Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 57 references

The paper establishes that a single spatial metric—role-based movement specialization—predicts both collective intelligence and team performance in communication-restricted search-and-rescue teams, with collective intelligence carrying roug

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 19:17 UTC pith:J4KHNQDG

load-bearing objection Worth reading for the new spatial coordination metrics, but the inconsistent performance scoring rule is load-bearing and needs to be resolved before the headline claims can be trusted. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2509.09314 v1 pith:J4KHNQDG submitted 2025-09-11 cs.AI cs.HC

Measuring Implicit Spatial Coordination in Teams: Effects on Collective Intelligence and Performance

Thuy Ngoc Nguyen , Anita Williams Woolley , Cleotilde Gonzalez This is my paper
classification cs.AI cs.HC
keywords implicit coordinationcollective intelligencespatial coordinationmovement specializationsearch and rescueteam performancemediation analysistemporal dynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to show that teams coordinating without talking leave measurable traces in their movement, and that those traces predict how well the team does. It defines three movement-based metrics and tests them on 34 four-person teams playing a search-and-rescue game with no communication. The central finding is that spatial movement specialization—roles covering similarly thorough but minimally overlapping territory—predicts both collective intelligence and team performance. Collective intelligence mediates about 48% of the specialization-performance link. The other two metrics show weaker or curvilinear effects, but their time trajectories still separate high- from low-performing teams.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that effective implicit spatial coordination can be captured by a single product: entropy similarity between the two roles' movement distributions multiplied by one minus their spatial overlap. Teams with high specialization scores—both roles exploring with comparable thoroughness while covering different ground—earn higher collective intelligence scores and higher mission scores. Bootstrapped mediation analysis shows that collective intelligence carries a significant indirect effect, accounting for 47.6% of the total effect of specialization on performance, while the direct effect becomes non-significant when the mediator is included. The paper also reports a ma

What carries the argument

Spatial Movement Specialization (SMS) is defined as SMS = Es × (1 − O), where Es is the entropy similarity between the movement distributions of the two roles and O is the Jaccard overlap of the grid cells they visit. It is designed to reward a balanced divide-and-conquer strategy: roles should explore with similar thoroughness while minimizing redundant territory. Supporting metrics are Spatial Exploration Diversity (SED), the average Jensen-Shannon divergence between all pairs of players' movement distributions, and Spatial Proximity Adaptation (SPA), the normalized change in inter-role distance between the first and second halves of the mission. SMS is the load-bearing metric because it i

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the specialization score measures real coordination—mutual anticipation and adjustment—rather than just the fact that the two roles were given different jobs in different areas.

What would settle it

Re-run the same task with each role assigned a fixed, non-overlapping territory from the start; if those teams have high specialization scores but no performance gain over free-moving teams, the metric tracks task design, not coordination quality.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Teams that establish high spatial specialization early in a mission tend to keep it and outperform; early spatial role differentiation is a plausible training target.
  • Because specialization predicts collective intelligence, movement traces can feed real-time diagnostics for coordination breakdowns in communication-limited teams.
  • The inverted-U pattern for proximity adaptation means both rigid spacing and excessive re-spacing hurt performance, so support tools should aim for moderate adaptation.
  • The mediation result implies spatial coordination builds a general team capability rather than only task-specific skill, so gains may carry over to other collaborative tasks.
  • The three metrics, computed at 3-second intervals, offer process-level measures usable for AI-assisted team monitoring in navigation-based work.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors defer separating the two components of SMS; a decomposition may show that one component does most of the predictive work, which would change the functional form of the metric.
  • A testable extension is to give an AI teammate the same SMS-derived spatial signal and see whether human teams improve; that would test whether the metric has actionable value beyond prediction.
  • With only 34 teams, the null results for exploration diversity and proximity adaptation are weak evidence; larger samples or finer time windows could reveal effects the current design misses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. Using data from 34 four-person teams in a restricted-communication search-and-rescue task, the paper proposes three spatial coordination metrics (SED, SMS, SPA) and tests their associations with collective intelligence and team performance. The authors report that SMS significantly predicts both CI and performance, that CI partially mediates the SMS-performance link, that SPA has a marginal inverted-U relation with performance, and that temporal dynamics differentiate high- from low-performing teams. The central contribution is a set of quantitative, outcome-independent process metrics for implicit spatial coordination.

