Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Large Language Model”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

218 records · Page 13

Navigating Team Dynamics: Automated Detection of Micro-Behaviors Between Team Members Through Longitudinal Interaction Data

The success in future long term space exploration missions will depend on the cooperation, coordination, and mutual understanding among the crew members. Micro-behaviors are momentary, subtle linguistic and paralinguistic indicators of thinking and feeling toward another member of the team (Cortina et al., 2001; Smith & Griffiths, 2022) that can significantly impact team dynamics and influence the overall team performance (Paromita & Chaspari, 2024). Due to their interactive nature, micro-behaviors have a sender (i.e., the team member expressing the micro-behavior) and a target (the team member impacted by the micro-behavior). Detection of these behaviors can assist in avoiding possible conflict among crew members and promoting the overall team success. Our prior research focused on an initial proof of concept of machine learning (ML) models and natural language processing (NLP) techniques that were used for automatically detect micro-behaviors among crew members of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Campaigns 4 and 5 missions (Paromita et al., 2023). Results underscored the importance of incorporating contextual information in the ML models in the form of sentiment analysis, type of task, and dyadic interaction among team members. Here, we expand the scope of our prior work in two ways. First, we assess ML/NLP methods on new behavioral annotations coded using an adapted version of Smith & Griffins (2022) theoretical framework in terms of Violation (i.e., presence of valenced behavior, uplifting/positive or discouraging/negative), Intensity (i.e., force of behavior in terms of how uplifting or discouraging is the behavior), and Intent (i.e., motive of the behavior in terms of whether it was deliberate or unintentional). Second, we expand the design of the ML model to preserve information about the role of each team member within the occurrence of the micro-behavior (in contrast to the previous model that only considered the sender and the target without determining the team member role). This allows to consider all team members' contributions in the conversation and model long-term dependencies in the dialogue. Our experiments for this study are conducted on data from 5 teams of the NASA HERA C4 (NASA grant NNX16AQ48G (PI: Bell)). Conversations were extracted from the 1.5 hour Team Interaction Battery (TIB) task that occurred 5 times in-mission per crew. This resulted in a total of 13,058 conversational turns (i.e., 17.8% uplifting, 3.3% discouraging, 75.76% neutral, 3.14% nulls). Our findings with the revised behavioral coding and ML/NLP models indicate a 43.66% macro F1-score (i.e., 38.29% precision (P), 50.8% recall (R)) for a dialog state-tracking model that includes information from the sender only, and a 40.9% F1-score (i.e., 38.7% P, 43.36% R) for the same model that includes information from both the sender and the target of the micro-behavior. These are significantly higher compared to simple random forest models that classify behaviors strictly based on speech content and do not consider iterative team dynamics, achieving a 36.07% F1-score (i.e., 39.04% R, 33.53% P). Our findings demonstrate potential ways to leverage large conversational datasets to better capture complex team dynamics. We will discuss future directions including proposed models that can incorporate additional mission days and tasks beyond the TIB for objectively quantifying team behavior at high temporal resolution in space exploration missions.

Projna Paromita↗

On the nature and evolution of the neural bases of human language

The traditional theory equating the brain bases of language with Broca's and Wernicke's neocortical areas is wrong. Neural circuits linking activity in anatomically segregated populations of neurons in subcortical structures and the neocortex throughout the human brain regulate complex behaviors such as walking, talking, and comprehending the meaning of sentences. When we hear or read a word, neural structures involved in the perception or real-world associations of the word are activated as well as posterior cortical regions adjacent to Wernicke's area. Many areas of the neocortex and subcortical structures support the cortical-striatal-cortical circuits that confer complex syntactic ability, speech production, and a large vocabulary. However, many of these structures also form part of the neural circuits regulating other aspects of behavior. For example, the basal ganglia, which regulate motor control, are also crucial elements in the circuits that confer human linguistic ability and abstract reasoning. The cerebellum, traditionally associated with motor control, is active in motor learning. The basal ganglia are also key elements in reward-based learning. Data from studies of Broca's aphasia, Parkinson's disease, hypoxia, focal brain damage, and a genetically transmitted brain anomaly (the putative "language gene," family KE), and from comparative studies of the brains and behavior of other species, demonstrate that the basal ganglia sequence the discrete elements that constitute a complete motor act, syntactic process, or thought process. Imaging studies of intact human subjects and electrophysiologic and tracer studies of the brains and behavior of other species confirm these findings. As Dobzansky put it, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (cited in Mayr, 1982). That applies with as much force to the human brain and the neural bases of language as it does to the human foot or jaw. The converse follows: the mark of evolution on the brains of human beings and other species provides insight into the evolution of the brain bases of human language. The neural substrate that regulated motor control in the common ancestor of apes and humans most likely was modified to enhance cognitive and linguistic ability. Speech communication played a central role in this process. However, the process that ultimately resulted in the human brain may have started when our earliest hominid ancestors began to walk.

Review, Tutorial↗