We evolve artificial agents to perform a simple tracking task in three conditions: one individual (Isolated Condition) and two joint action conditions with division of labor. The joint conditions differ by whether two agents switch complementary roles during the task (Generalist Condition) or always play the same role (Specialist Condition). At the end of evolutionary runs we calculate the agents’ neural complexity using Tononi-Sporns-Edelman (TSE) complexity measure which relates to Integrated Information Theory (IIT). We show that (1) division of labor with specialization leads to a level of neural complexity comparable to the complexity of performing the same task alone, and that (2) both are lower than neural complexity when performing the task jointly with role switching. We further consider viewing collaborating agents as a single extended system and calculate its joint neural complexity. We demonstrate that contrary to our predictions, the same pattern of results, i.e., Generalists’ complexity being higher than Specialists’, holds also in this conceptualization.

In this paper we present a Minimal Cognitive Agent model of a joint action task. Pairs of agents realized as Continuous Time Recurrent Neural Networks are submitted to artificial evolution in the context of a task taken from psychological literature. In this task the agents are required to coordinate their complementary actions in order to jointly control the movement of a tracker and successfully follow a continuously moving target. It has been suggested that such a task requires a more complex type of cognitive mechanism than the types of processes postulated by the proponents of Embodied Embedded Cognition approach. Specifically, it might possibly require that the agents “co-represent” each other's contributions to the common behavior. Our results show that simple agents with no such built-in co-representation mechanism are able to evolve a solution to the task. However, we also find emergent neural activity patterns that are consistent with it. In what sense these patterns can be said to be truly representational requires further study.