Challenges of human–machine collaboration in risky decision-making

doi:10.1007/s42524-021-0182-0

Front. Eng

2022, Vol. 9

Issue (1) : 89-103 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-021-0182-0

REVIEW ARTICLE

Challenges of human–machine collaboration in risky decision-making

Wei XIONG, Hongmiao FAN, Liang MA(

), Chen WANG(

)

Laboratory of Enhanced Human–Machine Collaborative Decision-Making, Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

Download: PDF(861 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to delineate the research challenges of human–machine collaboration in risky decision-making. Technological advances in machine intelligence have enabled a growing number of applications in human–machine collaborative decision-making. Therefore, it is desirable to achieve superior performance by fully leveraging human and machine capabilities. In risky decision-making, a human decision-maker is vulnerable to cognitive biases when judging the possible outcomes of a risky event, whereas a machine decision-maker cannot handle new and dynamic contexts with incomplete information well. We first summarize features of risky decision-making and possible biases of human decision-makers therein. Then, we argue the necessity and urgency of advancing human–machine collaboration in risky decision-making. Afterward, we review the literature on human–machine collaboration in a general decision context, from the perspectives of human–machine organization, relationship, and collaboration. Lastly, we propose challenges of enhancing human–machine communication and teamwork in risky decision-making, followed by future research avenues.

Keywords human–machine collaboration risky decision-making human–machine team and interaction task allocation human–machine relationship

Corresponding Author(s): Liang MA,Chen WANG

Just Accepted Date: 17 December 2021 Online First Date: 19 January 2022 Issue Date: 14 February 2022

Cite this article:

Wei XIONG,Hongmiao FAN,Liang MA, et al. Challenges of human–machine collaboration in risky decision-making[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(1): 89-103.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.1007/s42524-021-0182-0
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2022/V9/I1/89

Fig.1 Human decision-maker’s limitations and machine’s potential to enhance risky decision-making.

Fig.2 Research opportunities on human–machine collaboration in risky decision-making.

Fig.3 Literature perspectives on human–machine collaboration.

Tab.1 Summary of studies on task allocation within human–machine teams

Tab.2 Summary of studies on human–machine relationship

Tab.3 Summary of studies on the physical interface of human–machine interaction

Tab.4 Summary of studies on the mental interface of human–machine interaction

Fig.4 Summary of challenges of human–machine collaboration in risky decision-making.

