Abstract
Team situation awareness (TSA) is a critical contributing factor in establishing collaborative relations among team members involved in cooperative activity. Currently, however, there is still a lack of a clearly understandable and commonly agreeable model of TSA. To resolve misunderstanding or conflict among team members or between a team and machines, our research aim is to find out the underlying mechanism of TSA that reflects team cognitive process in a way consistent with team cooperative activity, and to focus on how to achieve mutual understanding, and how to effectively incorporate human teams into a socio-technological system. In this paper, we argue that earlier models of TSA, where TSA was discussed as the intersection of situation awareness (SA) owned by individual team members, are inadequate for study of a sophisticated team reciprocal process. We suggest that it is necessary for the definition of TSA to integrate the notion of individual SA (ISA) into cooperative team activity. In particular, understanding of mutual awareness is an essential element in cooperative activity. We propose a new notion of TSA, which is reducible to mutual beliefs as well as ISA at three levels. Further, we develop an operational TSA inference method and discuss human competence and system-related factors that are required to build TSA. We then try to demonstrate how TSA is actively constructed via inferencing practices. We also develop criteria to assess appropriateness of TSA from two aspects: soundness and completeness of mutual beliefs. Comparison of evaluation results indicates that the notion of TSA proposed in this work is more suitable to depict team cooperative activity than conventional ones.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams M, Tenney Y, Pew R (1995) Situation awareness and the cognitive management of complex systems. Hum Factors 37(1):85–104
Artman H, Garbis C (1988) Situation awareness as distributed cognition. In: Proceedings of the European conference on cognitive ergonomics, cognition and co-operation. Limerick, Ireland, pp 151–156
Brannick MT, Prince C (1997) An overview of team performance measurement. In: Salas E, Prince C (eds) Team performance assessment and measurement. Erlbaum, Nahwah
Bratman M (1992) Shared cooperative activity. Philos Rev 101(2):327–341
Cooke NJ, Stout RJ, Salas E (2001) A knowledge elicitation approach to the measurement of team situation awareness. In: McNeese M, Salas E, Endsley M (eds) New trends in cooperative activities, ISBN: 0945289162, pp 114–139
Endsley MR (1995) Towards theory of situation awareness in dynamic system. Hum Factors 37(1):32–64
Endsley MR, Jones WM (2001) A model of inter-and intrateam situational awareness: implications for design, training and measurement. In: McNeese M, Salas E, Endsley M (eds) New trends in cooperative activities, ISBN: 0945289162, pp 46–68
Endsley MR, Kaber DB (1999) Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics 42(3):462–492
Furuta K, Shimada T, Kondo S (1999) Behavioral simulation of a nuclear power plant operator crew for human-machine system design. Nucl Eng Des 188:97–109
Gentner D, Stevens AL (1983) Mental models. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Grosz BJ, Sidner CL (1989) Plans for discourse; Intentions in communication. MIT Press, Cambridge
Gutwin C, Greenberg S (1998) Effects of awareness support on groupware usability In: Proceedings of ACM CHI’98, LA. ACM press
Hartman RJ, Secrist GE (1991) Situational awareness is more than exceptional vision. Aviat Space Environ Med 62:1084–1089
Kanno T, Nakata K, Furuta K (2001) Team intention inference for intelligent interfaces. In: Proceedings of 9th international conference on human computer interactions, pp 976–980
Klein G (1997) The recognition-primed decision (RPD) model: looking back, looking forward Naturalistic Decision Making. Erlbaum, Nahwah, pp 285–292
Levesque HJ, Cohen PR, Nunes JHT (1990) On acting together. In: Proceedings of AAAI-1990, pp 94–99
Ohara JM, Hall RE (1992) Advanced control rooms and crew performance issues: implications for human reliability. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 39:919–923
Prince C, Salas E (1997) The role of situation assessment in the conduct of flight and in decision making. Eng Psychol Cogn Ergon 1:291–297
Rao AS, Georgeff MP, Sonenberg EA (1992) Social plans. Decentralized AI-3. Elsevier Science Publishers, London, pp 55–76
Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 97–124
Salas E, Prince C (1995) Situation awareness in team performance. Hum Factors 37(1):123–136
Searl JR (1989) Collective intentions and actions, intentions in communication. MIT Press, Cambridge
Stout RJ, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Milanovich DM (1999) Planning, shared mental models and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established. Hum Factors 41:61–71
Tuomela R, Miller K (1987) We intentions. Philos Stud 53:367–398
Vicent K, Rasmussen J (1990) The Ecology of human machine systems II. Ecol Psychol 2:207–249
Wellens AR (1993) Group situation awareness and distributed decision making: From military to civilian applications. In: Castellan NJ Jr (eds) Individual and group decision making. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 267–291
Wickens C, Hollands J (2000) Engineering psychology and human performance. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Zacharias G, Miao A, Illgen C, Yara J, Siouris G (1996) SAMPLE: sitioation awareness model for pilot in-the-loop evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 1st annual symposium on situational awareness in the tactical air environment, Patuxent River, MD
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shu, Y., Furuta, K. An inference method of team situation awareness based on mutual awareness. Cogn Tech Work 7, 272–287 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-005-0012-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-005-0012-x