Evolutionary Swarm Robotics: Genetic Diversity, Task-Allocation and Task-Switching

2014 ◽  
pp. 98-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elio Tuci
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Diversity ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Task Allocation ◽  
Swarm Robotics ◽  
Evolutionary Swarm Robotics ◽  
And Task

Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research.

2018 ◽  
Vol 144 (6) ◽  
pp. 557-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iring Koch ◽  
Edita Poljac ◽  
Hermann Müller ◽  
Andrea Kiesel
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Dual Task ◽  
Cognitive Structure ◽  
Integrative Review ◽  
Structure Flexibility ◽  
And Task

Congruency of cue and task transitions in task switching

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Vandierendonck ◽  
B. Liefooghe
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
And Task

Congruency of Cue Transitions and Task Transition in Task Switching

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Vandierendonck ◽  
Baptist Liefooghe
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Task Transition ◽  
And Task

Division of labor

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phanish Puranam
Keyword(s):  
Division Of Labor ◽  
Task Allocation ◽  
Task Structure ◽  
Heuristic Approaches ◽  
Object Based ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Task Division ◽  
And Task

Division of labor involves task division and task allocation. An extremely important consequence of task division and allocation is the creation of interdependence between agents. In fact, division of labor can be seen as a process that converts interdependence between tasks into interdependence between agents. While there are many ways in which the task structure can be chunked and divided among agents, two important heuristic approaches involve division of labor by activity vs. object. I show that a choice between these two forms of division of labor only arises when the task structure is non-decomposable, but the product itself is decomposable. When the choice arises, a key criterion for selection between activity vs. object-based division of labor is the gain from specialization relative to the gain from customization.

scholarly journals No-go trials in task switching: effects on the task-set and task-space level

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliane Scheil ◽  
Thomas Kleinsorge
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
The Other ◽  
Specific Task ◽  
Task Space ◽  
Response Level ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Common Marker ◽  
Task Sets ◽  
And Task

AbstractA common marker for inhibition processes in task switching are n − 2 repetition costs. The present study aimed at elucidating effects of no-go trials on n − 2 repetition costs. In contrast to the previous studies, no-go trials were associated with only one of the three tasks in the present two experiments. High n − 2 repetition costs occurred if the no-go task had to be executed in trial n − 2, irrespective of whether a response had to be withheld or not. In contrast, no n − 2 repetition costs were visible if the other two tasks were relevant in n − 2. Whereas this n − 2 effect was unaffected by whether participants could reliably exclude a no-go trial or not, effects of no-gos in trial n were determined by this knowledge. The results differ from effects of no-go trials that are not bound to a specific task. It is assumed that the present no-go variation exerted its effect not on the response level, but on the level of task sets, resulting in enhanced salience of the no-go task that leads to higher activation and, as a consequence, to stronger inhibition. The dissociation of the effects on no-gos in trials n − 2 and n as a function of foreknowledge suggests that the balance between activation and inhibition is shifted not only for single trials and tasks, but for the whole task space.

Current Task Activation Predicts General Effects of Advance Preparation in Task Switching

2006 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 260-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edita Poljac ◽  
Ab de Haan ◽  
Gerard P. van Galen
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Shape Matching ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
Task Switch ◽  
Current Task ◽  
Within Subjects ◽  
And Task

Two experiments investigated the way that beforehand preparation influences general task execution in reaction-time matching tasks. Response times (RTs) and error rates were measured for switching and nonswitching conditions in a color- and shape-matching task. The task blocks could repeat (task repetition) or alternate (task switch), and the preparation interval (PI) was manipulated within-subjects (Experiment 1) and between-subjects (Experiment 2). The study illustrated a comparable general task performance after a long PI for both experiments, within and between PI manipulations. After a short PI, however, the general task performance increased significantly for the between-subjects manipulation of the PI. Furthermore, both experiments demonstrated an analogous preparation effect for both task switching and task repetitions. Next, a consistent switch cost throughout the whole run of trials and a within-run slowing effect were observed in both experiments. Altogether, the present study implies that the effects of the advance preparation go beyond the first trials and confirms different points of the activation approach ( Altmann, 2002) to task switching.

Antisaccades and task-switching: interactions in controlled processing

2002 ◽  
Vol 144 (4) ◽  
pp. 528-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariya V. Cherkasova ◽  
Dara S. Manoach ◽  
James M. Intriligator ◽  
Jason J. S. Barton
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Controlled Processing ◽  
And Task
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document