1	K Akash, W L Hu, T Reid, N Jain (2017). Dynamic modeling of trust in human–machine interactions. In: American Control Conference (ACC). Seattle, WA: IEEE, 1542–1548
2	J Amann, A Blasimme, E Vayena, D Frey, V I Madai (2020). Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: A multidisciplinary perspective. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 20(1): 310 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01332-6
3	H Apel, A H Thieken, B Merz, G Blöschl (2004). Flood risk assessment and associated uncertainty. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 4(2): 295–308 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-4-295-2004
4	T Bedford, R Cooke (2001). Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
5	D E Bell (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30(5): 961–981 https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.30.5.961
6	A Bhardwaj, A H Ghasemi, Y Zheng, H Febbo, P Jayakumar, T Ersal, J L Stein, R B Gillespie (2020). Who’s the boss? Arbitrating control authority between a human driver and automation system. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 68: 144–160 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.12.005
7	V Bier (2004). Implications of the research on expert overconfidence and dependence. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 85(1–3): 321–329 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.03.020
8	V M Bier, Y Y Haimes, J H Lambert, N C Matalas, R Zimmerman (1999). A survey of approaches for assessing and managing the risk of extremes. Risk Analysis, 19(1): 83–94 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00391.x
9	J S Blumenthal-Barby, H Krieger (2015). Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: A critical review using a systematic search strategy. Medical Decision Making, 35(4): 539–557 https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14547740
10	J V Bradley (1954). Desirable control-display relationshipsfor moving-scale instruments. Technical Report 54–423. Dayton, OH: US Air Force, Wright Air Development Center (WADC)
11	S B Broomell, D V Budescu (2009). Why are experts correlated? Decomposing correlations between judges. Psychometrika, 74(3): 531–553 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9118-z
12	R Cadario, C Longoni, C K Morewedge (2021). Understanding, explaining, and utilizing medical artificial intelligence. Nature Human Behaviour, in press, doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01146-0
13	G L Calhoun, H A Ruff, K J Behymer, E M Frost (2018). Human-autonomy teaming interface design considerations for multi-unmanned vehicle control. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19(3): 321–352 https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2017.1315751
14	J A Cannon-Bowers, E Salas, S Converse (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In: Castellan Jr N J, ed. Individual and Group Decision Making. New York: Taylor & Francis Psychology Press, 221–246
15	G Charness, E Karni, D Levin (2007). Individual and group decision making under risk: An experimental study of Bayesian updating and violations of first-order stochastic dominance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 35(2): 129–148 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-007-9020-y
16	G Chen, K A Kim, J R Nofsinger, O M Rui (2007). Trading performance, disposition effect, overconfidence, representativeness bias, and experience of emerging market investors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(4): 425–451 https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.561
17	J Y C Chen, M J Barnes (2014). Human–agent teaming for multirobot control: A review of human factors issues. IEEE Transactions on Human–Machine Systems, 44(1): 13–29 https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2013.2293535
18	J Y C Chen, S G Lakhmani, K Stowers, A R Selkowitz, J L Wright, M Barnes (2018). Situation awareness-based agent transparency and human–autonomy teaming effectiveness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19(3): 259–282 https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2017.1315750
19	M H Chignell, P A Hancock (1986). Knowledge-based load leveling and task allocation in human–machine systems. In: 21st Annual Conference on Manual Control. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center, 9
20	E T Cokely, C M Kelley (2009). Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(1): 20–33
21	H Cramer, V Evers, S Ramlal, M van Someren, L Rutledge, N Stash, L Aroyo, B Wielinga (2008). The effects of transparency on trust in and acceptance of a content-based art recommender. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 18(5): 455–496 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-008-9051-3
22	P Croskerry (2013). From mindless to mindful practice — Cognitive bias and clinical decision making. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(26): 2445–2448 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1303712
23	A Dafoe, Y Bachrach, G Hadfield, E Horvitz, K Larson, T Graepel (2021). Cooperative AI: Machines must learn to find common ground. Nature, 593(7857): 33–36 https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01170-0
24	P Damacharla, A Y Javaid, J J Gallimore, V K Devabhaktuni (2018). Common metrics to benchmark Human–Machine Teams (HMT): A review. IEEE Access, 6: 38637–38655 https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2853560
25	DARPA (2018). AI Next Campaign. Available at:
26	P R Daugherty, H J Wilson (2018). Human+ Machine: Reimagining Work in the Age of AI. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press
27	F D Davis, R P Bagozzi, P R Warshaw (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8): 982–1003 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
28	R M Dawes, D Faust, P E Meehl (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243(4899): 1668–1674 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2648573