Significance. The contribution is timely: if the measures hold, they provide objective, low-cost process indicators for distributed teams. The metric definitions are clear and computed independently of outcomes, and mediation uses bootstrap confidence intervals, which are strengths. However, the dependent-variable scoring is inconsistent across sections, the overall performance model is non-significant, and the inverted-U relies on marginal effects. These issues limit the strength of the conclusions and demand revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.2.2 vs §3.3.3] Team performance is defined inconsistently. Section 3.2.2 states green/yellow/red rescue points are 10/20/30; Section 3.3.3 states red=60, yellow=30, green=10. All regression and mediation analyses (Tables 2–4) use a single score, but the manuscript does not say which weights were entered. Please state which weighting was used, justify it relative to the task instructions, and check whether the reported correlations, betas, F-statistics, and indirect effects are robust to the alternative weighting. Without this, the performance-related results are not reproducible.
  2. [§4.1, Table 2] The model predicting team performance is not significant as a whole (F=2.45, p=.08), yet the SMS coefficient is reported as p<.05. This tension deserves explicit discussion. Please report the SMS coefficient's confidence interval, test the regression with CI included (as implied by the mediation model), and conduct sensitivity analyses (e.g., bootstrap). The Discussion should not present SMS as a clear predictor of performance without acknowledging the marginal omnibus test.
  3. [§4.3.1, Table 4] The inverted-U claim for SPA is based on a quadratic model that is not significant (F(2,31)=2.31, p=.116), a quadratic term at p=.06, and a post-hoc ANOVA on the same data. Please frame this as exploratory, provide an explicit test of the quadratic effect (e.g., a planned contrast or a direct comparison of nested models), report the standard error of the estimated optimum, and soften causal language such as 'too much adaptation started to reduce effectiveness.'
  4. [§3.3.1, Eq. (2)] The construct validity of SMS as measuring 'effective implicit coordination' is not established. SMS=Es*(1-O) can be high merely because roles are assigned to independent spatial zones, with little anticipation or dynamic adjustment. Section 3.3.1 itself defers analysis of component interactions. Please provide validation evidence, such as relation to timing of joint rescues, comparison with a random-movement baseline, or a manipulation that separates task-determined partitioning from adaptive coordination. Otherwise, interpret SMS as a measure of spatial role configuration rather than implicit coordination.
  5. [§4 (overall)] The analysis involves many correlated tests—three metrics, two outcomes, quadratic models, group comparisons, and temporal plots—on a sample of 34 teams, with no correction for multiple comparisons. Several key results are near p=.05. Please report false-discovery-rate adjusted p-values or a pre-specified distinction between confirmatory and exploratory analyses. This would materially increase confidence in the robustness of the SMS and mediation results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2 / Abstract] The abstract states that temporal dynamics 'clearly differentiate' high- from low-performing teams, but Figure 7 is descriptive; no statistical test is reported for the temporal curves. Please add a suitable statistical comparison or soften the claim.
  2. [§3.3.1, Eq. (5)] SPA is defined as |D2-D1|/max(D1,D2), which discards the direction of change. The discussion in §4.3.2 refers to teams increasing or decreasing distance, but that direction is not recoverable from the metric as defined. Clarify whether a signed version was used for the temporal analysis or whether the text is an interpretation of separate phase-specific distances.
  3. [§3.1 / Figure 7] The red-victim deadline is described as 'the first three minutes' of a 5-minute mission, and Figure 7 labels the threshold as '60% mission.' Please make the time convention consistent throughout (e.g., 3 minutes = 60%, not 50%).
  4. [General] The manuscript would benefit from a data and code availability statement, or a supplementary appendix reporting the exact grid size and time-bin choices, since these parameters directly affect the metric values.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

