Abstract
In successful teams, each team member has a distinct taskwork based on individual task roles and responsibilities. Each team member effectively interacts with one another and the technology with which they must interact during the task. Both taskwork and teamwork have situational propensities and entail both ontic and epistemic aspects; thus, understanding how they affect teammates’ taskwork and teamwork becomes crucial to fathom the emergence of team coordination dynamics. This paper conceptually discusses the application of quantum cognition to team coordination; how this approach can improve the understanding of the notion of the whole. The open system model, which incorporates both classical and quantum probability descriptions of a system, is reviewed to describe both ontic and epistemic uncertainty. The open system model's contributions to the entropy of an entangled whole are discussed. Lastly, the conceptual differences between sensing and interaction and the experimental scenarios to study these differences are delineated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Cooke, N.J., Shope, S.M., Kiekel, P.A.: Shared-knowledge and team performance: a cognitive engineering approach to measurement. Technical Report for AFOSR F49620-98-1-0287 (2001)
Stout, R.J., Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E., Milanovich, D.M.: Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: an empirical link is established. Hum. Factors 41(1), 61–71 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1518/001872099779577273
Cooke, N.J., Gorman, J.C., Myers, C.W., Duran, J.L.: Interactive team cognition. Cogn. Sci. 37(2), 255–285 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12009
Demir, M., Likens, A.D., Cooke, N.J., Amazeen, P.G., McNeese, N.J.: Team coordination and effectiveness in human-autonomy teaming. IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst., 1–10 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2018.2877482
Busemeyer, J.R., Bruza, P.D.: Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)
Yearsley, J.M.: Advanced tools and concepts for quantum cognition: a tutorial ✩. J. Math. Psychol. 78, 24–39 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2016.07.005
Busemeyer, J.R., Wang, Z., Lambert-mogiliansky, A.: Empirical comparison of Markov and quantum models of decision making $. J. Math. Psychol. 53(5), 423–433 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2009.03.002
Aerts, D.: Quantum structure in cognition. J. Math. Psychol. 53(5), 314–348 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2009.04.005
Busemeyer, J.R., Wang, Z.: What is quantum cognition, and how is it applied to psychology? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24(3), 163–169 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414568663
Busemeyer, J.R.: Introduction to quantum probability for social and behavioral scientists (2012)
Kvam, P.D., Pleskac, T.J., Yu, S., Busemeyer, J.R.: Interference effects of choice on confidence: quantum characteristics of evidence accumulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112(34), 10645–10650 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1500688112
Busemeyer, J., Zhang, Q., Balakrishnan, S.N., Wang, Z.: Application of quantum-Markov open system models to human cognition and decision. Entropy 22(9), 1–12 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/e22090990
Busemeyer, J.R., Kvam, P.D., Pleskac, T.J.: Comparison of Markov versus quantum dynamical models of human decision making. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 11(4), 1–39 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1526
Busemeyer, J., Wang, Z.: Data fusion using Hilbert space multi-dimensional models. Theor. Comput. Sci. 752, 41–55 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2017.12.007
Atmanspacher, H.: Determinism is ontic, determinability is epistemic. Chance Choice Interdiscip. Perspect. Determinism, 49–74 (2002)
Atmanspacher, H., Primas, H.: Epistemic and ontic quantum realities. In: Castell, L., Ischebeck, O. (eds.) Time, Quantum and Information, pp. 301–321. Springer, Berlin (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-10557-3_20
Basieva, I., Khrennikov, A.: ‘What is life?’: open quantum systems approach, pp. 1–17 (1970)
Susskind, L., Friedman, A.: Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum, Illus Basic Books, New York (2015)
Kvam, P., Busemeyer, J., Pleskac, T.J.: An open system model of decision-making and temporal oscillations in preference strength (2020)
Gorman, J.C.: Team coordination and dynamics two central issues. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23(5), 355–360 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414545215
Martínez-Martínez, I., Sánchez-Burillo, E.: Quantum stochastic walks on networks for decision-making. Sci. Rep. 6(1) (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23812
Atmanspacher, H.: The aspect of information production in the process of observation. Found. Phys. 19(5), 553–577 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00734660
Guastello, S.J.: Nonlinear dynamical systems for theory and research in ergonomics. Ergonomics 60(2), 167–193 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1162851
Acknowledgments
This research was partially supported by Naval Postgraduate School Consortium for Robotics and Unmanned System Education and Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Canan, M., Demir, M. (2021). Addressing Two Central Issues of Team Interaction Dynamics: The Whole is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts. In: Ayaz, H., Asgher, U., Paletta, L. (eds) Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering. AHFE 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 259. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80285-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80285-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-80284-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-80285-1
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)