29	E J de Visser, R Pak, T H Shaw (2018). From “automation” to “autonomy”: The importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction. Ergonomics, 61(10): 1409–1427 https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1457725
30	C Deck, S Jahedi (2015). The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments. European Economic Review, 78: 97–119 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.05.004
31	A Degani, C V Goldman, O Deutsch, O Tsimhoni (2017). On human–machine relations. Cognition Technology and Work, 19(2–3): 211–231 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0417-3
32	B J Dietvorst, J P Simmons, C Massey (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 144(1): 114–126 https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033
33	E Doherty, G Cockton, C Bloor , D Benigno (2001). Improving the performance of the cyberlink mental interface with the “Yes/No Program”. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 69–76
34	E Doherty, G Stephenson, W Engel (2000). Using a cyberlink mental interface for relaxation and controlling a robot. In: Proceedings of the SIGCAPH Computers and the Physically Handicapped. New York: ACM, 4–9 https://doi.org/10.1145/569309.569310
35	D Dörner, A J Wearing (1995). Complex problem solving: Toward a (computer simulated) theory. In: Frensch P A, Funke J, eds. Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective. New York: Taylor & Francis Psychology Press, 65–99
36	N Du, J Haspiel, Q Zhang, D Tilbury, A K Pradhan, X J Yang, L P Robert Jr (2019). Look who’s talking now: Implications of AV’s explanations on driver’s trust, AV preference, anxiety and mental workload. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 104: 428–442 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.05.025
37	Y Duan, J S Edwards, Y K Dwivedi (2019). Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of Big Data: Evolution, challenges and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 48: 63–71 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.021
38	C Dubois, J Le Ny (2020). Adaptive task allocation in human–machine teams with trust and workload cognitive models. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). Toronto, ON, 3241–3246
39	M Edmonds, F Gao, H Liu, X Xie, S Qi, B Rothrock, Y X Zhu, Y N Wu, H J Lu, S C Zhu (2019). A tale of two explanations: Enhancing human trust by explaining robot behavior. Science Robotics, 4(37): eaay4663 https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aay4663
40	W Edwards (1962). Subjective probabilities inferred from decisions. Psychological Review, 69(2): 109–135 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0038674
41	M A El-Gamal, D M Grether (1995). Are people Bayesian? Uncovering behavioral strategies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(432): 1137–1145 https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476620
42	M R Endsley (1988). Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). In: Proceedings of the IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference. Dayton, OH, 789–795
43	M R Endsley (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1): 32–64 https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543
44	V Ferrari (2019). Man–machine teaming: Towards a new paradigm of man–machine collaboration? In: Barbaroux P, ed. Disruptive Technology and Defence Innovation Ecosystems, vol. 5. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 121–137
45	M Fishbein, I Ajzen (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company
46	P M Fitts (1951). Human Engineering for An Effective Air-Navigation and Traffic Control System. Washington, DC: National Research Council
47	P M Fitts, C M Seeger (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(3): 199–210 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062827
48	F Flemisch, M Heesen, T Hesse, J Kelsch, A Schieben, J Beller (2012). Towards a dynamic balance between humans and automation: Authority, ability, responsibility and control in shared and cooperative control situations. Cognition Technology and Work, 14(1): 3–18 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-011-0191-6
49	D Gentner (2001). Mental models, psychology of. In: Smelser N J, Baltes P B, eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 9683–9687
50	M A Goodrich, D Yi (2013). Toward task-based mental models of human–robot teaming: A Bayesian approach. In: International Conference on Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Designing and Developing Augmented and Virtual Environments. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 267–276
51	R Gregory, P Slovic, J Flynn (1996). Risk perceptions, stigma, and health policy. Health & Place, 2(4): 213–220 https://doi.org/10.1016/1353-8292(96)00019-6
52	D M Grether (1992). Testing Bayes rule and the representativeness heuristic: Some experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 17(1): 31–57 https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(92)90078-P
53	T L Griffiths, J B Tenenbaum (2006). Optimal predictions in everyday cognition. Psychological Science, 17(9): 767–773 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01780.x
54	D Gunning (2016). Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) — What are we trying to do? Available at:
55	D Gursoy, O H Chi, L Lu, R Nunkoo (2019). Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery. International Journal of Information Management, 49: 157–169 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.008
56	R S Gutzwiller, J Reeder (2021). Dancing with algorithms: Interaction creates greater preference and trust in machine-learned behavior. Human Factors, 63(5): 854–867 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820903893
57	T Haesevoets, D de Cremer, K Dierckx, A van Hiel (2021). Human–machine collaboration in managerial decision making. Computers in Human Behavior, 119: 106730 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106730
