4.6 Article

Exploration of the Impact of Interpersonal Communication and Coordination Dynamics on Team Effectiveness in Human-Machine Teams

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2022.2143004

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the interpersonal coordination dynamics between human and machine members in complex task environments, and how it is associated with team performance and shared situation awareness. The results indicate that teams with more flexible coordination dynamics are more adaptive to changes in the task environment. While revisiting the same communication pattern is associated with better team performance, it does not improve shared situation awareness.
Teams composed of human and machine members operating in complex task environments must effectively interact in response to information flow while adapting to environmental changes. This study investigates how interpersonal coordination dynamics between team members are associated with team performance and shared situation awareness in a simulated urban search and rescue (USAR) task. More specifically, this study investigates (1) how communication recurrence affected and reflected coordination dynamics between a USAR robot and human operator when they used different communication strategies, and (2) how these dynamic characteristics of the human-robot interpersonal coordination were associated with the team performance and shared situation awareness. The USAR interpersonal coordination dynamics were systematically characterized using discrete recurrence quantification analysis. Results from this study indicate that (1) teams demonstrating more flexibility in their coordination dynamics were more adaptive to changes in the task environment, and (2) while robot explanations help to improve shared situation awareness, revisiting the same communication pattern (i.e., routine coordination) was associated with better team performance, but did not improve shared situation awareness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据