The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cross-recurrence quantification analysis of categorical and continuous time series: an R package
Open accessAbstract
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 dialogue, 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 analyses applying them. We end the paper by comparing computational efficiency, and results’ consistency, of crqa R package, with the benchmark MATLAB toolbox crptoolbox (Marwan, 2013). We show perfect comparability between the two libraries on both levels.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Recurrence plots for the analysis of complex systems
MARWAN, N., CARMENROMANO, M., THIEL, M., & KURTHS, J. (2007) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2006.11.001 · Cited by 3,814
The unbearable automaticity of being
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.7.462 · Cited by 3,699 · cited 8×
“, by correlating frequencies of occurrences of a certain behavior (Bargh and Chartrand, 1999). In language science, the aggregative approach has been the most prominent, where alignment has been measured as the number of common linguistic structures (e.g., lexical, syntactic) used by two interlocutors engaged in a com…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRecurrence Plots of Dynamical Systems
Eckmann, J.-P., Kamphorst, S. O., & Ruelle, D. (1987) · Europhysics Letters (EPL) · doi:10.1209/0295-5075/4/9/004 · Cited by 3,284
Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000056 · Cited by 2,678
Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation.
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.22.6.1482 · Cited by 1,457
Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511527685 · Cited by 1,439
Embeddings and delays as derived from quantification of recurrence plots
Zbilut, J. P., & Webber, C. L. (1992) · Physics Letters A · doi:10.1016/0375-9601(92)90426-m · Cited by 1,114
Sequential Analysis and Observational Methods for the Behavioral Sciences
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139017343 · Cited by 841
Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation.
Shockley, K., Santana, M.-V., & Fowler, C. A. (2003) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.326 · Cited by 681
Richardson, D. C., & Dale, R. (2005) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_29 · Cited by 641
Self-citation
Cited by
Complex Systems Research in Educational Psychology: Aligning Theory and Method
Hilpert, J. C., & Marchand, G. C. (2018) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2018.1469411 · Cited by 325
Wallot, S., Roepstorff, A., & Mønster, D. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01835 · Cited by 140
Nguyen, T., Abney, D. H., Salamander, D., Bertenthal, B. I., & Hoehl, S. (2021) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118599 · Cited by 104
Vicary, S., Sperling, M., von Zimmermann, J., Richardson, D. C., & Orgs, G. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0180101 · Cited by 102
The Choreography of Group Affiliation
von Zimmermann, J., Vicary, S., Sperling, M., Orgs, G., & Richardson, D. C. (2018) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12320 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Coco, M. I., & Dale, R.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2014-06-27
- Volume
- 5
- ISSN
- 1664-1078
- OpenAlex
- W2963446008
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 8.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cross-recurrence quantification analysis of categorical and continuous time series: an R package. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00510
- The paper
- Coco, M. I., & Dale, R. (2014). Cross-recurrence quantification analysis of categorical and continuous time series: an R package. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00510
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.