Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Three frameworks have been proposed to account for interpersonal synchronization: The information processing approach argues that synchronization is achieved by mutual adaptation, the coordination dynamics perspective supposes a continuous coupling between systems, and complexity matching suggests a global, multi-scale interaction. We hypothesized that the relevancy of these models was related to the nature of the performed tasks. 10 dyads performed synchronized tapping and synchronized forearm oscillations, in two conditions: (participants had full information about their partner), and (information was limited to discrete auditory signals). Results shows that whatever the task and the available information, synchronization was dominated by a discrete mutual adaptation. These results question the relevancy of the coordination dynamics perspective in interpersonal coordination.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2020.1811629 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!