Human–Autonomy Teaming: Definitions, Debates, and Directions

Researchers are beginning to transition from studying human–automation interaction to human–autonomy teaming. This distinction has been highlighted in recent literature, and theoretical reasons why the psychological experience of humans interacting with autonomy may vary and affect subsequent collab...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Joseph B. Lyons, Katia Sycara, Michael Lewis, August Capiola
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-05-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.589585/full
id doaj-4aa895e7b31e4deea1b790553457e7c6
record_format Article
spelling doaj-4aa895e7b31e4deea1b790553457e7c62021-05-28T20:31:32ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782021-05-011210.3389/fpsyg.2021.589585589585Human–Autonomy Teaming: Definitions, Debates, and DirectionsJoseph B. Lyons0Katia Sycara1Michael Lewis2August Capiola3Air Force Research Laboratory, Dayton, OH, United StatesSchool of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United StatesSchool of Computing and Information, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United StatesAir Force Research Laboratory, Dayton, OH, United StatesResearchers are beginning to transition from studying human–automation interaction to human–autonomy teaming. This distinction has been highlighted in recent literature, and theoretical reasons why the psychological experience of humans interacting with autonomy may vary and affect subsequent collaboration outcomes are beginning to emerge (de Visser et al., 2018; Wynne and Lyons, 2018). In this review, we do a deep dive into human–autonomy teams (HATs) by explaining the differences between automation and autonomy and by reviewing the domain of human–human teaming to make inferences for HATs. We examine the domain of human–human teaming to extrapolate a few core factors that could have relevance for HATs. Notably, these factors involve critical social elements within teams that are central (as argued in this review) for HATs. We conclude by highlighting some research gaps that researchers should strive toward answering, which will ultimately facilitate a more nuanced and complete understanding of HATs in a variety of real-world contexts.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.589585/fullhuman–autonomy teamautonomyteamhuman factorsrobotics
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Joseph B. Lyons
Katia Sycara
Michael Lewis
August Capiola
spellingShingle Joseph B. Lyons
Katia Sycara
Michael Lewis
August Capiola
Human–Autonomy Teaming: Definitions, Debates, and Directions
Frontiers in Psychology
human–autonomy team
autonomy
team
human factors
robotics
author_facet Joseph B. Lyons
Katia Sycara
Michael Lewis
August Capiola
author_sort Joseph B. Lyons
title Human–Autonomy Teaming: Definitions, Debates, and Directions
title_short Human–Autonomy Teaming: Definitions, Debates, and Directions
title_full Human–Autonomy Teaming: Definitions, Debates, and Directions
title_fullStr Human–Autonomy Teaming: Definitions, Debates, and Directions
title_full_unstemmed Human–Autonomy Teaming: Definitions, Debates, and Directions
title_sort human–autonomy teaming: definitions, debates, and directions
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Psychology
issn 1664-1078
publishDate 2021-05-01
description Researchers are beginning to transition from studying human–automation interaction to human–autonomy teaming. This distinction has been highlighted in recent literature, and theoretical reasons why the psychological experience of humans interacting with autonomy may vary and affect subsequent collaboration outcomes are beginning to emerge (de Visser et al., 2018; Wynne and Lyons, 2018). In this review, we do a deep dive into human–autonomy teams (HATs) by explaining the differences between automation and autonomy and by reviewing the domain of human–human teaming to make inferences for HATs. We examine the domain of human–human teaming to extrapolate a few core factors that could have relevance for HATs. Notably, these factors involve critical social elements within teams that are central (as argued in this review) for HATs. We conclude by highlighting some research gaps that researchers should strive toward answering, which will ultimately facilitate a more nuanced and complete understanding of HATs in a variety of real-world contexts.
topic human–autonomy team
autonomy
team
human factors
robotics
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.589585/full
work_keys_str_mv AT josephblyons humanautonomyteamingdefinitionsdebatesanddirections
AT katiasycara humanautonomyteamingdefinitionsdebatesanddirections
AT michaellewis humanautonomyteamingdefinitionsdebatesanddirections
AT augustcapiola humanautonomyteamingdefinitionsdebatesanddirections
_version_ 1721422887624114176