CI mediation is partially self-definitional: CI includes normalized task completions while performance is a weighted rescue score, so the reported indirect effect may be an artifact of construct overlap.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 3.3.2 (Collective Intelligence) and Section 3.3.3 (Team Performance), used in Section 4.2 / Table 3]
    "In this analysis, CI is calculated using three components: effort, defined as the player’s travel distance relative to the maximum possible area; skill, measured by time allocated to role-specific actions; and task strategy, evaluated by the proportion of task completions relative to the maximum possible tasks for each role. ... Team performance was computed as a weighted performance score based on the successful rescue of different victim types ... each red victim rescue contributed 60 points, each yellow victim rescue contributed 30 points, and each green victim rescue contributed 10 points"

    CI's 'task strategy' component is defined as the proportion of task completions relative to role-specific maxima, and team performance is defined as the weighted sum of successful victim rescues. In this search-and-rescue task, task completions are (or overwhelmingly include) victim rescues, so CI and performance are not independent measures. The mediation analysis in Table 3 then regresses performance on CI (path b = 1119.82) and reports a significant indirect effect (540.64, 47.6% mediated). That path is partly a regression of a weighted rescue score on a normalized rescue count, so the 'mediating mechanism' is partially constructed from the outcome variable rather than an independent latent ability. The paper provides no evidence that CI and performance measure distinct constructs, maki

full rationale

The three spatial metrics (SED, SMS, SPA) are computed from movement data independently of team outcomes, so the direct correlations and regressions between SMS and performance are empirical, not circular. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is invoked. The main circularity concern is the mediation claim: CI is defined in Section 3.3.2 using a 'task strategy' component that is the proportion of task completions, while team performance in Section 3.3.3 is a weighted sum of victim rescues. These two measures overlap in their raw ingredients, so the CI→performance path in the mediation model is partly a self-comparison. This does not invalidate the direct SMS→performance finding, but it weakens the central 'CI partially mediates' result as an independent mechanism. Separately, the manuscript contains an internal inconsistency in performance weights (10/20/30 in Section 3.2.2 vs. 10/30/60 in Section 3.3.3); this is a reproducibility/correctness issue rather than circularity, but it compounds the difficulty of interpreting the mediation results. The temporal 'differentiation' of high- and low-performing teams is descriptive, in-sample grouping, not a predictive claim, so it does not add to the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, mediators, or forces; SED, SMS, and SPA are measurement constructs, not entities. The main assumptions are about the validity of the spatial metrics as proxies for coordination.

free parameters (5)
  • Performance weights = 60/30/10 for red/yellow/green
    Team performance was scored with weights 60/30/10 in Section 3.3.3 while the task instructions in Section 3.2.2 specified 10/20/30. This choice affects the performance variable used in all analyses.
  • Grid size m×n = not reported
    SED and SMS divide the environment into an m×n grid; the paper never reports the resolution, which changes the probability distributions and all metric values.
  • SPA phase boundary = two halves (2.5 min) vs critical threshold (3 min)
    The text says SPA compares the two phases before and after the critical threshold (red victims no longer rescuable, 3 min), but Eq. (5) and surrounding text say 'first and second halves'. The boundary choice changes D1 and D2.
  • Time bin = 3 seconds
    All metrics computed at 3-second intervals; other bin widths could alter the distributions.
  • Group splits for ANOVA = bottom 25%, middle 50%, top 25%
    The performance-group comparisons in Section 4.1 and 4.3 use cutoffs chosen post hoc; results depend on these cutoffs.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Movement distributions over grid cells capture meaningful exploration behavior
    Section 3.3.1 assumes that visit frequencies encode intent and coordination; no validation that grid-based distributions reflect actual coordination quality.
  • domain assumption High entropy similarity and low overlap (SMS) indicates effective coordination
    Eq. (2)-(4) define SMS as a product; the paper assumes this combination represents a 'divide and conquer' strategy, but it could also arise from independent uncoordinated role-based exploration.
  • domain assumption Jensen-Shannon divergence between players is a valid measure of exploration diversity
    Used in Eq. (1); no benchmark comparison.
  • domain assumption CI measure (effort, skill, task strategy) is a valid mediator
    CI is defined via task behaviors in Section 3.3.2; its validity as a collective intelligence construct is inherited from prior work [40,48].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13552 in / 11598 out tokens · 111330 ms · 2026-08-04T19:17:06.958193+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring Implicit Spatial Coordination in Teams: Effects on Collective Intelligence and Performance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J4KHNQDG

