Figures
7.1An adult female mandrill grooms an adult male at the Centre International de Recherches Médicales, Franceville, Gabon.
7.2The scientific method, as applied to the study of animal interactions.
7.3An adult male mandrill at the Centre International de Recherches Médicales, Franceville, Gabon, showing the “grin” face.
9.1The effect of the research construct on decisions regarding interaction coding.
9.3Examples of coding techniques based on level of granularity of the observation and level of concreteness of the construct.
13.1Screenshot of the INTERACT software by Mangold International GmbH.
13.2Screenshot of the Observer XT software by Noldus Information Technology.
13.4Screenshot of the Eudico Linguistic Annotator software by the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
13.5Screenshot of the f4 software by Dr. Dresing & Pehl GmbH.
13.7Screenshot of the ATLAS.ti software by Scientific Software Development GmbH.
13.9Decision tree for choosing software for interaction coding and analyzing.
14.2Participants working at interactive tabletop (Experiment 1).
14.3Frequency pie chart. Note: This figure was created with R package ggplot2 (Wickham, 2006).
14.6Density plot of participants’ interaction at the interactive tabletop during the brainstorming task.
14.7Heatmap of participants’ interaction at the interactive tabletop during the brainstorming task.
14.8Visualization of the amount of interaction on the tabletop during the brainstorming task.
16.1Point on a discrete scale where lengths of unit intervals represent the time distances between consecutive ticks of a clock.
16.4Quantitative selection of patterns by narrowing the current value ranges.
16.5Qualitative selection of patterns according to their behavioral content and order of appearance.
16.6Structural selection of patterns based on pattern occurrence.
16.7Two toddlers playing with a picture viewer and exchanging it freely under a transparent acrylic wall separating them.
16.10Patterns found under the two randomizations (pyramids=shuffled, upwards arrow=rotated).
16.15Data points for 16 (8 + 8) dyadic children’s puzzle solving interactions separated by vertical dotted lines.
16.16Example of patterns that occurred significantly more often in the first eight dyads with a simple task.
18.2Movement between bevels in Murase et al.’s (2015) analysis.
20.2Example of visualized scenario structuring for a high (A) and a low (B) performing team.
20.3Example of visualization of macrocognition phases for a high (A) and a low (B) performing team.
27.1Conflict coding and an example of a contingent code (Affect)
31.1Co-ACT. Framework for observing coordination behavior in acute care teams.