Developing Metacognitive Models for Team-Based Dynamic Environment Using Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping

  • Jung Hyup Kim
  • Gretchen A. Macht
  • Ling Rothrock
  • David A. Nembhard
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8019)


In this paper, by using Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM) technique, we developed the metacognitive models for team-based dynamic environment. Preliminary findings from our metacognitive studies provided a possible metacognitive framework in dynamic control tasks [1, 2]. By analyzing metacognition, performance, and communication data between team, we are able to develop the team-based evolving metacognitive models for the dynamic environments using a fuzzy cognitive map. In this research, a human-in-the-loop simulation experiment was conducted to collect communication data, objective performance data (operator on-time action performance), and subjective rating data (retrospective confident metacognitive judgment) from 6 dyads (12 participants). Within the Anti-Air Warfare Coordinator (AAWC) simulation domain, the simulation test bed provides an interactive simulating condition in which the monitoring team must communicate with their team member to defend their ship against hostile aircraft.


Metacognition Team Performance Human-in-the-loop simulation Fuzzy Cognitive Map 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kim, J.H., Macht, G.A., Li, S.: Comparison of Individual and Team-Based Dynamic Decision-Making Task (Anti-Air Warfare Coordinator): Consideration of Subjective Mental Workload Metacognition. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. SAGE Publications (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim, J., et al.: Investigating the effects of metacognition in dynamic control tasks. Human-Computer Interaction. Design and Development Approaches, 378–387 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kosko, B.: Fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 24(1), 65–75 (1986)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Entin, E.E., Serfaty, D.: Adaptive team coordination. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41(2), 312–325 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nelson, T.O., Narens, L.: Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 26, 125–141 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sussan, D., Son, L.: The training of metacognitive monitoring in children. Columbia Undergraduate Science Journal 2(1) (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perry, N.E., Phillips, L., Hutchinson, L.R.: Preparing student teachers to support for self-regulated learning. Elementary School Journal 106(3), 237–254 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ndousse, T., Okuda, T.: Computational intelligence for distributed fault management in networks using fuzzy cognitive maps. IEEE (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Langan-Fox, J., Langfield-Smith, K.: Team mental models: Techniques, methods, and analytic approaches. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2000 42(2), 242–271 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xirogiannis, G., Stefanou, J., Glykas, M.: A fuzzy cognitive map approach to support urban design. Expert Systems with Applications 26(2), 257–268 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones, R.E.T., et al.: Modeling situation awareness for Army infantry platoon leaders using fuzzy cognitive mapping techniques (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dougherty, M.R., et al.: Using the past to predict the future. Memory & Cognition 33(6), 1096–1115 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    John, O.P., Naumann, L.P., Soto, C.J.: Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 114–158 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garson, D.: Cluster Analysis (2008),
  16. 16.
    Barry, B., Stewart, G.L.: Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(1), 62 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barrick, M.R., et al.: Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology 83(3), 377 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rothrock, L.: Using Time Windows to Evaluate Operator Performance. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics 5(1), 1–21 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brannick, M.T., Roach, R.M., Salas, E.: Understanding team performance: A multimethod study. Human Performance 6(4), 287–308 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Adams, S.K.: Disciplinarily Hetero- and Homogeneous Design Team Convergence. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Doctoral Thesis (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Letsky, M.P.: Macrocognition in teams: Theories and methodologies. Ashgate Publishing Company (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reimann, S.: On the design of artificial auto-associative neuronal networks. Neural Networks 11(4), 611–621 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jung Hyup Kim
    • 1
  • Gretchen A. Macht
    • 1
  • Ling Rothrock
    • 1
  • David A. Nembhard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Manufacturing EngineeringPennsylvania State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations