Swarm robotic systems are gaining in interest with the prospect of their use for various applications, including monitoring, tracking, infrastructure support, and protection. Prior human-swarm system research investigated transparency for these systems, but assumed perfect communication scenarios. Real-world human-swarm systems will not have perfect communication due to human processing limitations caused by a large number of individual entities, emergent behavior due to varying environments, and bandwidth issues. Factors that affect transparency or are influenced by transparency were identified from various human–machine system domains; however, understanding the relationship between factors can help designers identify what criteria can be implemented to achieve transparency for swarms. Challenges that may arise based on transparency criteria from human–machine systems are examined to identify improvements for spatial swarm systems.
AdamsJ. A.ChenJ. Y. C.GoodrichM. A. (2018). Swarm transparency. In HRI 2018: Late-Breaking Reports (pp. 45–46). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
2.
AlarconG. M.GambleR.JessupS. A.WalterC.RyanT. J.WoodD. W.CalhounC. S. (2017). Application of the heuristic-systematic model to computer code trustworthiness: The influence of reputation and transparency. Cogent Psychology, 4, 1–22.
3.
Al-SoudA. R.NakataK. (2010, December). Evaluating e-government websites in Jordan: Accessibility, usability, transparency and responsiveness. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Progress in Informatics and Computing, Shanghai, China.
4.
AtoyanH.DuquetJ. R.RobertJ. M. (2006). Trust in new decision aid systems. In IHM 2006 Proceedings of the 18th Conference on l’Interaction Homme-Machine (pp. 115–122). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
5.
BalleriniM.CabibboN.CandelierR.CavagnaA.CisbaniE.GiardinaI.. . . ZdravkovicV. (2008). Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: Evidence from a field study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 1232–1237.
6.
BarnesL.FieldsM.ValavanisK. (2007, June). Unmanned ground vehicle swarm formation control using potential fields. 2007 Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, Athens, Greece.
7.
BaxterG.RooksbyJ.WangY.Khajeh-HosseiniA. (2012, August). The ironies of automation. . . . still going strong at 30?Proceedings of ECCE 2012 Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.
8.
BayindirL.SahinE. (2007). A review of studies in swarm robotics. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences, 15, 115–147.
9.
BermanS.GanelT. (2018). Perception and action in remote and virtual environments. In HRI 2018: Late-breaking Reports (pp. 67–68). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
10.
BolstadC. A.CuevasH. M.GonzalezC.SchneiderM. (2005, May). Modeling shared situation awareness. Paper presented at the 14th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Los Angeles, CA.
11.
BonabeauE.DorigoM.TheraulazG. (1999). Swarm intelligence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
BoyceM. W.ChenJ. Y. C.SelkowitzA. R.LakhmaniS. G. (2015). Effects of agent transparency on operator trust. In HRI 2015 Extended Abstracts Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (pp. 179–180). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
13.
BrambillaM.FerranteE.BirattariM.DorigoM. (2013). Swarm robotics: A review from the swarm engineering perspective. Swarm Intelligence, 7, 1–41.
14.
BreazealC.KiddC. D.ThomazA. L.HoffmanG.BerlinM. (2005, August). Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork. 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
15.
BrownD. S.GoodrichM. A.JungS. Y.KermanS. (2012). Collective state and span and persistence: Two invariants of human-swarm interaction. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(1), 1–27.
16.
BrownD. S.GoodrichM. A.JungS. Y.KermanS. (2016). Two invariants of human-swarm interaction. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 5(1), 1–31.
17.
BruniS.MarquezJ. J.BrzezinskiA.NehmeC.BoussemartY. (2007). Introducing a human-automation collaboration taxonomy (HACT) in command and control decision-support systems. In 12th ICCRTS Adapting C2 to the 21st Century (pp. 1–13). Cambridge, MA.
18.
BuchmullerJ.JackleD.CakmakE.BrandesU.KeimD. A. (2019). MotionRugs: Visualizing collective trends in space and time. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1), 76–86.
