With the rise of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, technology has and will exponentially transform in a way that will change how humans live, function, and work. This notion is profoundly noticeable in the realm of military human-agent teaming (HAT), where intelligent systems are used in critical missions to collaborate with Soldiers on a mission. With any new phenomenon in the natural world, a theoretical model is required to understand and predict behavior. In this paper, we present a literature review to explore a proposed model of simulated military human-agent teaming that centers around task performance.
AnjomshoaeS.NajjarA.CalvaresiD.FrämlingK. (2019). Explainable agents and robots: Results from a systematic literature review. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, 1078–1088.
2.
Bailer-JonesD. M. (2003). When scientific models represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590305238
3.
Barnes MichaelJChenJ. Y. C.HillS. (2017). Humans and autonomy: Implications of shared decision-making for military operations (p. 42). U.S. Army Research Laboratory. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1024840.pdf
4.
BarnesM.J.EvansA. W. (2010). Soldier-robot teams in future battlefields: An overview. In JentschF.BarnesM. J. (Eds.), Human-robot interactions in future military operations (pp. 9–29). CRC Press.
5.
Cannon-BowersJ.SalasE.ConverseS. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In CastellanN. J.Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221–246). Erlbaum.
6.
ChenJ. Y. C. (2010). UAV-guided navigation for ground robot tele-operation in a military reconnaissance environment. Ergonomics, 53(8), 940–950. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2010.500404
7.
ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. J. (2012). Supervisory control of multiple robots: Effects of imperfect automation and individual differences. Human Factors, 54(2), 157–174.
8.
ChenJ. Y. C.LakhmaniS. G.StowersK.SelkowitzA. R.WrightJ. L.BarnesM. J. (2018). Situation awareness-based agent transparency and human-autonomy teaming effectiveness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19(3), 259–282.
9.
ChildersM.LennonC.BodtB.PuseyJ.HillS.CamdenR.OhJ.DeanR.KeeganT.DiberardinoC. (2016a). US army research laboratory (ARL) robotics collaborative technology alliance 2014 capstone experiment (p. 62). U.S. Army Research Laboratory. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1012767.pdf
10.
ChildersM.LennonC.BodtB.PuseyJ.HillS.CamdenR.OhJ.DeanR.KeeganT.DiberardinoC. (2016b). US Army Research Laboratory (ARL) Robotics Collaborative Technology Alliance 2014 Capstone Experiment. US Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen Proving Ground United States.
11.
de VisserE. J.PeetersM. M. M.JungM. F.KohnS.ShawT. H.PakR.NeerincxM. A. (2019). Towards a theory of longitudinal trust calibration in human–robot teams. International Journal of Social Robotics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00596-x
12.
DriskellJ. E.SalasE.DriskellT. (2018). Foundations of teamwork and collaboration. American Psychologist, 73(4), 334–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000241
13.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.
Góngora AlonsoS.HamriouiS.de la Torre DíezI.Motta CruzE.López-CoronadoM.FrancoM. (2018). Social robots for people with aging and dementia: A systematic review of literature. Telemedicine and E-Health, 25(7), 533–540. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2018.0051
16.
GroszB. J. (1996). Collaborative systems. AI Magazine, 17(2), 67–67.
17.
HancockP. A. (2017). Imposing limits on autonomous systems. Ergonomics, 60(2), 284–291.
18.
Hancock PeterABillingsD. R.SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y.De VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517–527.
19.
Hancock PeterAWarmJ. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human Factors, 31(5), 519–537.
20.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP.A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Advances in Psychology: (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). Elsevier.
21.
HockeyG. R. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45(1–3), 73–93.
22.
JacksonJ. J.ThoemmesF.JonkmannK.LüdtkeO.TrautweinU. (2012). Military training and personality trait development: Does the military make the man, or does the man make the military?Psychological Science, 23(3), 270–277.
23.
KeeblerJ. R.JentschF.FincannonT.HudsonI. (2012). Applying team heuristics to future human-robot systems. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 169–170.
24.
KleinG.FeltovichP. J.BradshawJ. M.WoodsD. D. (2005). Common ground and coordination in joint activity. Organizational Simulation, 53, 139–184.
25.
KleinG.WoodsD. D.BradshawJ. M.HoffmanR. R.FeltovichP. J. (2004). Ten challenges for making automation a" team player" in joint human-agent activity. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(6), 91–95.