58	P A Hancock, T Kajaks, J K Caird, M H Chignell, S Mizobuchi, P C Burns, J Feng, G R Fernie, M Lavallière, I Y Noy, D A Redelmeier, B H Vrkljan (2020). Challenges to human drivers in increasingly automated vehicles. Human Factors, 62(2): 310–328 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819900402
59	A Hancock P, D R Billings, K E Schaefer, J Y C Chen, E J de Visser, R Parasuraman (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5): 517–527 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254
60	P A Hancock, M H Chignell (1989). Intelligent Interfaces: Theory, Research and Design. North Holland: Elsevier Science Inc.
61	J M Hoc (2000). From human–machine interaction to human–machine cooperation. Ergonomics, 43(7): 833–843 https://doi.org/10.1080/001401300409044
62	K A Hoff, M Bashir (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3): 407–434 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570
63	A Holzinger (2016). Interactive machine learning for health informatics: When do we need the human-in-the-loop? Brain Informatics, 3(2): 119–131 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40708-016-0042-6
64	R G Hunt, F J Krzystofiak, J R Meindl, A M Yousry (1989). Cognitive style and decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44(3): 436–453 https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)90018-6
65	M H Jarrahi (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human–AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4): 577–586 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007
66	P Johnson-Laird (1996). Mental models, deductive reasoning, and the brain. In: Gazzaniga M S, ed. The Cognitive Neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 999–1008
67	D Kahneman, S Frederick (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 49–81
68	D Kahneman, A Tversky (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263–291 https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
69	C D Karstens, J Correia Jr, D S LaDue, J Wolfe, T C Meyer, D R Harrison, J L Cintineo, K M Calhoun, T M Smith, A E Gerard, L P Rothfusz (2018). Development of a human–machine mix for forecasting severe convective events. Weather and Forecasting, 33(3): 715–737 https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-17-0188.1
70	C Kemp, J B Tenenbaum (2008). The discovery of structural form. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(31): 10687–10692 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802631105
71	J Kraus, D Scholz, D Stiegemeier, M Baumann (2020). The more you know: Trust dynamics and calibration in highly automated driving and the effects of take-overs, system malfunction, and system transparency. Human Factors, 62(5): 718–736 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819853686
72	M E Kreye, Y M Goh, L B Newnes, P Goodwin (2012). Approaches to displaying information to assist decisions under uncertainty. Omega, 40(6): 682–692 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2011.05.010
73	T Kulesza, W K Wong, S Stumpf, S Perona, R White, M M Burnett, I Oberst, A J Ko (2009). Fixing the program my computer learned: Barriers for end users, challenges for the machine. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. Sanibel Island, FL: ACM, 187–196
74	N Kunnathuvalappil Hariharan (2018). Artificial Intelligence and human collaboration in financial planning. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 5(7): 1348–1355
75	I H Kuo, J M Rabindran, E Broadbent, Y I Lee, N Kerse, R M Q Stafford, B A MacDonald (2009). Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. In: The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. Toyama, 214–219
76	J Laid, C Ranganath, S Gershman (2020). Future directions in human machine teaming workshop. Arlington, VA: US Department of Defense
77	J Lee (2020). Is artificial intelligence better than human clinicians in predicting patient outcomes? Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(8): e19918 https://doi.org/10.2196/19918
78	J Lee, N Moray (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of func-tion in human–machine systems. Ergonomics, 35(10): 1243–1270 https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139208967392
79	J D Lee, K A See (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1): 50–80 https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392
80	F F Li, J Etchemendy (2018). Introducing Stanford’s human-centered AI initiative. Available at:
81	R D Luce, P C Fishburn (1991). Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for finite first-order gambles. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(1): 29–59 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00057885
82	C Lyn Paul, L M Blaha, C K Fallon, C Gonzalez, R S Gutzwiller (2019). Opportunities and challenges for human–machine teaming in cybersecurity operations. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1): 442–446 https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631079
83	J B Lyons, P R Havig (2014). Transparency in a human–machine context: Approaches for fostering shared awareness/intent. In: International Conference on Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Designing and Developing Virtual and Augmented Environments. Cham: Springer, 181–190
84	J B Lyons, S Mahoney, K T Wynne, M A Roebke (2018). Viewing machines as teammates: A qualitative study. In: AAAI Spring Symposium Series. Palo Alto, CA, 166–170
85	P Madhavan, D A Wiegmann (2007). Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(4): 277–301 https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500337708
86	J G March, Z Shapira (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33(11): 1404–1418 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.33.11.1404
87	J M McGuirl, N B Sarter (2006). Supporting trust calibration and the effective use of decision aids by presenting dynamic system confidence information. Human Factors, 48(4): 656–665 https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006779166334
88	A Mearman (2011). Who do heterodox economists think they are? American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 70(2): 480–510 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2011.00774.x