@misc{pith2026250909314,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring Implicit Spatial Coordination in Teams: Effects on Collective Intelligence and Performance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J4KHNQDG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09314}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Coordinated teamwork is essential in fast-paced decision-making environments that require dynamic adaptation, often without an opportunity for explicit communication. Although implicit coordination has been extensively considered in the existing literature, the majority of work has focused on co-located, synchronous teamwork (such as sports teams) or, in distributed teams, primarily on coordination of knowledge work. However, many teams (firefighters, military, law enforcement, emergency response) must coordinate their movements in physical space without the benefit of visual cues or extensive explicit communication. This paper investigates how three dimensions of spatial coordination, namely exploration diversity, movement specialization, and adaptive spatial proximity, influence team performance in a collaborative online search and rescue task where explicit communication is restricted and team members rely on movement patterns to infer others' intentions and coordinate actions. Our metrics capture the relational aspects of teamwork by measuring spatial proximity, distribution patterns, and alignment of movements within shared environments. We analyze data from 34 four-person teams (136 participants) assigned to specialized roles in a search and rescue task. Results show that spatial specialization positively predicts performance, while adaptive spatial proximity exhibits a marginal inverted U-shaped relationship, suggesting moderate levels of adaptation are optimal. Furthermore, the temporal dynamics of these metrics differentiate high- from low-performing teams over time. These findings provide insights into implicit spatial coordination in role-based teamwork and highlight the importance of balanced adaptive strategies, with implications for training and AI-assisted team support systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09314 by Anita Williams Woolley, Cleotilde Gonzalez, Thuy Ngoc Nguyen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: General research model. 3.1 Experimental Task We use the Team Minimap task, an online, multi-player adaptation of the search and rescue scenario in the Minimap environment [36], to assess coordination in teams of four members (two medics and two engineers) operating in a complex spatial environment without communication [33]. Team roles are specialized: medics can rescue green, yellow, and red victims, but… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Team Minimap with the left panel shows the complete map overview with all victims and obstacles visible, while the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Trajectory visualization of a four-member team [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the spatial coordination metrics across performance groups. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mediation model showing how collective intelli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quadratic relationship between spatial proximity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Smoothed performance trends of top- and bottom-performing teams over time, represented as a percentage of mission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ishani Aggarwal, Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F Chabris, and Thomas W Malone. 2019. The impact of cognitive style diversity on implicit learning in teams.Frontiers in psychology10 (2019), 112

    2019

  2. [2]

    Jerome Bourbousson, Germain Poizat, Jacques Saury, and Carole Seve. 2010. Team coordination in basketball: Description of the cognitive connections among teammates.Journal of Applied Sport Psychology22, 2 (2010), 150–166

    2010

  3. [3]

    Abhizna Butchibabu, Christopher Sparano-Huiban, Liz Sonenberg, and Julie Shah

  4. [4]

    Prerna Chikersal, Maria Tomprou, Young Ji Kim, Anita Williams Woolley, and Laura Dabbish. 2017. Deep structures of collaboration: Physiological correlates of collective intelligence and group satisfaction. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. 873–888

    2017

  5. [5]

    Nancy J Cooke, Myke C Cohen, Walter C Fazio, Laura H Inderberg, Craig J Johnson, Glenn J Lematta, Matthew Peel, and Aaron Teo. 2024. From teams to teamness: Future directions in the science of team cognition.Human Factors66, 6 (2024), 1669–1680

    2024

  6. [6]

    Nancy J Cooke, Jamie C Gorman, Christopher W Myers, and Jasmine L Duran

  7. [7]

