How Tasks Help Shape the Neurodynamic Rhythms and Organizations of Teams

  • Ronald Stevens
  • Trysha Galloway
  • Gwendolyn Campbell
  • Chris Berka
  • Pierre Balthazard
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8027)


We have modeled neurophysiologic indicators of Engagement and Workload to determine the influence the task has on the resulting neurodynamic rhythms and organizations of teams. The tasks included submarine piloting and navigation and anti-submarine warfare military simulations, map navigation tasks for high school students and business case discussions for entrepreneurial / corporate teams. The team composition varied from two to six persons and all teams had teamwork experience with the tasks. For each task condition teams developed task-specific neurodynamic rhythms. These task-specific rhythms were present during much of the task but could be interrupted by exogenous or endogenous disturbances to the team or environment. The effects of these disturbances could be rapidly detected by changes in the entropy levels of the team neurodynamics symbol streams. These results suggest the possibility of performing task-specific comparisons of the rhythms and organizations across teams expanding the opportunities for rapid detection of less than successful performances and targeted interventions.


team neurodynamics entropy coordination dynamics rhythms 


  1. 1.
    Gottman, J.M.: Detecting cyclicity in social interaction. Psychological Bulletin 86, 338–348 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashenfelter, K.: Simultaneous analysis of verbal and nonverbal data during conversation: symmetry and turn-taking. Unpublished thesis. University of Notre Dame (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shockley, K., Santana, M.-V., Fowler, C.A.: Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 29(2), 326–332 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gorman, J.C., Amazeen, P.G., Cooke, N.J.: Team coordination dynamics. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences 14, 265–289 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stevens, R.H., Galloway, T., Berka, C., Sprang, M.: Can neurophysiologic synchronies provide a platform for adapting team performance? In: Schmorrow, D.D., Estabrooke, I.V., Grootjen, M. (eds.) FAC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5638, pp. 658–667. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stephens, G., Silbert, L., Hasson, U.: Speaker-listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.,
  7. 7.
    Dumas, G., Nadel, J., Soussignan, R., Martinerie, J., Garnero, L.: Inter-brain synchronization during social interaction. PlosOne 5(8), e12166 (2010), doi:10 1371/journal.pone0012166Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dodel, S., Cohn, J., Mersmann, J., Luu, P., Forsythe, C., Jirsa, V.: Brain signatures of team performance. In: Proceedings HCI International 2011, Orlando, FLA (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berka, C., Levendowski, D.J., Cvetinovic, M.M., Petrovic, M.M., Davis, G., et al.: Real-Time analysis of EEG indexes of alertness, cognition, and memory acquired with a wireless EEG headset. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 17(2), 151–170 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stevens, R.H., Gorman, J.C., Amazeen, P., Likens, A., Galloway, T.: The organizational dynamics of teams. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences 17(1), 67–86 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stevens, R.H., Galloway, T., Wang, P., Berka, C.: Cognitive neurophysiologic synchronies: What can they contribute to the study of teamwork? Human Factors 54, 489–502 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shannon, C., Weaver, W.: The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1949)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kozlowski, S.W.J., Watola, D.J., Nowakowski, J.M., Kim, B.H., Botero, I.C.: Developing adaptive teams: A theory of dynamic team leadership. In: Salas, E., Goodwin, G.F., Burke, C.S. (eds.) Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations: Cross-disciplinary Perspective and Approaches. SIOP Frontier Series. LEA, Mahwah (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Doherty-Sneddon, G., Anderson, A., O’Malley, C., Langton, S., Garrod, S., Bruce, V.: Face-to-face and video-mediated communication: A comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 3(2), 105–125 (1997), doi:10.1037/1076-898X.3.2.105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stevens, R., Galloway, T., Wang, P., Berka, C., Tan, V., Wohlgemuth, T., Lamb, J., Buckles, R.: Modeling the Neurodynamic Complexity of Submarine Navigation Teams. Comput. Math. Organ Theory (2012), doi:10.1007/s10588-012-9135-9Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pless, N., Maak, T.: Levi Strauss & Co: Addressing child labour in Bangladesh. In: Mendenhall, M.E., Oddou, G.R., Stahl, G.K. (eds.) Readings and Cases in International Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior, 5th edn., pp. 446–459. Routledge, London (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stevens, R.H.: Charting neurodynamics eddies in the temporal flows of teamwork. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting (October 2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldstein, J., Hazy, J., Lichtenstein: Complexity and the nexus of leadership. Palgrave, Macmillan (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald Stevens
    • 1
  • Trysha Galloway
    • 1
  • Gwendolyn Campbell
    • 2
  • Chris Berka
    • 3
  • Pierre Balthazard
    • 4
  1. 1.IMMEX/UCLAThe Learning Chameleon, Inc.Los AngelesUSA
  2. 2.NAVAIROrlandoUSA
  3. 3.Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc.CarlsbadUSA
  4. 4.School of BusinessSt. Bonaventure UniversityAlleganyUSA

Personalised recommendations