89	A P Miller (2018). Want less-biased decisions? Use algorithms. Harvard Business Review, 2018–7–26
90	L D Ordóñez, L Benson III, A Pittarello (2015). Time-pressure perception and decision making. In: Keren G, Wu G, eds. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, II. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 517–542
91	C A Ortiz, M R Park (2011). Visual Controls: Applying Visual Management to the Factory. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Productivity Press
92	S Ososky, D Schuster, F Jentsch, S Fiore, R Shumaker, C Lebiere, U Kurup, J Oh, A Stentz (2012). The importance of shared mental models and shared situation awareness for transforming robots from tools to teammates. In: Proceedings of SPIE 8387, Unmanned Systems Technology XIV. Baltimore, MD, 838710 https://doi.org/10.1117/12.923283
93	S Ososky, D Schuster, E Phillips, F Jentsch (2013). Building appropriate trust in human–robot teams. In: AAAI Spring Symposium: Trust and Autonomous Systems. Stanford, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 60–65
94	R Parasuraman, T B Sheridan, C D Wickens (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3): 286–297 https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354
95	S Parker, G Grote (2019). Automation, algorithms, and beyond: Why work design matters more than ever in a digital world. Applied Psychology, in press, doi: 10.1111/apps.12241
96	B N Patel, L Rosenberg, G Willcox, D Baltaxe, M Lyons, J Irvin, P Rajpurkar, T Amrhein, R Gupta, S Halabi, C Langlotz, E Lo, J Mammarappallil, A J Mariano, G Riley, J Seekins, L Shen, E Zucker, M P Lungren (2019). Human–machine partnership with artificial intelligence for chest radiograph diagnosis. NPJ Digital Medicine, 2: 111 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0189-7
97	J W Payne, J R Bettman, E J Johnson (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
98	E Phillips, S Ososky, J Grove, F Jentsch (2011). From tools to teammates: Toward the development of appropriate mental models for intelligent robots. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55(1): 1491–1495 https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181311551310
99	I Rahwan, M Cebrian, N Obradovich, J Bongard, J F Bonnefon, C Breazeal, J W Crandall, N A Christakis, I D Couzin, M O Jackson, N R Jennings, E Kamar, I M Kloumann, H Larochelle, D Lazer, R McElreath, A Mislove, D C Parkes, A S Pentland, M E Roberts, A Shariff, J B Tenenbaum, M Wellman (2019). Machine behaviour. Nature, 568(7753): 477–486 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y
100	S Renooij (2001). Probability elicitation for belief networks: Issues to consider. Knowledge Engineering Review, 16(3): 255–269 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888901000145
101	E M Roth, C Sushereba, L G Militello, J Diiulio, K Ernst (2019). Function allocation considerations in the era of human autonomy teaming. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 13(4): 199–220 https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343419878038
102	M J Saenz, E Revilla, C Simón (2020). Designing AI systems with human–machine teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 61(3): 1–5
103	M Salem, G Lakatos, F Amirabdollahian, K Dautenhahn (2015). Would you trust a (faulty) robot: Effects of error, task type and personality on human–robot cooperation and trust. In: 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction. Portland, OR, 141–148
104	P M Salmon, N A Stanton, G H Walker, C Baber, D P Jenkins, R McMaster, M S Young (2008). What really is going on? Review of situation awareness models for individuals and teams. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9(4): 297–323 https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220701561775
105	K E Schaefer, J Y C Chen, J L Szalma, P A Hancock (2016). A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation. Human Factors, 58(3): 377–400 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816634228
106	K E Schaefer, E R Straub, J Y C Chen, J Putney, A W Evans III (2017). Communicating intent to develop shared situation awareness and engender trust in human-agent teams. Cognitive Systems Research, 46: 26–39 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.02.002
107	I Seeber, E Bittner, R O Briggs, T de Vreede, G J de Vreede, A Elkins, R Maier, A B Merz, S Oeste-Reiß, N Randrup, G Schwabe, M Söllner (2020). Machines as teammates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration. Information & Management, 57(2): 103174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103174
108	I Seeber, L Waizenegger, S Seidel, S Morana, I Benbasat, P B Lowry (2019). Reinventing collaboration with autonomous technology-based agents. In: Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). Stockholm: Association for Information Systems, 4
109	A R Selkowitz, S G Lakhmani, C N Larios, J Y C Chen (2016). Agent transparency and the autonomous squad member. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1): 1319–1323 https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601305
110	Y Seong, A M Bisantz (2008). The impact of cognitive feedback on judgment performance and trust with decision aids. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38(7–8): 608–625 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2008.01.007
111	T B Sheridan, R T Hennessy (1984). Research and modeling of supervisory control behavior: Report of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, US National ResearchCouncil
112	D Shin (2020). The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 146: 102551
113	D Shin, Y J Park (2019). Role of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance. Computers in Human Behavior, 98: 277–284 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.019
114	D Silver, A Huang, C J Maddison, A Guez, L Sifre, G van den Driessche, J Schrittwieser, I Antonoglou, V Panneershelvam, M Lanctot, S Dieleman, D Grewe, J Nham, N Kalchbrenner, I Sutskever, T Lillicrap, M Leach, K Kavukcuoglu, T Graepel, D Hassabis (2016). Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529(7587): 484–489 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16961
