Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The use of two cusp catastrophe models has been effective for untangling the effects of cognitive workload, fatigue, and other complications on the performance of individuals. This study is the first to use the two models to separate workload and fatigue effects on team performance. In an experiment involving an emergency response simulation, 360 undergraduates were organized into 44 teams. Workload was varied by team size, number of opponents, and time pressure. The cusp models for workload and fatigue were more accurate for describing trends in team performance criteria compared to linear alternatives. Individual differences in elasticity-rigidity were less important than subjective workload and experimental conditions as control variables. Fluid intelligence within the team was an important compensatory ability in the fatigue model. Results further supported the nonlinear paradigm for the assessment of cognitive workload and fatigue and demonstrated its effectiveness for understanding team phenomena.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.019 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!