Evolutionary Understanding of the Conditions Leading to Estimation of Behavioral Properties through System Dynamics

Chulwook Park

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Evolutionary Understanding of the Conditions Leading to Estimation of Behavioral Properties through System Dynamics

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single composite function h(x) = m(s(x−1)) is proposed as the common rule estimating behavioral patterns across social, motor, and circadian systems.

desk verdict A vague universal-composite claim that never connects to its own simulations or experiments; the only salvageable piece is the circadian bimanual coordination data, which deserve a proper standalone write-up. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05956 v1 pith:YG3AEWVJ submitted 2019-08-16 math.DS q-bio.NC

Chulwook Park This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DSq-bio.NC MSC 37N2534C1537N99

keywords evolutionarysystemdynamicscollectivestructurecompositefunctionagent-basedmodelingbimanualcoordinationcircadianrhythmentropyproductionsymmetrybreaking

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that complex behavioral systems—social groups of moving agents, coordinated limb movements, and circadian body rhythms—fall under the same estimating rule when a 'fundamental condition' is in place. The paper builds its case through three parallel studies: an agent-based simulation of collective motion, an experiment on bimanual coordination across the day's circadian temperature cycle, and an abstract model that combines these into one composite function. The central claim is that a system's behavior can be identified and predicted from h(x) = m(s(x−1)), where s describes the collective structure and m the measurement. If true, this would give a common mathematical description for behaviors usually modeled separately in social dynamics, motor control, and physiology.

What carries the argument

The central object is the composite function h(x) = m(s(x−1)), built from m (a measurement of a property like mass or behavioral output) and s (the collective structure, defined by C(s), E(s), S(s): component parts, environmental influences, and internal structure). The paper uses this composition to unify three phenomena: relative-velocity maintenance in an agent-based model, coordination dynamics extended with thermal symmetry breaking, and circadian entropy production. The composite is the mechanism claimed to identify and predict the behavioral pattern across these levels.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to take the h(x) = m(s(x−1)) form with m and s fixed to the definitions from one domain (e.g., coordination) and compute the predicted entropy curve over a 24-hour cycle in a non-human thermoregulating system; if the predicted phase of peak entropy differs from the observed phase by more than the circadian measurement error, the claimed universal composition is falsified. Alternatively, a null result in any one domain—for example, agent velocities whose distribution does not follow the m(s(x−1)) form—would undermine the paper's central claim of a common estimating rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central assertion is that behavioral complexity reduces to a rule governed by the composite h(x) = m(s(x−1)), where x is an individual segment, s is the collective structure that captures all parts, environment, and internal organization, and m measures the resulting system property. This expresses that wherever and whenever an evolutionary system is observed, its pattern is estimated by the same composition. The paper claims the approach 'obtains simplicity from complexity' and that once the fundamental condition is met, widely different systems—agents maintaining relative velocity in a simulated group, two limbs coordinating under circadian temperature variation, and body temperature entrainment—display dynamics consistent with this rule.

Load-bearing premise

That the same operators m and s, once defined abstractly, can be applied unchanged to agent velocities, limb relative phases, and body temperature cycles, and that the composite h(x) predicts behavior in all these domains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Behavioral properties of a system could be estimated from the collective structure s and measurement m without modeling every individual interaction.
Social dynamics, bimanual coordination, and circadian physiology would share a single estimating rule, allowing results from one domain to inform the others.
Small changes in the fundamental condition—such as social ties, preferred frequency detuning, or thermal perturbation—would produce diverging or converging system behavior near a critical point.
The approach suggests that prediction depends on the relational structure between segments, not on any single individual's internal state.
A system's long-term behavior could be understood in terms of sensitivity rules (expansion and contraction near orbits) rather than detailed equations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If h(x) = m(s(x−1)) is meant as an identity across scales, a natural test would be to fit m and s to data from one domain (e.g., bimanual relative phase) and use the same operators to predict another (e.g., agent velocity distributions) without re-parametrization, which the paper does not carry out.
The paper's definition of s as the triple (C, E, S) is close to a state-space description; interpreting x−1 as a shift operator or delay coordinate might connect the rule to standard embedding theorems, but the paper does not make this link explicit.
The claimed universality of the composite would imply that a single 'estimating rule' could underly behavioral measurement across domains, which would be testable by checking whether the sensitivity (Lyapunov-type) signature near the critical parameter values appears in all three datasets at the same functional form.
The paper's framing suggests a testable prediction: entropy production in a physical system coupled to a periodic thermal environment should peak at the same phase as the observed behavioral entropy peak (at 5:00) in humans, which the manuscript's figures imply but do not measure in a non-human system.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is not going to become a contribution as written. The central claim h(x)=m(s(x-1)) is a notation, not a result; it is never connected to the simulation or the experiments. You should skip this unless you're tracking the odd fringes of ecological psychology.