    Mustafa Demir, Aaron D Likens, Nancy J Cooke, Polemnia G Amazeen, and Nathan J McNeese. 2018. Team coordination and effectiveness in human- autonomy teaming.IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems49, 2 (2018), 150–159

    2018

  8. [8]

    Fade Eadeh, Michelle Zhao, Thuy Ngoc Nguyen, Pranav Gupta, Cleotilde Gonza- lez, Henny Admoni, and Anita Williams Woolley. 2022. Good for me, but bad for we: How anger can motivate individual performance but inhibit teamwork. https: //web.cvent.com/event/32341921-13bf-442f-9f91-f8ceef42e5c9/summary. Pre- sented at the ACM Collective Intelligence Conference

    arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    David W Eccles and Gershon Tenenbaum. 2004. Why an expert team is more than a team of experts: A social-cognitive conceptualization of team coordination and communication in sport.Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology26, 4 (2004), 542–560

    2004

  10. [10]

    Mica R Endsley, Daniel J Garland, et al. 2000. Theoretical underpinnings of situa- tion awareness: A critical review.Situation awareness analysis and measurement 1, 1 (2000), 3–21

    2000

  11. [11]

    David Engel, Anita Williams Woolley, Ishani Aggarwal, Christopher F Chabris, Masamichi Takahashi, Keiichi Nemoto, Carolin Kaiser, Young Ji Kim, and Thomas W Malone. 2015. Collective intelligence in computer-mediated col- laboration emerges in different contexts and cultures. InProceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing sys...

    2015

  12. [12]

    David Engel, Anita Williams Woolley, Lisa X Jing, Christopher F Chabris, and Thomas W Malone. 2014. Reading the mind in the eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face.PloS one9, 12 (2014), e115212

    2014

  13. [13]

    Elliot E Entin and Daniel Serfaty. 1999. Adaptive team coordination.Human factors41, 2 (1999), 312–325

    1999

  14. [14]

    J Alberto Espinosa, F Javier Lerch, and Robert E Kraut. 2004. Explicit versus implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies: One size does not fit all. (2004)

    2004

  15. [15]

    J Alberto Espinosa, Sandra A Slaughter, Robert E Kraut, and James D Herbsleb

  16. [16]

    Sebastian Feese, Michael Joseph Burscher, Klaus Jonas, and Gerhard Tröster

  17. [17]

    Mirta Galesic, Daniel Barkoczi, Andrew M Berdahl, Dora Biro, Giuseppe Car- bone, Ilaria Giannoccaro, Robert L Goldstone, Cleotilde Gonzalez, Anne Kandler, Albert B Kao, et al. 2023. Beyond collective intelligence: Collective adaptation. Journal of the Royal Society interface20, 200 (2023), 20220736

    2023

  18. [18]

    Jamie C Gorman, Polemnia G Amazeen, and Nancy J Cooke. 2010. Team coordi- nation dynamics.Nonlinear dynamics, psychology, and life sciences14, 3 (2010), 265

    2010

  19. [19]

    Jamie C Gorman, Nancy J Cooke, and Polemnia G Amazeen. 2010. Training adaptive teams.Human factors52, 2 (2010), 295–307

    2010

  20. [20]

    Jamie C Gorman, Terri A Dunbar, David Grimm, and Christina L Gipson. 2017. Understanding and modeling teams as dynamical systems.Frontiers in psychology 8 (2017), 1053

    2017

  21. [21]

    PRANAV Gupta, YJ Kim, ELLA Glikson, and ANITA WILLIAMS Woolley. 2019. Digitally nudging team processes to enhance collective intelligence.Proceedings of Collective Intelligence 2019(2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    Pranav Gupta, Thuy Ngoc Nguyen, Cleotilde Gonzalez, and Anita Williams Woolley. 2023. Fostering collective intelligence in human–AI collaboration: laying the groundwork for COHUMAIN.Topics in cognitive science(2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    R Hackman

    J. R Hackman. 1987.The design of work teams. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    1987

  24. [24]