115	D Silver, J Schrittwieser, K Simonyan, I Antonoglou, A Huang, A Guez, T Hubert, L Baker, M Lai, A Bolton, Y Chen, T Lillicrap, F Hui, L Sifre, G van den Driessche, T Graepel, D Hassabis (2017). Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge. Nature, 550(7676): 354–359 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24270
116	D Simon, D C Krawczyk, K J Holyoak (2004). Construction of preferences by constraint satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15(5): 331–336 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00678.x
117	G Skraaning, G A Jamieson (2019). Human performance benefits of the automation transparency design principle: Validation and variation. Human Factors, 63(3): 379–401 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819887252
118	C Speier (2006). The influence of information presentation formats on complex task decision-making performance. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 64(11): 1115–1131 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.06.007
119	C Speier, M G Morris (2003). The influence of query interface design on decision-making performance. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3): 397–423 https://doi.org/10.2307/30036539
120	K Stowers, N Kasdaglis, O Newton, S Lakhmani, R Wohleber, J Chen (2016). Intelligent agent transparency: The design and evaluation of an interface to facilitate human and intelligent agent collaboration. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1): 1706–1710 https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601392
121	J B Tenenbaum, C Kemp, T L Griffiths, N D Goodman (2011). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331(6022): 1279–1285 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192788
122	P E Tetlock (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7): 320–324 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00135-9
123	J Tong, D Feiler (2017). A behavioral model of forecasting: Naive statistics on mental samples. Management Science, 63(11): 3609–3627 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2537
124	E J Topol (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25(1): 44–56 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7
125	P Tschandl, C Rinner, Z Apalla, G Argenziano, N Codella, A Halpern, M Janda, A Lallas, C Longo, J Malvehy, J Paoli, S Puig, C Rosendahl, H P Soyer, I Zalaudek, H Kittler (2020). Human–computer collaboration for skin cancer recognition. Nature Medicine, 26(8): 1229–1234 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0942-0
126	A Tversky, D Kahneman (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157): 1124–1131 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
127	P Urlings, L C Jain (2002). Teaming human and machine: A conceptual framework. In: Abraham A, Köppen M, eds. Hybrid Information Systems. Heidelberg: Springer, 711–721
128	P P van Maanen, K van Dongen (2005). Towards task allocation decision support by means of cognitive modeling of trust. In: Proceedings of 17th Belgian-Netherlands Artificial Intelligence Conference. Brussels, 399–400
129	V Venkatesh, J Y L Thong, X Xu (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 36(1): 157–178 https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
130	J von Neumann, O Morgenstern (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press
131	G Vosgerau (2006). The perceptual nature of mental models. Advances in Psychology, 138: 255–275 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(06)80039-7
132	P Wakker (1989). Continuous subjective expected utility with non-additive probabilities. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18(1): 1–27 https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4068(89)90002-5
133	N Wang, D V Pynadath, S G Hill (2016). Trust calibration within a human–robot team: Comparing automatically generated explanations. In: The 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction. Christchurch, 109–116
134	T Warden, P Carayon, E M Roth, J Chen, W J Clancey, R Hoffman, M L Steinberg (2019). The national academies board on human system integration (BOHSI) panel: Explainable AI, system trans-parency, and human machine teaming. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1): 631–635 https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631100
135	D F Whelehan, K C Conlon, P F Ridgway (2020). Medicine and heuristics: Cognitive biases and medical decision-making. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 189(4): 1477–1484 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-020-02235-1
136	C D Wickens, J G Hollands, S Banbury, R Parasuraman (2013). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 4th ed. New York: Taylor & Francis Psychology Press
137	P A Wickham (2003). The representativeness heuristic in judgements involving entrepreneurial success and failure. Management Decision, 41(2): 156–167 https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740310457605
138	K T Wynne, J B Lyons (2018). An integrative model of autonomous agent teammate-likeness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19(3): 353–374 https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2016.1260181
139	W Xu (2019). Towards human-centered AI: A perspective from human–computer interaction. Interaction, 26(4): 42–46 https://doi.org/10.1145/3328485
140	Ö N Yalçın, S DiPaola (2020). Modeling empathy: Building a link between affective and cognitive processes. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(4): 2983–3006 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-019-09753-0
141	J O Zinn (2008). Heading into the unknown: Everyday strategies for managing risk and uncertainty. Health Risk & Society, 10(5): 439–450 https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570802380891

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed