Relaxing Mixed-Criticality Scheduling Strictness for Task Sets Scheduled with FP

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francois Santy ◽  
Laurent George ◽  
Philippe Thierry ◽  
Joel Goossens
Keyword(s):  
Task Sets ◽  
Mixed Criticality

On the Scheduling of Mixed-Criticality Real-Time Task Sets

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dionisio de Niz ◽  
Karthik Lakshmanan ◽  
Ragunathan Rajkumar
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Time Task ◽  
Task Sets ◽  
Mixed Criticality

The Involuntary Capture of Attention by Sound

2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrice B. R. Parmentier ◽  
Pilar Andrés
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Mismatch Negativity ◽  
Visual Task ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Auditory Oddball ◽  
Current Trial ◽  
Electrophysiological Responses ◽  
Electrophysiological Studies ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Task Sets

The presentation of auditory oddball stimuli (novels) among otherwise repeated sounds (standards) triggers a well-identified chain of electrophysiological responses: The detection of acoustic change (mismatch negativity), the involuntary orientation of attention to (P3a) and its reorientation from the novel. Behaviorally, novels reduce performance in an unrelated visual task (novelty distraction). Past studies of the cross-modal capture of attention by acoustic novelty have typically discarded from their analysis the data from the standard trials immediately following a novel, despite some evidence in mono-modal oddball tasks of distraction extending beyond the presentation of deviants/novels (postnovelty distraction). The present study measured novelty and postnovelty distraction and examined the hypothesis that both types of distraction may be underpinned by common frontally-related processes by comparing young and older adults. Our data establish that novels delayed responses not only on the current trial and but also on the subsequent standard trial. Both of these effects increased with age. We argue that both types of distraction relate to the reconfiguration of task-sets and discuss this contention in relation to recent electrophysiological studies.

Task sets are modality specific

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Stephen ◽  
I. Koch
Keyword(s):  
Task Sets

Is technological change a devourer of jobs?

2017 ◽  
pp. 111-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Kapeliushnikov
Keyword(s):  
Technological Change ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Employment Growth ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Employment Effects ◽  
Technological Unemployment ◽  
Micro Level ◽  
Task Sets ◽  
The Impact

The paper provides a critical analysis of the idea of technological unemployment. The overview of the existing literature on the employment effects of technological change shows that on the micro-level there exists strong and positive relationship between innovations and employment growth in firms; on the sectoral level this correlation becomes ambiguous; on the macro-level the impact of new technologies seems to be positive or neutral. This implies that fears of explosive growth of technological unemployment in the foreseeable future are exaggerated. Our analysis further suggests that new technologies affect mostly the structure of employment rather than its level. Additionally we argue that automation and digitalisation would change mostly task sets within particular occupations rather than distribution of workers by occupations.

Task-order representations in dual tasks: Separate or integrated with component task sets?

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110184
Author(s):  
Lynn Huestegge ◽  
Mareike A Hoffmann ◽  
Tilo Strobach
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Order ◽  
Spatial Task ◽  
Task Characteristics ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Task Order ◽  
Order Task ◽  
Component Task ◽  
Specific Manner ◽  
Oculomotor Responses ◽  
Task Sets

In situations requiring the execution of two tasks at around the same time, we need to decide which of the tasks should be executed first. Previous research has revealed several factors that affect the outcome of such response order control processes, including bottom-up factors (e.g., the temporal order of the stimuli associated with the two tasks) and top-down factors (e.g., instructions). In addition, it has been shown that tasks associated with certain response modalities are preferably executed first (e.g., temporal prioritisation of tasks involving oculomotor responses). In this study, we focused on a situation in which task order has to be unpredictably switched from trial to trial and asked whether task-order representations are coded separately or integrated with the component task sets (i.e., in a task-specific manner). Across three experiments, we combined two tasks known to differ in prioritisation, namely an oculomotor and a manual (or pedal) task. The results indicated robust task-order switch costs (i.e., longer RTs when task order was switched vs. repeated). Importantly, the data demonstrate that it is possible to show an asymmetry of task-order switch costs: While these costs were of similar size for both task orders in one particular experimental setting with specific spatial task characteristics, two experiments consistently indicated that it was easier for participants to switch to their prioritised task order (i.e., to execute the dominant oculomotor task first). This suggests that in a situation requiring frequent task-order switches (indicated by unpredictable changes in stimulus order), task order is represented in an integrated, task-specific manner, bound to characteristics (here, associated effector systems) of the component tasks.

scholarly journals EXPRESS: When Two Actors Perform Different Tasks: Still No Evidence for Shared Task-Sets in Joint Task Switching

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110315
Author(s):  
Motonori Yamaguchi ◽  
Husnain H. Shah ◽  
Bernhard Hommel
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
The Other ◽  
Shared Task ◽  
Joint Condition ◽  
Task Instructions ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Joint Task ◽  
Task Sets ◽  
Rule Out

Two different variations of joint task switching led to different conclusions as to whether co-acting individuals share the same task-sets. The present study aimed at bridging this gap by replicating the version in which two actors performed two different tasks. Experiment 1 showed switch costs across two actors in a joint condition, which agreed with previous studies, but also yielded even larger switch costs in a solo condition, which contradicted the claim that actors represent an alternative task as their own when it is carried out by the co-actor but not when no one carries it out. Experiments 2 and 3 further examined switch costs in the solo condition with the aim to rule out possible influences of task instructions for and experiences with the other task that was not assigned to the actor. Before participants were instructed on the second of the two tasks, switch costs were still obtained without a co-actor when explicit task names (“COLOUR” and “SHAPE”) served as go/nogo signals (Experiment 2), but not when arbitrary symbols (“XXXX” and “​​​​”) served as go/nogo signals (Experiment 3). The results thus imply that switch costs depend on participants’ knowledge of task cues being assigned to two different tasks, but not on whether the other task is performed by a co-actor. These findings undermine the assumption that switch costs in the joint conditions reflect shared task-sets between co-actors in this procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document