    Andrew F Hayes. 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium.Communication monographs76, 4 (2009), 408–420

    2009

  25. [25]

    Daniel R Ilgen. 1999. Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist54, 2 (1999), 129

    1999

  26. [26]

    Margo Janssens, Nicoleta Meslec, and Roger Th AJ Leenders. 2022. Collective intelligence in teams: Contextualizing collective intelligent behavior over time. Frontiers in psychology13 (2022), 989572

    2022

  27. [27]

    Young Ji Kim, David Engel, Anita Williams Woolley, Jeffrey Yu-Ting Lin, Naomi McArthur, and Thomas W Malone. 2017. What makes a strong team? Using collective intelligence to predict team performance in League of Legends. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. 2316–2329

    2017

  28. [28]

    Michaela Kolbe, Michael Josef Burtscher, and Tanja Manser. 2013. Co-ACT—a framework for observing coordination behaviour in acute care teams.BMJ quality & safety22, 7 (2013), 596–605

    2013

  29. [29]

    Jean MacMillan, Elliot E Entin, and Daniel Serfaty. 2004. Communication over- head: The hidden cost of team cognition. (2004)

    2004

  30. [30]

    Michelle A Marks, John E Mathieu, and Stephen J Zaccaro. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes.Academy of management review26, 3 (2001), 356–376

    2001

  31. [31]

    John E Mathieu, Tonia S Heffner, Gerald F Goodwin, Eduardo Salas, and Janis A Cannon-Bowers. 2000. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance.Journal of applied psychology85, 2 (2000), 273

    2000

  32. [32]

    Mayo and Anita Williams Woolley

    Anna T. Mayo and Anita Williams Woolley. 2021. Variance in group ability to transform resources into performance, and the role of coordinated attention. Academy of Management Discoveries7, 2 (2021), 225–246

    2021

  33. [33]

    Chase McDonald, Thuy Ngoc Nguyen, Carlos Botelho, Christopher Dishop, Anita Woolley, and Cleotilde Gonzalez. 2023. Working Harder but not Smarter: Ex- perimental Results on the Effects of Collective Intelligence Awareness. https: //ci.acm.org/2023/papers.html Works-in-Progress and Demonstrations, ACM Collective Intelligence 2023

    2023

  34. [34]

    Thuy Ngoc Nguyen and Cleotilde Gonzalez. 2020. Cognitive machine theory of mind. InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vol. 42

    2020

  35. [35]

    Thuy Ngoc Nguyen and Cleotilde Gonzalez. 2022. Theory of mind from obser- vation in cognitive models and humans.Topics in cognitive science14, 4 (2022), 665–686

    2022

  36. [36]

    Thuy Ngoc Nguyen and Cleotilde Gonzalez. 2023. Minimap: an interactive dynamic decision making game for search and rescue missions.Behavior Research Methods(2023), 1–22

    2023

  37. [37]

    Thuy Ngoc Nguyen, Kasturi Jamale, and Cleotilde Gonzalez. 2024. Predicting and Understanding Human Action Decisions: Insights from Large Language Models and Cognitive Instance-Based Learning. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, Vol. 12. 126–136

    2024

  38. [38]

    Gibson, Miriam Sánchez-Manzanares, and Mark A

    Ramón Rico, Cristina B. Gibson, Miriam Sánchez-Manzanares, and Mark A. Clark

  39. [39]

    Ramón Rico, Miriam Sánchez-Manzanares, Francisco Gil, and Cristina Gibson

  40. [40]

    Christoph Riedl, Young Ji Kim, Pranav Gupta, Thomas W Malone, and Anita Williams Woolley. 2021. Quantifying collective intelligence in hu- man groups.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, 21 (2021), e2005737118

    2021

  41. [41]