19.
CalhounG.RuffH.BehymerK.FrostE. (2018). Human-autonomy teaming interface design considerations for multi-unmanned vehicle control. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19, 321–352.
20.
ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. J. (2014). Human-agent teaming for multi-robot control: A review of human factors issues. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 40(1), 13–29.
21.
ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. J.SelkowitzA. R.StowersK. (2016, October). Effects of agent transparency on human-autonomy teaming effectiveness. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Budapest, Hungary.
22.
ChenJ. Y. C.LakhmaniS.StowersK.SelkowitzA.WrightJ.BarnesM. (2018) Situation awareness-based agent transparency and human-autonomy teaming effectiveness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 19, 259–282.
23.
ChenJ. Y. C.ProcciK.WrightJ.GarciaA.BarnesM. (2014). Situation awareness-based agent transparency (Technical Report Technical Report ARL-TR-6905). Adelphi, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground.
24.
ChenJ. Y. C.SelkowitzA. R.StowersK.LakhmaniS. G.BarnesM. J. (2016) Human-autonomy teaming and agent transparency. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (pp. 28–31). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
25.
ChenJ. Y. C.SelkowitzA. R.StowersK.LakhmaniS. G.BarnesM. J. (2017). Human-autonomy teaming and agent transparency. In HRI 2017 Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 91–92). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
26.
ChenM.NikolaidisS.SohH.HsuD.SrinivasaS. (2018). Planning with trust for human-robot collaboration. In HRI 2018: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 307–315). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
27.
CodyJ. R. (2018). Discrete consensus decisions in human-collective teams (Doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
28.
CodyJ. R.AdamsJ. A. (2018). Decision making and action selection in human-collective teams. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 1(1), 1–133.
29.
CoppinG.LegrasF. (2012). Autonomy spectrum and performance perception issues in swarm supervisory control. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100, 590–603.
30.
CouzinI. D.KrauseJ.FranksN. R.LevinS. A. (2005). Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature, 433, 513–516.
31.
CouzinI. D.KrauseJ.JamesR.RuxtonG. D.FranksH. R. (2002). Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 218, 1–11.
32.
CrandallJ. W.GoodrichM. A.DanR.OlsenJ.NielsenC. W. (2005). Validating human-robot interaction schemes in multitasking environments. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A, 35, 438–449.
33.
CuevasH. M.FioreS. M.CaldwellB. S.StraterL. (2007). Augmenting team cognition in human-automation teams performing in complex operational environments. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 78, 63–70.
DesaiM.MedvedevM.SteinfeldA.YancoH. (2013). Impact of robot failures and feedback on real-time trust. In HRI 2013 Proceedings (pp. 251–258). Tokyo, Japan: IEEE.
36.
DesaiM.MedvedevM.VázquezM.McSheehyS.Gadea-OmelchenkoS.BruggemanC.YancoH. (2012). Effects of changing reliability on trust of robot systems. In HRI 2012: Robot Wizards: Robot Operation and Interfaces (pp. 73–80). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
37.
DevinS.AlamiR. (2016). An implemented theory of mind to improve human-robot shared plans execution. In 11th ACM.IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (pp. 319–326). Christchurch, New Zealand: IEEE.
38.
DeWittA. J.KuljisJ. (2006). Aligning usability and security: A usability study of Polaris. In Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (pp. 1–7). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
DzindoletM. T.PetersonS. A.PomrankyR. A.PierceL. G.BeckH. P. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 697–718.
41.
EndsleyM. R.BoltéJ. D. (2003). Designing for Situation Awareness: An approach to user-centered design. London, England: Taylor & Francis.
42.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37, 381–394.
43.
EntinE. B.EntinE. E.SerfatyD. (1996). Optimizing aided target-recognition performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 40, 233–237.
44.
FerberJ. (1999). Multi-agent systems: An introduction to distributed artificial intelligence. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.
