Matching Items (3)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

171442-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Team communication facilitates team coordination strategies and situations, and how teammates perceive one another. In human-machine teams, these perceptions affect how people trust and anthropomorphize their machine counterparts, which in turn affects future team communication, forming a feedback loop. This thesis investigates how personifying and objectifying contents in human-machine team

Team communication facilitates team coordination strategies and situations, and how teammates perceive one another. In human-machine teams, these perceptions affect how people trust and anthropomorphize their machine counterparts, which in turn affects future team communication, forming a feedback loop. This thesis investigates how personifying and objectifying contents in human-machine team communication relate to team performance and perceptions in a simulated remotely piloted aircraft system task environment. A total of 46 participants grouped into teams of two were assigned unique roles and teamed with a synthetic pilot agent that in reality was a trained confederate following a script. Quantities of verbal personifications and objectifications were compared to questionnaire responses about participants’ perceived trust and anthropomorphism of the synthetic pilot, as well as team performance. It was hypothesized that verbal personifications would positively correlate with reflective trust, anthropomorphism, and team performance, and that verbal objectifications would negatively correlate with the same measures. It was also predicted that verbal personifications would decrease over time as human teammates interact more with the machine teammate, and that verbal objectifications would increase. Verbal personifications were not found to be correlated with trust and anthropomorphism outside of perceptions related to gender, albeit patterns of change in the navigator’s personifications coincided with a co-calibration of trust among the navigator and the photographer. Results supported the prediction that verbal objectifications are negatively correlated with trust and anthropomorphism of a teammate. Significant relationships between verbal personifications and objectifications and team performance were not found. This study provides support to the notion that people verbally personify machines to ease communication when necessary, and that the same processes that underlie tendencies to personify machines may be reciprocally related to those that influence team trust. Overall, this study provides evidence that personifying and objectifying language in human-machine team communication is a viable candidate for measuring the perceptions and states of teams, even in highly restricted communication environments.
ContributorsCohen, Myke C. (Author) / Cooke, Nancy J. (Thesis advisor) / Chiou, Erin K. (Committee member) / Amazeen, Polemnia G. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
157641-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Human-agent teams (HATs) are expected to play a larger role in future command and control systems where resilience is critical for team effectiveness. The question of how HATs interact to be effective in both normal and unexpected situations is worthy of further examination. Exploratory behaviors are one that way adaptive

Human-agent teams (HATs) are expected to play a larger role in future command and control systems where resilience is critical for team effectiveness. The question of how HATs interact to be effective in both normal and unexpected situations is worthy of further examination. Exploratory behaviors are one that way adaptive systems discover opportunities to expand and refine their performance. In this study, team interaction exploration is examined in a HAT composed of a human navigator, human photographer, and a synthetic pilot while they perform a remotely-piloted aerial reconnaissance task. Failures in automation and the synthetic pilot’s autonomy were injected throughout ten missions as roadblocks. Teams were clustered by performance into high-, middle-, and low-performing groups. It was hypothesized that high-performing teams would exchange more text-messages containing unique content or sender-recipient combinations than middle- and low-performing teams, and that teams would exchange less unique messages over time. The results indicate that high-performing teams had more unique team interactions than middle-performing teams. Additionally, teams generally had more exploratory team interactions in the first session of missions than the second session. Implications and suggestions for future work are discussed.
ContributorsLematta, Glenn Joseph (Author) / Chiou, Erin K. (Thesis advisor) / Cooke, Nancy J. (Committee member) / Roscoe, Rod D. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
158598-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Despite the prevalence of teams in complex sociotechnical systems, current approaches to understanding workload tend to focus on the individual operator. However, research suggests that team workload has emergent properties and is not necessarily equivalent to the aggregate of individual workload. Assessment of communications provides a means of examining aspects

Despite the prevalence of teams in complex sociotechnical systems, current approaches to understanding workload tend to focus on the individual operator. However, research suggests that team workload has emergent properties and is not necessarily equivalent to the aggregate of individual workload. Assessment of communications provides a means of examining aspects of team workload in highly interdependent teams. This thesis set out to explore how communications are associated with team workload and performance under high task demand in all-human and human–autonomy teams in a command and control task. A social network analysis approach was used to analyze the communications of 30 different teams, each with three members operating in a command and control task environment of over a series of five missions. Teams were assigned to conditions differentiated by their composition with either a naïve participant, a trained confederate, or a synthetic agent in the pilot role. Social network analysis measures of centralization and intensity were used to assess differences in communications between team types and under different levels of demand, and relationships between communication measures, performance, and workload distributions were also examined. Results indicated that indegree centralization was greater in the all-human control teams than in the other team types, but degree centrality standard deviation and intensity were greatest in teams with a highly trained experimenter pilot. In all three team types, the intensity of communications and degree centrality standard deviation appeared to decrease during the high demand mission, but indegree and outdegree centralization did not. Higher communication intensity was associated with more efficient target processing and more successful target photos per mission, but a clear relationship between measures of performance and decentralization of communications was not found.
ContributorsJohnson, Craig Jonathon (Author) / Cooke, Nancy J. (Thesis advisor) / Gray, Robert (Committee member) / Gutzwiller, Robert S (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020