Using Communication to Modulate Neural Synchronization in Teams.

Throughout training and team performance, teams may be assessed based on their communication patterns to identify which behaviors contributed to the team's performance; however, this process of establishing meaning in communication is burdensome and time consuming despite the low monetary cost. A current topic in team research is developing covert measures, which are easier to analyze in real-time, to identify team processes as they occur during team performance; however, little is known about how overt and covert measures of team process relate to one another. In this study, we investigated the relationship between overt (communication) and covert (neural) measures of team process by manipulating the interaction partner (participant or experimenter) team members worked with and the type of task (decision-making or action-based) teams performed to assess their effects on team neural synchronization (measured as neurodynamic entropy) and communication (measured as both flow and content). The results indicated that the type of task affected how the teams structured their communication but had unpredictable effects on the neural synchronization of the team when averaged across the task session. The interaction partner did not affect team neural synchronization when averaged. However, there were significant relationships when communication and neural processes were examined over time between the neurodynamic entropy and the communication flow time series due to both the type of task and the interaction partner. Specifically, significant relationships across time were observed when participants were interacting with the other participant, during the second task trial, and across different regions of the cortex depending on the type of task being performed. The findings from the time series analyses suggest that factors that are previously known to affect communication (interaction partner and task type) also structure the relationship between team communication and neural synchronization-cross-level effects-but only when examined across time. Future research should consider these factors when developing new conceptualizations of team process measurement for measuring team performance over time.

Understanding and Modeling Teams As Dynamical Systems.

By its very nature, much of teamwork is distributed across, and not stored within, interdependent people working toward a common goal. In this light, we advocate a systems perspective on teamwork that is based on general coordination principles that are not limited to cognitive, motor, and physiological levels of explanation within the individual. In this article, we present a framework for understanding and modeling teams as dynamical systems and review our empirical findings on teams as dynamical systems. We proceed by (a) considering the question of why study teams as dynamical systems, (b) considering the meaning of dynamical systems concepts (attractors; perturbation; synchronization; fractals) in the context of teams, (c) describe empirical studies of team coordination dynamics at the perceptual-motor, cognitive-behavioral, and cognitive-neurophysiological levels of analysis, and (d) consider the theoretical and practical implications of this approach, including new kinds of explanations of human performance and real-time analysis and performance modeling. Throughout our discussion of the topics we consider how to describe teamwork using equations and/or modeling techniques that describe the dynamics. Finally, we consider what dynamical equations and models do and do not tell us about human performance in teams and suggest future research directions in this area.

Cross-Level Effects Between Neurophysiology and Communication During Team Training.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated cross-level effects, which are concurrent changes across neural and cognitive-behavioral levels of analysis as teams interact, between neurophysiology and team communication variables under variations in team training. BACKGROUND: When people work together as a team, they develop neural, cognitive, and behavioral patterns that they would not develop individually. It is currently unknown whether these patterns are associated with each other in the form of cross-level effects. METHOD: Team-level neurophysiology and latent semantic analysis communication data were collected from submarine teams in a training simulation. We analyzed whether (a) both neural and communication variables change together in response to changes in training segments (briefing, scenario, or debriefing), (b) neural and communication variables mutually discriminate teams of different experience levels, and (c) peak cross-correlations between neural and communication variables identify how the levels are linked. RESULTS: Changes in training segment led to changes in both neural and communication variables, neural and communication variables mutually discriminated between teams of different experience levels, and peak cross-correlations indicated that changes in communication precede changes in neural patterns in more experienced teams. CONCLUSION: Cross-level effects suggest that teamwork is not reducible to a fundamental level of analysis and that training effects are spread out across neural and cognitive-behavioral levels of analysis. Cross-level effects are important to consider for theories of team performance and practical aspects of team training. APPLICATION: Cross-level effects suggest that measurements could be taken at one level (e.g., neural) to assess team experience (or skill) on another level (e.g., cognitive-behavioral).