scholarly journals Towards a Robot Task Ontology Standard

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Balakirsky ◽  
Craig Schlenoff ◽  
Sandro Rama Fiorini ◽  
Signe Redfield ◽  
Marcos Barreto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Task Structure ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Task Representation ◽  
Initial Development ◽  
Robot Task ◽  
Robot Tasks ◽  
Task Types ◽  
Task Ontology ◽  
Task Structures ◽  
And Task

Ontologies serve robotics in many ways, particularly in describing and driving autonomous functions. These functions are built around robot tasks. In this paper, we introduce the IEEE Robot Task Representation Study Group, including its work plan, initial development efforts, and proposed use cases. This effort aims to develop a standard that provides a comprehensive ontology encompassing robot task structures and reasoning across robotic domains, addressing both the relationships between tasks and platforms and the relationships between tasks and users. Its goal is to develop a knowledge representation that addresses task structure, with decomposition into subclasses, categories, and/or relations. It includes attributes, both common across tasks and specific to particular tasks and task types.

Learning from feedback: Effects of task information and task structure

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben R. Newell ◽  
Nicola J. Weston ◽  
Richard Tunney ◽  
David R. Shanks
Keyword(s):  
Task Structure ◽  
Feedback Effects ◽  
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.

Assessing pragmatic competence in oral proficiency interviews at the C1 level with the new CEFR descriptors

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-121
Author(s):  
Bárbara Eizaga-Rebollar ◽  
Cristina Heras-Ramírez
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Oral Proficiency ◽  
Pragmatic Competence ◽  
Task Characteristics ◽  
The Common ◽  
Task Descriptions ◽  
Oral Proficiency Interviews ◽  
Task Types ◽  
And Task

AbstractThe study of pragmatic competence has gained increasing importance within second language assessment over the last three decades. However, its study in L2 language testing is still scarce. The aim of this paper is to research the extent to which pragmatic competence as defined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has been accommodated in the task descriptions and rating scales of two of the most popular Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPIs) at a C1 level: Cambridge’s Certificate in Advanced English (CAE) and Trinity’s Integrated Skills in English (ISE) III. To carry out this research, OPI tests are first defined, highlighting their differences from L2 pragmatic tests. After pragmatic competence in the CEFR is examined, focusing on the updates in the new descriptors, CAE and ISE III formats, structure and task characteristics are compared, showing that, while the formats and some characteristics are found to differ, the structures and task types are comparable. Finally, we systematically analyse CEFR pragmatic competence in the task skills and rating scale descriptors of both OPIs. The findings show that the task descriptions incorporate mostly aspects of discourse and design competence. Additionally, we find that each OPI is seen to prioritise different aspects of pragmatic competence within their rating scale, with CAE focusing mostly on discourse competence and fluency, and ISE III on functional competence. Our study shows that the tests fail to fully accommodate all aspects of pragmatic competence in the task skills and rating scales, although the aspects they do incorporate follow the CEFR descriptors on pragmatic competence. It also reveals a mismatch between the task competences being tested and the rating scale. To conclude, some research lines are proposed.

scholarly journals Effects of stimulus and task structure on temporal perceptual learning

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rannie Xu ◽  
Russell M. Church ◽  
Yuka Sasaki ◽  
Takeo Watanabe
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Performance ◽  
Task Structure ◽  
Comparison Task ◽  
Interval Representation ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Temporal Intervals ◽  
Context Specific ◽  
Temporal Learning ◽  
And Task

AbstractOur ability to discriminate temporal intervals can be improved with practice. This learning is generally thought to reflect an enhancement in the representation of a trained interval, which leads to interval-specific improvements in temporal discrimination. In the present study, we asked whether temporal learning is further constrained by context-specific factors dictated through the trained stimulus and task structure. Two groups of participants were trained using a single-interval auditory discrimination task over 5 days. Training intervals were either one of eight predetermined values (FI group), or random from trial to trial (RI group). Before and after the training period, we measured discrimination performance using an untrained two-interval temporal comparison task. Our results revealed a selective improvement in the FI group, but not the RI group. However, this learning did not generalize between the trained and untrained tasks. These results highlight the sensitivity of TPL to stimulus and task structure, suggesting that mechanisms of temporal learning rely on processes beyond changes in interval representation.

The Effect of Processing Code, Response Modality and Task Difficulty on Dual Task Performance and Subjective Workload in a Manual System

1987 ◽  
Vol 31 (7) ◽  
pp. 847-851 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yili Liu ◽  
Christopher D. Wickens
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Dual Task ◽  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Task Structure ◽  
Time Sharing ◽  
Multiple Resources ◽  
Response Modality ◽  
Dual Task Performance ◽  
Processing Resources ◽  
And Task

We report here the first experiment of a series studying the effect of task structure and difficulty demand on time-sharing performance and workload in both automated and corresponding manual systems. The experimental task involves manual control time-shared with spatial and verbal decisions tasks of two levels of difficulty and two modes of response (voice or manual). The results provide strong evidence that tasks and processes competing for common processing resources are time shared less effectively and have higher workload than tasks competing for separate resources. Subjective measures and the structure of multiple resources are used in conjunction to predict dual task performance. The evidence comes from both single task and from dual task performance.

scholarly journals Post-Reading Comprehension Questions and Task Types in Vision: A Locally Developed Textbook for Teaching English as a Foreign Language

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mavadat Saidi ◽  
Nilufar Karami ◽  
Morteza Marooy
Keyword(s):  
Reading Comprehension ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Reading Skills ◽  
Kappa Coefficient ◽  
Dominant Type ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Explicit Content ◽  
Task Types ◽  
And Task

Abstract Responding to the call for perusing the post-reading comprehension questions in various EFL textbooks, the current study aimed to investigate the post-reading comprehension questions and task types in the Vision series including three student books and their accompanying workbooks in light of Freeman’s (2014) taxonomy. Following a descriptive content analysis procedure, the post-reading comprehension questions in each student books and its accompanying workbook were categorized and counted by the researchers and the Kappa coefficient was 0.97. The results revealed that Content questions were the most dominant type in all the student books and workbooks except for Vision 3 in which Language questions were the most frequent of all. The results also showed that the highest frequency of post-reading comprehension questions belonged to Explicit (Content) and Form (Language) in student books and Explicit and Implicit (Content), Form (Language), and Personal Response (Affect) in workbooks. The results of Kruskal Wallis test of independent samples indicated a significant difference in terms of Affect type across the student books and workbooks of Vision series. The findings raise the EFL material developers’ awareness of the existing post-reading comprehension questions and tasks to enhance the quality of reading sections of EFL textbooks. The results also help the teachers to supplement the books with the missing types and take a comprehensive approach to developing the learners’ reading skills.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document