45.
FioreS. M.JentschF.Becerra-FernandezI.SalasE.FinkelsteinN. (2005, January). Integrating field data with laboratory training research to improve the understanding of expert human-agent teamwork. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI.
46.
FloydM. W.AhaD. W. (2017). Using explanations to provide transparency during trust-guided behavior adaptation. AI Communications, 30, 281–294.
FreedyA.DeVisserE.WeltmanG.CoeymanN. (2007). Measurement of trust in human-robot collaboration. In 2007 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems (pp. 106–114). Orlando, FL: IEEE.
49.
GantJ. P.GantD. B. (2002, January). Web portal functionality and state government e-service. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI.
50.
GoodrichM. A.SujitP. B.KermanS.PendletonB.PintoJ. (2011). Enabling human interaction with bio-inspired robot teams: Topologies, leaders, predators, and stakeholders (Technical Report BYU-HMCI Technical Report 2011-1). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
51.
GordonD. M. (1999). Ants at work: How an insect society is organized. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
52.
GorurO. C.RosmanB.SivrikayaF.AlbayrakS. (2018). The impact of POMDP-generated explanations on trust and performance in human-robot teams. In HRI 2018 (pp. 398–406). New York, NY.
53.
HaasE.FieldsM.HillS.StachowiakC. (2009). Extreme scalability: Designing interfaces and algorithms for soldier-robotic swarm interaction (Technical Report Technical Report ARL-TR-4800). Adelphi, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground.
54.
HarveyJ.MerrickK. E.AbbassH. A. (2018). Assessing human judgment of computationally generated swarming behavior. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, Article 13.
55.
HayesB.ShahJ. A. (2017). Improving robot controller transparency through autonomous policy explanation. In HRI 2017 Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 303–312). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
56.
HeinA. M.RosenthalS. B.HagstromG. I.BerdahlA.TorneyC. J.CouzinI. D. (2015). The evolution of distributed sensing and collective computation in animal populations. Ecology, Genomics and Evolutionary Biology, 4, e10955.
57.
HelldinT. (2014). Transparency for future semi-automated systems: Effects of transparency on operator performance, workload and trust (Masters’ thesis). Orebro University, Sweden.
58.
HerlockerJ. L.KonstanJ. A.RiedlJ. (2000). Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. In CSCW 2000 Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 241–250). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
59.
HolldoblerB.WilsonE. O. (1990). The ants. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
60.
HollidayD.WilsonS.StumpfS. (2013). The effect of explanations on perceived control and behaviors in intelligent systems. In CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives (pp. 181–186). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
61.
HöökK. (2000). Steps to take before intelligent user interfaces become real. Interacting With Computers, 12, 409–426.
62.
JohnM. S.SmallmanH. S.ManesD. I. (2005). Recovery from interruptions to a dynamic monitoring task: The beguiling utility of instant replay. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 49, 473–477.
63.
JohnsonM.BradshawJ. M.FeltovichP. J.JonkerC. M.van RiemsdijkB.SierhuisM. (2011). The fundamental principle of coactive design: Interdependence must shape autonomy. In Coordination, Organization, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems VI (pp. 172–191). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
64.
JonesS. L.ShahP. P. (2015). Diagnosing the locus of trust: A temporal perspective for trustor, trustee, and dyadic influences on perceived trustworthiness. Journal for Applied Psychology, 10, 392–414.
65.
JungS. Y.GoodrichM. A. (2013). Multi-robot perimeter-shaping through mediator-based swarm control. In Advanced Robotics (ICAR), 2013 16th International Conference on (pp. 1–6). Montevideo, Uruguay: IEEE.
66.
KaltenbachE.DolgovI. (2017). On the dual nature of transparency and reliability: Rethinking factors that shape trust in automation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61, 308–312.
67.
