{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018534119629317607, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003369839932603201, 'mean_word_length': 5.827586206896552, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mental Model Consensus and Shifts During Navigation System-Assisted Route Planning

A major barrier to effective spatial decision-making in human-agent teams is that humans and algorithms use different mechanisms to solve spatial problems, frequently leading them to produce different solutions. Incongruity between algorithm-generated solutions and human spatial mental models results in higher workload in mixed-initiative systems, and potential breakdowns in trust and team situation awareness. Although these performance effects are well-understood, few methods exist for quantifying and comparing human spatial mental models and algorithm-generated solutions. To address these problems, 27 participants completed solutions to 5 spatial planning problems, before and after receiving assistance from 2 navigation algorithms. A novel path mapping and clustering approach provided a means of quantifying consensus in human mental models, and shifts in those mental models after viewing the algorithm-suggested routes. Human solutions clustered into a small number of shared mental models. Individual differences in trust in each algorithm predicted acceptance of that algorithm’s route.