↓ Skip to main content

Measuring group synchrony: a cluster-phase method for analyzing multivariate movement time-series

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measuring group synchrony: a cluster-phase method for analyzing multivariate movement time-series
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2012.00405
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J. Richardson, Randi L. Garcia, Till D. Frank, Madison Gergor, Kerry L. Marsh

Abstract

A new method for assessing group synchrony is introduced as being potentially useful for objectively determining degree of group cohesiveness or entitativity. The cluster-phase method of Frank and Richardson (2010) was used to analyze movement data from the rocking chair movements of six-member groups who rocked their chairs while seated in a circle facing the center. In some trials group members had no information about others' movements (their eyes were shut) or they had their eyes open and gazed at a marker in the center of the group. As predicted, the group level synchrony measure was able to distinguish between situations where synchrony would have been possible and situations where it would be impossible. Moreover, other aspects of the analysis illustrated how the cluster phase measures can be used to determine the type of patterning of group synchrony, and, when integrated with multi-level modeling, can be used to examine individual-level differences in synchrony and dyadic level synchrony as well.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 145 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 26%
Researcher 27 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Master 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 24 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 30%
Engineering 16 11%
Sports and Recreations 8 5%
Computer Science 8 5%
Neuroscience 6 4%
Other 30 20%
Unknown 36 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 February 2021.
All research outputs
#14,735,403
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#5,629
of 13,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,241
of 244,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#140
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,472 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.