Advertisement

Identifying New Team Trust and Team Cohesion Metrics that Support Future Human-Autonomy Teams

Conference paper
  • 538 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1206)

Abstract

A driving simulation study of a manned-unmanned vehicle gunnery team was conducted to assess potential metrics of team trust and cohesion for evaluating future human-autonomy teams. Cadet dyads worked with a veteran commander within a driving simulation to direct a weaponized robotic ground vehicle from a command and control vehicle and identify and engage targets on a gunnery range. Subjective, behavioral, performance, communication, and physiological data were collected to identify possible team trust and team cohesion metrics. Findings suggest that performance, behavior, and physiological data may provide useful windows into the trust and cohesion exhibited by crew members in human-autonomy teams.

Keywords

Human-autonomy teaming Simulation Wingman Metrics Trust Cohesion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the CCDC Army Research Laboratory or the US Government. The US Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein. We would like to thank Scott Kerick, Jonroy Canady, Catherine Neubauer, Sean Fitzhugh, and Debbie Patton for their support in the study development and analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    Phillips, E., Ososky, S., Grove, J., Jentsch, F.: From tools to teammates: toward the development of appropriate mental models for intelligent robots. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 1491–1495. SAGE Publications, CA (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, J.Y., Procci, K., Boyce, M., Wright, J., Garcia, A., Barnes, M.: Situation awareness-based agent transparency (ARL-TR-6905). US Army Research Laboratory, APG, MD (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors 46, 50–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schaefer, K.E., Straub, E.R.: Will passengers trust driverless vehicles? Removing the steering wheel and pedals. In: 2016 IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support, pp. 159–165. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walker, F., Verwey, W., Martens, M.: Gaze behavior as a measure of trust in automated vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 6th Humanist Conference, pp. 1–6 (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hergerth, S., Lorenz, L., Vilimek, R., Krems, J.F.: Keep your scanners peeled: gaze behavior as a measure of automation trust during highly automated driving. Hum. Factors 58(3), 509–519 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shahrdar, S., Park, C., Norjoumain, M.: Human trust measurement using an immersive virtual reality autonomous vehicle simulator. In: Proceedings of Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 515–520. AAAI/ACM (2019)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schaefer, K.E., Brewer, R.W., Perelman, B.S., Ray Pursel, E., Cerame, E., Drnec, K., Paul, V., Haynes, B., Donavanik, D., Gremillion, G., Metcalfe, J.S.: Challenges with developing driving simulation systems for robotic vehicles. In: Cassenti, D. (ed.) Advances in Human Factors in Simulation and Modeling, pp. 139–150. Springer (2019)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schaefer, K.E., Baker, A.L., Brewer, R.W., Patton, D., Canady, J., Metcalfe, J.S.: Assessing multi-agent human-autonomy teams: US army robotic wingman gunnery operations. In: Micro-and Nanotechnology Sensors, Systems, and Applications XI, p. 109822B. International Society for Optics and Photonics (2019)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baker, A.L., Schaefer, K.E., Hill, S.G.: Teamwork and Communication Methods and Metrics for Human-Autonomy Teaming (ARL-TR-8844). US Army Research Laboratory, APG, MD (2019)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang, L., Cooke, N., Gutzwiller, R., Berman, S., Chiou, E., Demir, M., Zhang, W.: Distributed dynamic team trust in human, artificial intelligence, and robot teaming. In: Nam, C., Lyons, J. (eds.) Trust in Human-Robot Interaction: Research and Applications. Elsevier (in press)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schaefer, K.E., Brewer, R., Pursel, E., Zimmermann, A., Cerame, E., Briggs, K.: Outcomes from the first Wingman software-in-the-loop integration event: January 2017 (ARL-TR-0830). US Army Research Laboratory, APG, MD (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schaefer, K.E., Brewer, R.W., Pursel, E.R., Zimmermann, A., Cerame, E.: Advancements Made to the Wingman Software-in-the-Loop (SIL) Simulation: How to Operate the SIL (ARL-TR-8254). US Army Research Laboratory, APG, MD (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schaefer, K.E., Brewer, R.W., Pursel, E.R., Desormeaux, M., Zimmermann, A., Cerame, E.: US Army Robotic Wingman Simulation: June 2018 Integration Workshop (ARL-TR-8572). US Army Research Laboratory, APG, MD (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    US Army Training and Doctrine Command: Training and qualification, crew. Training Circular No: TC 3-20.31. Department of the Army (US), Washington (DC), 17 March 2015Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lubin, B., Zuckerman, M.: Manual for the MAACL-R: Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised. Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego, CA (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv. Psychol. 52, 139–183 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brewer, R.W., Cerame, E., Pursel, E.R., Zimmerman, A., Schaefer, K.E.: Manned-unmanned teaming: US army robotic wingman vehicles. In: Cassenti D. (ed.) Advances in Human Factors in Simulation and Modeling, pp. 89–100. Springer (2019)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.United States Military AcademyWest PointUSA
  2. 2.US Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research LaboratoryAberdeen Proving GroundUSA

Personalised recommendations