4.7 Article

Cross-recurrence quantification analysis of categorical and continuous time series: an R package

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00510

Keywords

cross-recurrence analysis; cognitive dynamics; methodology comparison; behavioral data; R library

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper describes the R package crqa to perform cross-recurrence quantification analysis of two time series of either a categorical or continuous nature. Streams of behavioral information, from eye movements to linguistic elements, unfold over time. When two people interact, such as in conversation, they often adapt to each other, leading these behavioral levels to exhibit recurrent states. In dialog, for example, interlocutors adapt to each other by exchanging interactive cues: smiles, nods, gestures, choice of words, and so on. In order for us to capture closely the goings-on of dynamic interaction, and uncover the extent of coupling between two individuals, we need to quantify how much recurrence is taking place at these levels. Methods available in crqa would allow researchers in cognitive science to pose such questions as how much are two people recurrent at some level of analysis, what is the characteristic lag time for one person to maximally match another, or whether one person is leading another. First, we set the theoretical ground to understand the difference between correlation and co-visitation when comparing two time series, using an aggregative or cross-recurrence approach. Then, we describe more formally the principles of cross-recurrence, and show with the current package how to carry out analyse sapplyingthem. We end the paper by comparing computational efficiency, and results'consistency, of crqa R package, with the benchmark MATLAB toolbox (Marwen, 2013). We show perfect comparability between the two libraries on both levels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available