KimT.HindsP. (2006). Who should I blame? Effects of autonomy and transparency on attributions in human-robot interaction. In IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 80–85). Hatfield, UK: IEEE.
68.
KiraZ.PotterM. A. (2009, February). Exerting human control over decentralized robot swarms. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Autonomous Robots and Agents, Wellington, New Zealand.
69.
KirschA.KruseT.SisbotE. A.AlamiR.LawitzkyM.BrscicD.GlasauerS. (2010). Plan-based control of joint human-robot activities. Kunstliche Intelligenz, 24(3), 223–231.
70.
KizilcecR. F. (2016). How much information? Effects of transparency on trust in an algorithmic interface. In CHI 2016 Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2390–2395). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
71.
KollingA.NunnallyS.LewisM. (2012). Towards human control of robot swarms. In HRI 2012 Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 89–96). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
72.
KollingA.SycaraK.NunnallyS.LewisM. (2013). Human swarm interaction: An experimental study of two types of interaction with foraging swarms. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 2, 103–128.
73.
KollingA.WalkerP.ChakrabortyN.SycaraK.LewisM. (2015). Human interaction with robot swarms: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 46, 9–26.
74.
KomarejiM.BouffanaisR. (2013). Resilience and controllability of dynamic collective behaviors. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e82578.
75.
LangleyP.MeadowsB.SridharanM.ChoiD. (2017, February). Explainable agency for intelligent autonomous systems. In Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference (pp. 4762–4763). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI.
76.
LeeJ. D. (2012, January). Trust, trustworthiness, and trustability. Presented at the Workshop on Human Machine Trust for Robust Autonomous Systems, Ocala, FL.
77.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.
78.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46, 50–80.
79.
LienJ. M.BayazitO. B.SowellR. T.RodriguezS.AmatoN. M. (2003). Shepherding behaviors (Technical Report Technical Report TR03-006). College Station: Texas A&M University.
80.
LimB. Y.DeyA. K.AvrahamiD. (2009). Why and why not explanations improve the intelligibility of context-aware intelligent systems. In CHI 2009: Studying Intelligent Systems (pp. 2119–2128). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
81.
LyonsJ. B. (2013, March). Being transparent about transparency: A model for human-robot interaction. In Trust and autonomous systems: Papers from the 2013 AAAI Spring Symposium (pp. 48–53). Palo Alto, CA.
82.
LyonsJ. B.ClarkM. A.WagnerA. R.SchuelkeM. J. (2017). Certifiable trust in autonomous systems: Making the intractable tangible. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 38, 37–49.
83.
LyonsJ. B.KoltaiK. S.HoN. T.JohnsonW. B.SmithD. E.ShivelyR. J. (2016). Engineering trust in complex automated systems. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 24, 13–17.
84.
LyonsJ. B.SadlerG. G.KoltaiK.BattisteH.HoN. T.HoffmannL. C.ShivelyR. (2017) Shaping trust through transparent design: Theoretical and experimental guidelines. In Savage-KnepshieldP.ChenJ. (Eds.), Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing: Vol. 499, Advances in human factors in robots and unmanned systems (pp. 127–126). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
85.
MaJ.LaiE. M. K.RenJ. (2018, November). On the timing of operator commands for the navigation of a robot swarm. International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, Singapore.
86.
MadsenM.GregorS. (2000). Measuring human-computer trust. In Proceedings of 11th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 31–33). Brisbane, Australia.
87.
MarkG.KobsaA. (2005). The effects of collaboration and system transparency on CIVE usage: An empirical study and model. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12, 60–80.
88.
MathieuJ. E.HeffnerT. S.GoodwinG. F.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283.
89.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
90.
MercadoJ. E.RuppM. A.ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. J.BarberD.ProcciK. (2016). Intelligent agent transparency in human-agent teaming for multi-UxV management. Human Factors, 58, 401–415.
91.
MeyerJ.WiczorekR.GünzlerT. (2014). Measures of reliance and compliance in aided visual scanning. Human Factors, 56, 840–849.