    Christoph Riedl and Anita Williams Woolley. 2017. Teams vs. crowds: A field test of the relative contribution of incentives, member ability, and emergent collabo- ration to crowd-based problem solving performance.Academy of Management Discoveries3, 4 (2017), 382–403. doi:10.5465/amd.2015.0097

    arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Eduardo Salas, Michael A Rosen, C Shawn Burke, and Gerald F Goodwin. 2008. The wisdom of collectives in organizations: An update of the teamwork compe- tencies. InTeam effectiveness in complex organizations. Routledge, 73–114

    2008

  43. [43]

    Maria Tomprou, Young Ji Kim, Prerna Chikersal, Anita Williams Woolley, and Laura A. Dabbish. 2021. Speaking out of turn: How video conferencing reduces vocal synchrony and collective intelligence.PLOS ONE16, 3 (2021), e0247655. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247655 Publisher: Public Library of Science

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247655 2021

  44. [44]

    B. Uzzi, S. Mukherjee, M. Stringer, and B. Jones. 2013. Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact.Science342, 6157 (2013), 468–472. doi:10.1126/science.1240474 00045

    doi:10.1126/science.1240474 2013

  45. [45]

    Daniel M Wegner. 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. InTheories of group behavior. Springer, 185–208

    1987

  46. [46]

    Wittenbaum, Garold Stasser, and Carol J

    Gwen M. Wittenbaum, Garold Stasser, and Carol J. Merry. 1996. Tacit coordination in anticipation of small group task completion.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology32, 2 (March 1996), 129–152. doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.0006

    arXiv 1996

  47. [47]

    Anita Williams Woolley, Ishani Aggarwal, and Thomas W Malone. 2015. Col- lective intelligence and group performance.Current Directions in Psychological Science24, 6 (2015), 420–424

    2015

  48. [48]

    Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada Hashmi, and Thomas W Malone. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups.science330, 6004 (2010), 686–688

    2010

  49. [49]

    Chow, Anna T

    Anita Williams Woolley, Rosalind M. Chow, Anna T. Mayo, Christoph Riedl, and Jin Wook Chang. 2023. Collective attention and collective intelligence: The role of hierarchy and team gender composition.Organization Science34, 3 (May 2023), 1315–1331. doi:10.1287/orsc.2022.1602 Publisher: INFORMS

    arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Stefan Wuchty, Benjamin F Jones, and Brian Uzzi. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge.Science316, 5827 (2007), 1036–1039

    2007

  51. [51]

    Eadeh, Thuy-Ngoc Nguyen, Pranav Gupta, Henny Admoni, Cleotilde Gonzalez, and Anita Williams Woolley

    Michelle Zhao, Fade R. Eadeh, Thuy-Ngoc Nguyen, Pranav Gupta, Henny Admoni, Cleotilde Gonzalez, and Anita Williams Woolley. 2023. Teaching agents to understand teamwork: Evaluating and predicting collective intelligence as a latent variable via Hidden Markov Models.Computers in Human Behavior139 (2023), 107524. A Team Minimap Instructions The following in...

    2023

  52. [2007]

    Team knowledge and coordination in geographically distributed software development.Journal of management information systems24, 1 (2007), 135–169

    2007

  53. [2008]

    Academy of management review33, 1 (2008), 163–184

    Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge–based approach. Academy of management review33, 1 (2008), 163–184

    2008

  54. [2013]

    Interactive team cognition.Cognitive science37, 2 (2013), 255–285

    2013

  55. [2014]

    CI’2025, 2025, CA, USA Nguyen et al

    Sensing spatial and temporal coordination in teams using the smartphone. CI’2025, 2025, CA, USA Nguyen et al. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences4, 1 (Sept. 2014), 15. doi:10. 1186/s13673-014-0015-9

    2025

  56. [2016]

    Implicit coordination strategies for effective team communication.Human factors58, 4 (2016), 595–610

    2016

  57. [2019]

    doi:10.1177/2041386619869972 Publisher: SAGE Publications

    Building team effectiveness through adaptation: Team knowledge and implicit and explicit coordination.Organizational Psychology Review9, 2-3 (May 2019), 71–98. doi:10.1177/2041386619869972 Publisher: SAGE Publications

    work page doi:10.1177/2041386619869972 2019