Can robots be teammates?: Benchmarks in human–robot teams

By V. Groom, Clifford Nass. 2007

326 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Safety Research, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a22134f9e7d1aa2df5acbbb3623f37fc6cd66e35

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Safety Research

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The Perception And Measurement Of Human-robot Trust (2013, background): “One of the most significant challenges for successful collaboration between humans and robots is the development of appropriate levels of mutual trust in robots (Desai, Stubbs, Steinfeld, & Yanco, 2009; Groom & Nass, 2007).”
Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction (2014, background): “Second, unlike most automated systems, some service robots are designed to be perceived as teammates or peers with social capabilities, rather than as tools (e.g., Breazeal, 2005; Groom & Nass, 2007).”
Building a Stronger CASA: Extending the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm (2020, background): “Removing this anthropocentric bias from CASA should allow researchers a means to avert their own human-centric biases and avoid the pitfall highlighted by Groom and Nass (2007): “While trying to make robots human, researchers have sometimes overlooked what makes robots special” (p. 494).”
Designing and implementing transparency for real time inspection of autonomous robots (2017, background): “To avoid such situations, proper calibration of trust between the human users and/or operators and their robots is critically important, if not essential, in high-risk scenarios, such as the usage of robots in the military or for medical purposes (Groom & Nass, 2007).”
Challenges in Shared-Environment Human-Robot Collaboration (2013, background): “Attempting to build a socially collaborative system forces the designer to address issues of safety, user modeling, environment sensing, and various teamwork-related human factors in addition to the already numerous technical challenges inherent to robotics involving real-world manipulation [2].”
Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2020, background): “Indeed, with respect to human–robot teaming, Groom and Nass (2007) offered in a position paper an argument that human–robot teams had yet to achieve a “team” status and perhaps that is not even a wise design approach, expectation, or objective.”
Intelligent Agent Transparency in Human–Agent Teaming for Multi-UxV Management (2016, background): “An appropriate calibration of trust in an IA is especially vital in high-risk situations, such as military operations, where over- and undertrust can be disastrous (de Visser et al., 2012; Freedy, DeVisser, Weltman, & Coeyman, 2007; Groom & Nass, 2007; Lee & See, 2004; Parasuraman & Riley, 1997).”
A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction (2011, background): “The level of trust in any robotic partner will be particularly critical in high-risk situations, such as combat missions (Groom & Nass, 2007).”