92.
MillerC. A.FunkH. B.DorneichM.WhitlowS. D. (2002, October). A playbook interface for mixed initiative control of multiple unmanned vehicle teams. The 21st Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Irvine, CA.
93.
MillerG. A. (1994). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 101, 343–352.
94.
NagavalliS.ChenS. Y.LewisM.ChakrabortyN.SycaraK. (2015). Bounds of neglect benevolence in input timing for human interaction with robotic swarms. In HRI ’15 Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interactions (pp. 197–204). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
95.
NamC.LiH.LewisM.SycaraK. (2018, October). Trust of humans in supervisory control of swarm robots with varied levels of autonomy. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Miyazaki, Japan.
96.
NedbalD.AuingerA.HochmeierA. (2013). Addressing transparency, communication and participation in enterprise 2.0 projects. Procedia Technology, 9, 676–686.
97.
NielsenJ. (1993). Usability engineering. New York, NY: Academic Press.
98.
NunnallyS.WalkerP.KollingA.ChakrabortyN.LewisM.SycaraK.GoodrichM. (2012, October). Human influence of robotic swarms with bandwidth and localization issues. 2012 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Seoul, South Korea.
99.
OsoskyS.SandersT.JentschF.HancockP.ChenJ. Y. C. (2014). Determinants of system transparency and its influence on trust in and reliance on unmanned robotic systems. In Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society of for Optical Engineering (pp. 90840E-1–90840E-12). Bellingham, WA.
100.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
101.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 286–297.
102.
RaoA. S.GeorgeffM. P. (1995). BDI agents: From theory to practice. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems (pp. 312–319). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI.
103.
RasmussenJ. (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-13(2), 257–266.
104.
RobinetteP.HowardA. M.WagnerA. R. (2015). Timing is key for robot trust repair. In International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 574–583). Paris, France: Springer.
105.
RoundtreeK. A.ManningM. D.AdamsJ. A. (2018). Analysis of human-swarm visualizations. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62, 287–291.
106.
RousseauD. M.SitkinS. B.BurtR. S.CamererC. (2004). Introduction to special forum: Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46, 50–80.
107.
RoviraE.CrossA.LeitchE.BonacentoC. (2014). Displaying contextual information reduces the costs of imperfect decision automation in rapid retasking of ISR assets. Human Factors, 56, 1036–1049.
108.
RubinJ.ChisnellD. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
109.
RuotiS.KimN.BurgonB.van der HorstT.SeamonsK. (2013). Confused Johnny: When automatic encryption leads to confusion and mistakes. In Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
110.
RuotiS.RobertsB.SeamonsK. (2015). Authentication melee: A usability analysis of seven web authentication systems. In WWW’15 Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 916–926). Geneva, Switzerland: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
111.
SahinE.SpearsW. M. (2005). Swarm robotics. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
112.
SanchezJ. (2006). Factors that affect trust and reliance on an automated aid (Doctoral dissertation). Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
113.
SandersT. L.WixonT.SchaferK. E.ChenJ. Y. C.HancockP. A. (2014, March). The influence of modality and transparency on trust in human-robot interaction. 2014 IEEE International Inter-disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support, San Antonio, TX.
114.
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, 203–224.
115.
SeeleyT. D. (2010). Honeybee democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
116.
SeiffertA. E.HayesS. T.HarriottC. E.AdamsJ. A. (2015a). Motion perception of biological swarms. In COGSCI 2015 the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 574–583). Seattle, WA: Springer.
117.
SeiffertA. E.HayesS. T.HarriottC. E.AdamsJ. A. (2015b). Motion perception of biological swarms. In Proceedings of the Annual Cognitive Science Society Meeting (pp. 2128–2133). Pasadena, CA: Cognitive Science Society.
118.