26.
LackeyS.BarberD.Reinerman-JonesL.BadlerN. I.HudsonI. (2011). Defining next-generation multi-modal communication in human robot interaction. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55, 461–464.
27.
MaedaY.YoonS. Y. (2013). A meta-analysis on gender differences in mental rotation ability measured by the Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests: Visualization of rotations (PSVT:R). Educational Psychology Review, 25(1), 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9215-x
28.
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(2), 273–283.
29.
MatthewsG.CampbellS. E. (2009). Sustained performance under overload: Personality and individual differences in stress and coping. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10(5), 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220903106395
30.
MatthewsG.CampbellS. E. (1998). Task-induced stress and individual differences in coping. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 42, 821–825.
31.
MatthewsG.DaviesD. R.StammersR. B.WestermanS. J. (2000). Human performance: Cognition, stress, and individual differences. Psychology Press.
32.
MatthewsG.DearyI. J.WhitemanM. C. (2003). Personality traits (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press.
33.
MatthewsG.WohleberR. W.LinJ.MatthewsG.WohleberR. W.LinJ. (2019). Stress, skilled performance, and expertise: Overload and beyond. In WardP.SchaagenJ. M.GoreJ.RothE. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of expertise (pp. 1–39). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198795872.013.22
34.
MercadoJ. E.RuppM. A.ChenJ. Y.BarnesM. J.BarberD.ProcciK. (2016). Intelligent agent transparency in human–agent teaming for Multi-UxV management. Human Factors, 58(3), 401–415.
35.
MercadoJ. E.RuppM. A.ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. J.BarberD.ProcciK. (2015). Intelligent agent transparency in human-agent teaming for multi-UxV management. Human Factors, 58(3), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815621206
MorrowD.LeirerV.AltiteriP.FitzsimmonsC. (1994). When expertise reduces age differences in performance. Psychology and Aging, 9(1), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.9.1.134
38.
MostafaS. A.AhmadM. S.MustaphaA. (2019). Adjustable autonomy: A systematic literature review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 51(2), 149–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-017-9560-8
39.
NormanD. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books.
40.
O’NeillT. A.AllenN. J. (2011). Personality and the prediction of team performance. European Journal of Personality, 25(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.769
41.
PanK.ZhangY.WangY.WangY.XuH. (2016). A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 132(3), 284–291.
42.
PhillipsE.OsoskyS.GroveJ.JentschF. (2011). From tools to teammates: Toward the development of appropriate mental models for intelligent robots. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55, 1491–1495.
43.
RouseW. B.MorrisN. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. (p. 61). Center for Man-Machine Systems Research. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a159080.pdf
44.
SalasE.SimsD. E.BurkeC. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork?Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599.
45.
SavelaN.TurjaT.OksanenA. (2018). Social acceptance of robots in different occupational fields: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(4), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0452-5
46.
SchaeferK. E.HillS. G.JentschF. G. (2019). Trust in human-autonomy teaming: A review of trust research from the US Army Research Laboratory Robotics Collaborative Technology Alliance. In ChenJ. (Ed.), Advances in human factors in robots and unmanned systems (pp. 102–114). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94346-6_10
47.
SchaeferK. E.StraubE. R.ChenJ. Y. C.PutneyJ.EvansA. W. (2017). Communicating intent to develop shared situation awareness and engender trust in human-agent teams. Cognitive Systems Research, 46, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.02.002
48.
SebokA.WickensC. D. (2017). Implementing lumberjacks and black swans into model-based tools to support human–automation interaction. Human Factors, 59(2), 189–203.
49.
SeeJ. E.HoweS. R.WarmJ. S.DemberW. N. (1995). Meta-analysis of the sensitivity decrement in vigilance. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 230.
50.
SelkowitzA. R.LakhmaniS. G.ChenJ. Y. (2017). Using agent transparency to support situation awareness of the Autonomous Squad Member. Cognitive Systems Research, 46, 13–25.
SpringerP. J. (2013). Military robots and drones: A reference handbook. ABC-CLIO.
53.
SzalmaJ. L.TaylorG. S. (2011). Individual differences in response to automation: The five factor model of personality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(2), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024170
54.
TeoG.Reinerman-JonesL.HidalgoM.BurfordC. (2018). Human-agent teaming: State of assessments and selected issues. Proceedings of the 2018 Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), 1–12.
