 1300–1303). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
19.
FincannonT.EvansA. W.PhillipsE.JentschF.KeeblerJ. (2009). The influence of team size and communication modality on team effectiveness with unmanned systems. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 419–423). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
20.
FincannonT.KeeblerJ.JentschF.EvansA. W.III. (2008). Target identification support and location support among teams of unmanned system operators [Electronic version]. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Army Science Conference. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA504210&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
21.
FincannonT.OsoskyS.KeeblerJ.JentschF. (2010, July). Acquisition of skill sets and mental models over time. 3rd International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Miami, FL.
22.
ForsythD. (1990). Group dynamics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
23.
GoodrichM.MorseB.GerhardtD.CooperJ.QuigleyM.AdamsJ.HumphreyC. (2008). Supporting wilderness search and rescue using a camera-equipped mini UAV. Journal of Field Robotics, 25, 89–110.
24.
HillS.BodtB. (2007). A field experiment of autonomous mobility: Operator workload for one and two robots. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 169–176). Arlington, VA: ACM.
25.
JentschF. (2007). Team coordination using dissimilar assets from dissimilar locations. Orlando, FL: Team Performance Laboratory.
26.
KleinG. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50, 456–460.
27.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.
28.
McDermottP.LuckJ.AllenderL.FisherA. (2005). Effective human to human communication of information provided by an unmanned vehicle. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 402–406). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
29.
McDermottP.FisherA.AllenderL. (2008). The transmission of spatial route information in distributed unmanned vehicle teams. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 256–261). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
30.
Mesmer-MagnusJ.DeChurchL. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535–546.
31.
MurphyR. R. (2004). Human-robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C, 34, 138–153.
32.
MurphyR.PrattK.BurkeJ. (2008). Crew roles and operational protocols for rotary-wing micro-UAVs in close urban environments. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 73–80). Amsterdam, Netherlands: ACM.
33.
OrasanuJ. (1990). Shared mental models and crew decision making (CLS Report No. 46). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Cognitive Science Laboratory.
34.
OsoskyS.EvansA. W.IIIKeeblerJ. R.JentschF. (2007). Using scale simulation and virtual environments to study human-robot teams. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference of Augmented Cognition International (pp. 183–189). Baltimore, MD: Strategic Analysis Inc.
35.
RehfeldS.JentschF.CurtisM.FincannonT. (2005, July). Collaborative teamwork with unmanned vehicles in military missions. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Las Vegas, NV.
36.
RileyJ.StraterL.DavisF.StraterS.FaulknerL. (2009, July). Situation awareness and team communication in robot control. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 172–176). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
37.
WallerM. J.GuptaN.GiambatistaR. C. (2004). Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance. Management Science, 50, 1534–1544.
38.
WangH.ChienS.LewisM.VelagapudiP.ScerriP.SycaraK. (2009). Human teams for large scale multirobot control. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 1306–1311). San Antonio, TX: IEEE.
39.
WheelanS. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40, 247–262.
40.
WickensC. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159–177.
41.
WickensC.VincowM.YehM. (2001). Design applications of visual spatial thinking: The importance of frame of reference. In ShahP.MiyakeA. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 383–424). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
WoodsD. D.TittleJ.FeilM.RoeslerA. (2004). Envisioning human-robot coordination in future operations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C, 34, 210–218.