SelkowitzA. R.LakhmaniS. G.ChenJ. Y. C. (2017). Using agent transparency to support situation awareness of the autonomous squad member. Cognitive Systems Research, 46, 13–25.
119.
SelkowitzA. R.LakhmaniS. G.ChenJ. Y. C.BoyceM. (2015). The effects of agent transparency on human interaction with an autonomous robotic agent. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59, 806–810.
120.
SelkowitzA. R.LakhmaniS. G.LariosC. N.ChenJ. Y. C. (2016). Agent transparency and the autonomous squad member. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics SocietyAnnual Meeting, 60, 1319–1323.
121.
SheridanT. B.VerplankW. L. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators (Technical report). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
122.
SmallmanH. S.JohnM. S. (2003). Chex (change history explicit): New HCI concepts for change awareness. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 47, 528–532.
123.
SormoF.CassensJ.AamodtA. (2005). Explanation in case-based reasoning—Perspectives and goals. Artificial Intelligence Review, 24, 109–143.
124.
SquireP.TraftonG.ParasuramanR. (2006). Human control of multiple unmanned vehicles: Effects of interface type on execution and task switching times. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-robot Interaction (pp. 26–32). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
125.
StowersK.KasdaglisN.NewtonO.LakhmaniS.WohleberR.ChenJ. (2016). Intelligent agent transparency: The design and evaluation of an interface to facilitate human and intelligent agent collaboration. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60, 1706–1710.
126.
SumpterD. J. T. (2006). The principles of collective animal behavior. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 361, 5–22.
127.
TheodorouA.WorthamR. H.BrysonJ. J. (2017). Designing and implementing transparency for real time inspection of autonomous robots. Connection Science, 29, 230–241.
128.
TreherneJ. E.FosterW. A. (1981). Group transmission of predator avoidance behavior in a marine insect: The Trafalgar Effect. Animal Behavior, 29, 911–917.
129.
TruxlerR.RothE.ScottR.SmithS.WamplerJ. (2012). Designing collaborative automated planners for agile adaptation to dynamic change. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56, 223–227.
130.
VitaleJ.TonkinM.HerseS.OjhaS.ClarkJ.WilliamsM. A.JudgeW. (2018). Be more transparent and users will like you: A robot privacy and user experience design experiment. In ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 379–387). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
131.
WalkerP.LewisM.SycaraK. (2016, October). The effect of display type on operator prediction of future swarm states. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Budapest, Hungary.
132.
WalkerP.NunnallyS.LewisM.ChakrabortyN.SycaraK. (2013). Levels of automation for human influence of robot swarms. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57, 429–433.
133.
WalkerP.NunnallyS.LewisM.KollingA.ChakrabortyN.SycaraK. (2012a). Neglect benevolence in human control of swarms in the presence of latency. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 3009–3014). Seoul, South Korea: IEEE.
134.
WalkerP.NunnallyS.LewisM.KollingA.ChakrabortyN.SycaraK. (2012b). Neglect benevolence in human control of swarms in the presence of latency. In Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2012 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 3009–3014). Seoul, South Korea: IEEE.
135.
WalterB.SannierA.ReinersD.OliverJ. H. (2006). UAV swarm control: Calculating digital pheromone fields with the GPU. Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology, 3, 167–176.
136.
WangN.PynadathD. V.HillS. G. (2016a). The impact of POMDP-generated explanations on trust and performance in human-robot teams. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 997–1005). Liverpool, UK: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
137.
WangN.PynadathD. V.HillS. G. (2016b). Trust calibration within a human-robot team: Comparing automatically generated explanations. In The 11th ACE/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 109–116). Christchurch, New Zealand: IEEE.
138.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
139.
WohleberR. W.StowersK.ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. (2017). Effects of agent transparency and communication framing on human-agent teaming. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 3427–3432). Banff, Alberta, Canada: IEEE.
140.
WoodsD. D.HollnagelE. (2006). Joint cognitive systems: Patterns in cognitive engineering. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
