Linking Team Neurodynamic Organizations with Observational Ratings of Team Performance

  • Ronald Stevens
  • Trysha Galloway
  • Jerry Lamb
  • Ron Steed
  • Cynthia Lamb
Part of the Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment book series (MEMA)


We have investigated the correlations between the levels of team resilience as determined by expert raters and the degree of the teams’ neurodynamic organization determined by electroencephalography (EEG). Neurophysiologic models were created from submarine navigation teams that captured their dynamic responses to changing task environments during required simulation training. The teams were simultaneously rated for resilience by two expert observers using a team process rubric developed and adopted by the U.S. Navy. Symbolic neurodynamic representations of the power levels in the 1–40 Hz EEG frequency bands were created each second from each crew member. These symbols captured the EEG power of each team member in the context of the other team members and also in the context of the task. Quantitative estimates of the changes in the symbol distributions over time were constructed by a moving window of Shannon entropy. Periods of decreased entropy were observed when the distribution of symbols in this window became smaller, for example, when there were prolonged and restricted relationships between the EEG power levels among the crew members, that is, less neurodynamic flexibility. Team resilience was correlated with the neurodynamic entropy levels. The correlation sign, however, depended on the training segment with negative correlations during the presimulation briefing and positive correlations in the scenario training segment. These studies indicate that neurodynamic representations of teams can be generated that bridge the microscales of EEG measurement with macroscales of behavioral ratings. From a training perspective, the results suggest that neurodynamic rigidity (i.e., everybody on the same page) might be beneficial while teams are preparing for the simulation, but during the scenario, increased neurodynamic flexibility contributes more to team resilience.


Team neurodynamics EEG Team resilience Synchrony Shannon entropy Social dynamics Symbolic modeling 



This work was supported in part by The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under contract number(s) W31P4Q12C0166, and NSF SBIR grants IIP 0822020 and IIP 1215327. The views, opinions, and/or findings contained are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official views or policies, either expressed or implied, of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the Department of Defense. This work was supported by work unit number F1214. JL is an employee of the U.S. Government. This work was prepared as part of my official duties. Title 17 U.S.C. 105 provides that ‘copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government.’ Title 17 U.S.C. 101 defines U.S. Government work as work prepared by a military service member or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person’s official duties. The study protocol was approved by the Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory Institutional Review Board in compliance with all applicable Federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects.


