Objective We define human–autonomy teaming and offer a synthesis of the existing empirical research on the topic. Specifically, we identify the research environments, dependent variables, themes representing the key findings, and critical future research directions. Background Whereas a burgeoning literature on high-performance teamwork identifies the factors critical to success, much less is known about how human–autonomy teams (HATs) achieve success. Human–autonomy teamwork involves humans working interdependently toward a common goal along with autonomous agents. Autonomous agents involve a degree of self-government and self-directed behavior (agency), and autonomous agents take on a unique role or set of tasks and work interdependently with human team members to achieve a shared objective. Method We searched the literature on human–autonomy teaming. To meet our criteria for inclusion, the paper needed to involve empirical research and meet our definition of human–autonomy teaming. We found 76 articles that met our criteria for inclusion. Results We report on research environments and we find that the key independent variables involve autonomous agent characteristics, team composition, task characteristics, human individual differences, training, and communication. We identify themes for each of these and discuss the future research needs. Conclusion There are areas where research findings are clear and consistent, but there are many opportunities for future research. Particularly important will be research that identifies mechanisms linking team input to team output variables.

An emerging research agenda in Computer-Supported Cooperative Work focuses on human-agent teaming and AI agent's roles and effects in modern teamwork. In particular, one understudied key question centers around the construct of team cognition within human-agent teams. This study explores the unique nature of team dynamics in human-agent teams compared to human-human teams and the impact of team composition on perceived team cognition, team performance, and trust. In doing so, a mixed-method approach, including three team composition conditions (all human, human-human-agent, human-agent-agent), completed the team simulation NeoCITIES and completed shared mental model, trust, and perception measures. Results found that human-agent teams are similar to human-only teams in the iterative development of team cognition and the importance of communication to accelerating its development; however, human-agent teams are different in that action-related communication and explicitly shared goals are beneficial to developing team cognition. Additionally, human-agent teams trusted agent teammates less when working with only agents and no other humans, perceived less team cognition with agent teammates than human ones, and had significantly inconsistent levels of team mental model similarity when compared to human-only teams. This study contributes to Computer-Supported Cooperative Work in three significant ways: 1) advancing the existing research on human-agent teaming by shedding light on the relationship between humans and agents operating in collaborative environments, 2) characterizing team cognition development in human-agent teams; and 3) advancing real-world design recommendations that promote human-centered teaming agents and better integrate the two.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract