In high-stakes environments like Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) operations, effective verbal team communication is critical yet often hindered by environmental noise. This study explores how verbal communication and real-time gaze sharing—visualizing a teammate’s gaze through fixation trails—affects team performance. Twenty-four two-person teams completed simulated UAV tasks under three conditions: no gaze sharing with communication, gaze sharing only, and both gaze sharing and communication. Results revealed that combining gaze sharing with communication significantly improved team performance and reduced mental workload. This combination also improved visual attention strategies, as evidenced by reduced saccadic activity and more stable fixations. Participants also reported improved shared awareness and coordination. These findings underscore the complementary benefits of integrating verbal and non-verbal communication tools. By highlighting the value of gaze sharing in complex team settings, this work informs the design of adaptive interfaces that support collaborative decision-making and shared awareness in operationally demanding environments.
AtwehJ. A.HazimehR.RiggsS. L. (2023). Can real-time gaze sharing help team collaboration? A preliminary examination of its effectiveness with Pairs. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 67(1), 716–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/21695067231193659
2.
AtwehJ. A.HayekJ. A.RiggsS. L. (2023). Quantifying visual attention of teams during workload transitions using AOI-based cross-recurrence metrics. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 67(1), 1882–1887. https://doi.org/10.1177/21695067231193683
3.
AtwehJ. A.MoacdiehN. M.RiggsS. L. (2022). Identifying individual-, team-, and organizational-level factors that affect team performance in complex domains based on recent literature. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 66(1), 1795–1799. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181322661213
4.
AtwehJ. A.RiggsS. L. (2024a). Gaze sharing, a double-edged sword: Examining the effect of real-time gaze sharing visualizations on team performance and situation awareness. Human Factors, 67(3), 196–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208241272060
5.
AtwehJ. A.RiggsS. L. (2024b). ScanMatch versus MultiMatch: A comparison of the sensitivity of scanpath similarity metrics to changes in workload. In 2024 systems and information engineering design symposium (SIEDS) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIEDS61124.2024.10534720
6.
AtwehJ. A.RiggsS. L. (2025a). Display design shapes how eye tracking, workload, and situation awareness predict team performance. In 2025 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS). https://doi.org/10.1109/SIEDS65500.2025.11021203
7.
AtwehJ.RiggsS. L. (2025b). Quantifying collaborative strategies and identifying performance breakdowns of UAV C2 teams using multidimensional cross-recurrence quantification analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5119475
8.
AtwehJ.RiggsS. L. (2025c). Predicting mental demand of teammates using eye tracking metrics: A machine learning approach. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM symposium on eye tracking research & applications (ETRA ’25) (pp. 1–3). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715669.3726802
9.
AtwehJ. A.TabbaraI.NasrallahG.RiggsS. L. (2024). Reducing barriers in analyzing eye tracking data: The development of a GUI to preprocess eye tracking data. In Proceedings of the 2024 systems and information engineering design symposium (SIEDS) (pp. 286–291). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIEDS61124.2024.10534671
10.
BakerA. L.FitzhughS. M.HuangL.ForsterD. E.ScharineA.NeubauerC.LemattaG.BhattiS.JohnsonC. J.KrausmanA.HolderESchaeferK. E.CookeN. J. (2021). Approaches for assessing communication in human-autonomy teams. Human-Intelligent Systems Integration, 3(2), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42454-021-00026-2
11.
BoltonM. L.BiltekoffE.HumphreyL. (2023). The mathematical meaninglessness of the NASA task load index: A level of measurement analysis. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 53(3), 590–599. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2023.3263482
12.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE.ConverseS. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In CastellanJrN. J. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221–246). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
CummingsM. L.GuerlainS. (2007). Developing operator capacity estimates for supervisory control of autonomous vehicles. Human Factors, 49(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007779598109
14.
D’AngeloS.SchneiderB. (2021). Shared gaze visualizations in collaborative interactions: Past, present and future. Interacting with Computers, 33(2), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwcomp/iwab015
15.
DuanT.PunpongsanonP.JiaS.IwaiD.SatoK.PlataniotisK. N. (2019). Remote environment exploration with drone agent and haptic force feedback. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on artificial intelligence and virtual reality (ICAIV) (pp. 167–1673). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIVR46125.2019.00034
16.
FeitshansG.RoweA.DavisJ.HollandM.BergerL. (2008, August18). Vigilant Spirit Control Station (VSCS): The face of COUNTER. In AIAA guidance, navigation and control conference and exhibit. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-6309
17.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Advances in psychology: Human mental workload (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
18.
MaoR.LiG.HildreH. P.ZhangH. (2021). A survey of eye tracking in automobile and aviation studies: Implications for eye tracking studies in marine operations. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 51(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3053196
19.
McCarleyJ. S.LeggettN.EnrightA. (2021). Shared gaze fails to improve team visual monitoring. Human Factors, 63(4), 696–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820902347
20.
NawazH.AliH. M.LaghariA. A. (2021). UAV communication networks issues: A review. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 28(3), 1349–1369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-020-09418-0
21.
NewnJ.VellosoE.AllisonF.AbdelrahmanY.VetereF. (2017, October). Evaluating real-time gaze representations to infer intentions in competitive turn-based strategy games. In Proceedings of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play (pp. 541–552). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3116595.3116624
22.
NyströmM.HolmqvistK. (2010). An adaptive algorithm for fixation, saccade, and glissade detection in eye tracking data. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 188–204. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.188
23.
PooleA.BallL. J. (2006). Eye tracking in HCI and usability research. In GhaouiC. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human computer interaction (pp.211–219).IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-562-7.ch034
24.
SungG.FengT.SchneiderB. (2021). Learners learn more and instructors track better with real-time gaze sharing. Proceedings of theACM on human-computer interaction, 5(CSCW1) (pp. 1–23). Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/3449208
25.
ZhangY.PfeufferK.ChongM. K.AlexanderJ.BullingA.GellersenH. (2017). Look together: Using gaze for assisting co-located collaborative search. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 21(1), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-016-0969-x