  1. Anders, S., Heinzle, J., Weiskopf, N., Ethofer, T., & Haynes, J. (2011). Flow of affective information between communicating brains. Neuroimage, 54, 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, D. P., Amodeo, A. M., Krokos, K. J., Slonim, A., & Herrera, H. (2009). Assessing teamwork attitudes in healthcare: Development of the TeamSTEPPS® teamwork attitudes questionnaire. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19, e49. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2009.036129
  3. Battaglia, F. P., Sutherland, G. R., & McNaughton, B. L. (2004). Local sensory cues and place cell directionality: Additional evidence of prospective coding in the hippocampus. Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 4541–4550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonnefond, M. & Jensen, O. (2015). Gamma activity coupled to alpha phase as a mechanism for top-down controlled gating. PLOS One, 10(6), e0128667. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128667
  5. Buzaki, G. (2006). Rhythms of the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caetano, G., Jousmaki, V., & Hari, R. (2007). Actor’s and observer’s primary motor cortices stabilize similarly after seen or heard motor actions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 9058–9062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., & Kiekel, P. (2008). Communication as team-level cognitive processing. In M. P. Letsky, N. W. Warner, S. M. Fiore, & C. A. P. Smith (Eds.), Macrocognition in teams (pp. 51–64). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Dmochowski, J. P., Sajda, P., Dias, J., & Parra, L. (2012). Correlated components of ongoing EEG point to emotionally laden attention—A possible marker of engagement? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 112.Google Scholar
  9. Fishel, S. R., Muth, E. R., & Hoover, A. W. (2007). Establishing appropriate physiological baseline procedures for real-time physiological measurement. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1, 286–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flack, J. C. (2012). Multiple time-scales and the developmental dynamics of social systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 1802–1810. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0214
  11. Gorman, J., Martin, M., Dunbar, T., Stevens, R. H., Galloway, T. L., Amazeen, P., et al. (2015). Cross-level effects between neurophysiology and communication during team training. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58, 181–199. doi: 10.1177/0018720815602575
  12. Harmony, T. (2013). The functional significance of delta oscillations in cognitive processing. Frontiers in Integrative Neurosciences, 7, Article 83. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2013.00083
  13. Hasson, U., Nir, Y., Levy, I., Fuhrmann, G., & Malach, R. (2004). Inter-subject synchronization of cortical activity during natural vision. Science, 303, 1634–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klimesch, W., Sauseng, P., & Hanslmayr, S. (2007). EEG alpha oscillations: The inhibition-timing hypothesis. Brain Research Reviews, 53, 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levendowski, D. J., Berka, C., Olmstead, R. E., Konstantinovic, Z. R., Davis, G., Lumicao, M. N., et al. (2001). Electroencephalographic indices predict future vulnerability to fatigue induced by sleep deprivation. Sleep, 24(Abstract Suppl.), A243–A244.Google Scholar
  16. Lisman, J. E., & Jensen, O. (2013). The theta-gamma code. Neuron, 77, 1002–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Menoret, M., Varnet, L., Fargier, R., Cheylus, A., Curie, A., desPortes, V., et al. (2014). Neural correlates of non-verbal social interactions: A dual-EEG study. Neurophyschologia, 55, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nummenmaa, L., Gleran, E., Viinikainen, M., Jaaskelainen, P., Hari, R., & Sams, M. (2012). Emotions promote social interaction by synchronizing brain activity across individuals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 9599–9604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oberman, L. M., Pineda, J. A., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2007). The human mirror neuron system: A link between action observation and social skills. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2, 62–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Keefe, J., & Dostrovsky, J. (1971). The hippocampus as a spatial map: Preliminary evidence from unit activity in the freely-moving rat. Brain Research, 13, 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Onton, J., Westerfield, M., Townsend, J., & Makeig, S. (2006). Imaging human EEG dynamics using independent component analysis. Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, 30, 808–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Palva, S., & Palva, J. M. (2007). New vistas for α-frequency band oscillations. Trends in Neuroscience, 4, 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pineda, J. A. (2008). Sensorimotor cortex as a critical component of an “extended” mirror neuron system: Does it solve the development, correspondence, and control problems in mirroring? Behavioral and Brain Functions, 4, 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rankin, A., Lunderg, J., Woltjer, R., Rollenhagen, C., & Hollnagel, E. (2014). Resilience in everyday operations: A framework for analyzing adaptations in high-risk work. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 8(1), 78–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 661–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roux, F., & Uhlhaas, P. (2014). Working memory and neural oscillations: Alpha-gamma versus theta-gamma codes for distinct WM information? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schippers, M., Roebroeck, A., Renken, R., Nanetti, L., & Keysers, C. (2010). Mapping the information flows from one brain to another during gestural communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 9388–9393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shannon, C. E. (1951). Prediction and entropy of printed English. Bell System Technical Journal, 30, 50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shockley, K., Santana, M.-V., & Fowler, C. A. (2003). Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 326–332.Google Scholar
  30. Stephens, G., Silbert, L., & Hasson, U. (2010). Speaker-listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 14425–14430. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1008662107
  31. Stevens, R. H., & Galloway, T. (2014). Toward a quantitative description of the neurodynamic organizations of teams. Social Neuroscience, 9, 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stevens, R. H. & Galloway, T. (2015). Modeling the neurodynamic organizations and interactions of teams. Social Neuroscience, 11, 123–139. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2015.1056883
  33. Stevens, R. H., Galloway, T., Wang, P., & Berka, C. (2011). Cognitive neurophysiologic synchronies: What can they contribute to the study of teamwork? Human Factors, 54, 489–502. doi: 10.1177/0018720811427296
  34. Stevens, R. H., Galloway, T., Wang, P., Berka, C., Tan, V., Wohlgemuth, T., et al. (2012). Modeling the neurodynamic complexity of submarine navigation teams. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 19, 346–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stevens, R. H., Gorman, J. C., Amazeen, P., Likens, A., & Galloway, T. (2013). The organizational dynamics of teams. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 17(1), 67–86.Google Scholar
  36. Stevens, R. H., Galloway, T.L., Gorman, J., Willemsen-Dunlap, A., Halpin, D. (2016). Toward objective measures of team dynamics during healthcare simulation training. Presentation #89, International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics and Health Care, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Tognoli, E. & Kelso, J. A. (2013). The coordination dynamics of social neuromarkers. Retrieved from arXiv database (Preprint No. 1310.7275).Google Scholar
  38. Tognoli, E., Lagarde, J., De Guzman, G. C., & Kelso, J. A. S. (2007). The phi-complex as a neuromarker of human social coordination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 8190–8195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang, Y., Hong, B., Gao, X., & Gao, S. (2007). Design of electrode layout for motor imagery based brain-computer interface. Electronics Letters, 43, 557–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Woods, D. & Hollnagel, E. (2006). Resilience engineering concepts. In E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts (pp. 1–6). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald Stevens
    • 1
    • 2
  • Trysha Galloway
    • 2
  • Jerry Lamb
    • 3
  • Ron Steed
    • 4
  • Cynthia Lamb
    • 5
  1. 1.UCLA School of MedicineLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.The Learning Chameleon IncCulver CityUSA
  3. 3.Naval Submarine Medical Research LaboratoryGrotonUSA
  4. 4.UpScope Consulting GroupMystiUSA
  5. 5.URS Federal Technical Services IncPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations