Insights into Human-Agent Teaming: Intelligent Agent Transparency and Uncertainty

  • Kimberly Stowers
  • Nicholas Kasdaglis
  • Michael Rupp
  • Jessie ChenEmail author
  • Daniel Barber
  • Michael Barnes
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 499)


This paper discusses two studies testing the effects of agent transparency in joint cognitive systems involving supervisory control and decision-making. Specifically, we examine the impact of agent transparency on operator performance (decision accuracy), response time, perceived workload, perceived usability of the agent, and operator trust in the agent. Transparency has a positive impact on operator performance, usability, and trust, yet the depiction of uncertainty has potentially negative effects on usability and trust. Guidelines and considerations for displaying transparency in joint cognitive systems are discussed.


Transparency Human factors Human-Machine interaction Systems engineering Supervisory control Unmanned vehicles 



This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Defense Autonomy Research Pilot Initiative, under the Intelligent Multi-UxV Planner With Adaptive Collaborative/Control Technologies (IMPACT) project. We wish to thank Joseph Mercado, Katelyn Procci, Isacc Yi, Erica Valiente, Shan Lakhmani, and Jonathan Harris for their contribution to this project. We would also like to thank Gloria Calhoun and Mark Draper for their input.


  1. 1.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Barnes, M.J.: Human-agent teaming for multi-robot control: a review of human factors issues. IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst. 44, 13–29 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Linegang, M.P., Stoner, H.A., Patterson, M.J., Seppelt, B.D., Hoffman, J.D., Crittendon, Z.B., Lee, J.D.: Human-automation collaboration in dynamic mission planning: a challenge requiring an ecological approach. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting, pp. 2482–2486. SAGE Publications, California (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D.: Joint Cognitive Systems: Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boy, G.A.: Cognitive Function Analysis. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Stamford (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kasdaglis, N., Newton, O., Lakhmani, S.: system state awareness: a human centered design approach to awareness in a complex world. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting, pp. 305–309, SAGE Publications, California (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hollnagel, E., Woods, D., Leveson, N.: Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Ashgate, Surrey (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boy, G.: Theories of human cognition: to better understand the co-adaptation of people and technology. In: Kiel, LD (ed.) Knowledge Management, Organizational Intelligence and Learning, and Complexity, vol. 3, Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, pp. 204–238. Eolss Publishers Co Ltd, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parasuraman, R., Cosenzo, K.A.De, Visser, E.: Adaptive automation for human supervision of multiple uninhabited vehicles: effects on change detection, situation awareness, and mental workload. Mil. Psychol. 21, 270–297 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors 46, 50–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, J.Y.C., Procci, K., Boyce, M., Wright, J., Garcia, A., Barnes, M.: Situation awareness-based agent transparency (ARL-TR-6905). Technical Report, US Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37, 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith, K., Hancock, P.: Situation awareness is adaptive, externally directed consciousness. Hum. Factors 37, 137–148 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Endsley, M.R., Jones, D.G.: Designing for Situation Awareness: An Approach to User-Centered Design. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stanton, N.A., Chambers, P.R., Piggott, J.: Situational awareness and safety. Saf. Sci. 39, 189–204 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Woods, D.D.: Cognitive technologies: the design of joint human-machine cognitive systems. AI Mag. 6, 86–92 (1985)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D.: Joint Cognitive Systems: Patterns in Cognitive Systems Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cook, M.B., Smallman, H.S.: Human factors of the confirmation bias in intelligence analysis: decision support from graphical evidence landscapes. Hum. Factors 50, 745–754 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neyedli, H.F., Hollands, J.G., Jamieson, G.A.: Beyond identity incorporating system reliability information into an automated combat identification system. Hum. Factors 53, 338–355 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gao, J., Lee, J.: Extending the decision field theory to model operator’s reliance on automation in supervisory control systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A. Syst. Humans 36, 943–959 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parasuraman, R., Riley, V.: Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse. Abuse. Hum. Factors 39, 230–253 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bratman, M.: Intention, Plans, and Practical reason. CSLI Publications, Stanford (1987)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Behymer, K.J., Mersch, E.M., Ruff, H.A., Calhoun, G.L., Spriggs, S.E.: unmanned vehicle plan comparison visualization for effective human-autonomy teaming. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference on ahfe and the affiliated conference, pp. 1022–1029. Elsevier B. V, Netherlands (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    U.S. Department of Defense—Research & Engineering Enterprise. Autonomy Research Pilot Initiative.
  24. 24.
    Draper, M.: Realizing autonomy via intelligent adaptive hybrid control: adaptable autonomy for achieving UxV RSTA team decision superiority—year 1 report. US Air Force Research Laboratory, Dayton (in press)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fern, L., Shively, R.J.: A comparison of varying levels of automation on the supervisory control of multiple UASs. In: Proceedings of AUVSIs Unmanned Systems North America, pp. 10–13. Curran Associates Inc., New York (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller, C.A., Parasuraman, R.: Designing for flexible interaction between humans and automation: delegation interfaces for supervisory control. Hum. Factors 49, 57–75 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rowe, A., Spriggs, S., Hooper, D.: Fusion: a framework for human interaction with flexible-adaptive automation across multiple unmanned systems. In: Proceedings of 18th symposium on aviation psychology, pp. 464–469. Curran Associates Inc., New York (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mercado, J., Rupp, M., Chen, J., Barber, D., Procci, K., Barnes, M.: Intelligent agent transparency in human-agent teaming for multi-UxV management. Human Factors (in press)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stowers, K., Chen, J.Y.C., Kasdaglis, N., Newton, O., Rupp, M., Barnes, M.: Effects of situation awareness-based agent transparency information on human agent teaming for multi-UxV management (in press)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lyons, J.B., Havig, P.R.: Transparency in a human-machine context: approaches for fostering shared awareness/intent. In: Shumaker, R., Lackey, S. (eds.) Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality: Designing and Developing Virtual and Augmented Environments, pp. 181–190. Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang, L., Jamieson, G.A., Hollands, J.G.: Trust and reliance on an automated combat identification system. Hum. Factors 51, 281–291 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Merritt, S.M., Heimbaugh, H., LaChapell, J., Lee, D.: I trust it, but i don’t know why effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Hum. Factors 55, 520–534 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stowers, K., Kasdaglis, N., Newton, O., Lakhmani, S., Wohleber, R., Chen, J.: Intelligent agent transparency: the design and evaluation of an interface to facilitate human and artificial agent collaboration. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics 60th Annual Meeting (submitted)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Endsley, Mica R.: Designing for Situation Awareness: An Approach to User-Centered Design. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stowers, K., Oglesby, J., Leyva, K., Iwig, C., Shimono, M., Hughes, A., Salas, E.: A framework to guide the assessment of human-machine systems. Human Factors (submitted)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kimberly Stowers
    • 1
  • Nicholas Kasdaglis
    • 1
  • Michael Rupp
    • 1
  • Jessie Chen
    • 2
    Email author
  • Daniel Barber
    • 1
  • Michael Barnes
    • 3
  1. 1.Insitute for Simulation and TrainingOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Army Research LaboratoryOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Army Research LaboratoryFt. HuachucaUSA

Personalised recommendations