What is actually new? The empirical work on bimanual coordination across circadian time points and with thermal perturbation is the only concrete asset. The idea that motor coordination might be modulated by circadian temperature cycles is plausible and worth a proper test. The authors show a main effect of circadian time and an interaction in one of the two thermal manipulation experiments (p<0.043). But the sample is tiny (n=8), the reported degrees of freedom look odd (F(1,3) with eight participants), and the paper drops two-thirds of the collected joint data without a convincing justification. The simulation is a variant of Reynolds flocking with an extra network term; it does not support the universal claim.

The theoretical core is circular. Eq (1) defines m(s) as a triple of properties; Eq (2) composes m and s with an unexplained x−1. The text repeatedly writes m(s(x)) while the equation uses x−1 and never defines that shift. More importantly, m and s are never instantiated for the agent variables or the relative phase/temperature data. With free operators, h(x) represents anything. The closing 'sensitivity' formula is another asserted definition with no derivation. The paper's own caveat—'does not claim to produce a rigid and rigorous definition'—is accurate but serious for a claim of universality.

Who is this for? Possibly people philosophically interested in Rosen's anticipatory systems or Gibsonian affordances, but they will not find a formal payoff. Researchers in motor control or circadian physiology will find no testable predictions and too little methodological detail to evaluate the experiments. The citation pattern is broad but does not rescue the missing derivation.

I would desk reject. There is not enough formal grounding or evidential sharpness to justify referee time. If the author wants to salvage anything, the circadian-bimanual experiment should be written up as a standalone empirical paper with proper statistics and full data. The universal composite model should be dropped or turned into a clearly bounded conjecture.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that a composite function h(x)=m(s(x-1)), with m(s)=<C(s),E(s),S(s)> from Eq. (1), represents the behavior of any evolutionary system, and that this unifies an agent-based simulation of social dynamics (Part 2) with bimanual coordination experiments embedded in circadian temperature cycles (Part 3). The author argues that once fundamental conditions are met, system complexity 'falls into the same rules that are estimating the pattern.' The Supplement provides model details, raw entropy tables, and descriptions of three experiments, each with eight participants, measuring entropy of wrist relative phase across circadian time points and thermal perturbations. The closing remarks introduce a sensitivity measure presented as a Lyapunov-exponent-like quantity.

Significance. If the universality claim in Eq. (2) were established, it would be a substantial unification: one functional form for collective motion, motor coordination, and circadian physiology. The paper draws on respected frameworks (the HKB model, agent-based evolutionary dynamics, Shannon entropy), and the Supplement reports raw entropy tables and protocols, which is a useful degree of transparency. However, the central mathematical claim is asserted rather than derived, and no mapping from the measured variables to m and s is provided, so the claimed unification is not currently testable. Furthermore, the experimental results are too weak to independently support the conclusion, with the key effects reaching significance only in one of three experiments and with a small sample. As it stands, the paper does not deliver a falsifiable model or a quantitative connection among its three domains.

major comments (5)

[Part 4, Eq. (2)] The central equation h(x)=m(s(x-1)) is asserted, not derived. Eq. (1) defines m(s) as a triple <C(s),E(s),S(s)> illustrated with the mass/hammer example, but the manuscript never identifies C, E, or S for the agents in Part 2 or for relative phase and entropy in Part 3; consequently h(x) cannot be computed from either dataset. Moreover, x-1 is never defined, and the surrounding text describes 'inputs the (x) into (s) and gets out (s(x))', i.e., m(s(x)), not m(s(x-1)). As stated, Eq. (2) is unfalsifiable because m and s can be chosen after the fact to reproduce any observed pattern. This invalidates the paper's central claim as a testable statement.
[Supplement 2.3, Tables S5-S10] The experimental evidence does not support the cross-domain claim. In Experiment 1 the main circadian effect on entropy is not significant [F(1,3)=1.074, eta^2=.823, p<0.376], yet the Results section describes a maximum at 5:00 and a minimum at 17:00 as though it were an established pattern. Experiment 2's interaction is not significant at the conventional level [F(1,3)=3.453, p<0.068], and only Experiment 3 reaches p<0.043, with N=8 and no correction for multiple comparisons or for the many dependent measures (wrist, elbow, shoulder; phase shift, variability, entropy) mentioned in the design. These outcomes are too fragile to carry the claim that circadian temperature structure shapes motor entropy in the predicted direction.
[Supplement 2.4, Eqs. (8)-(15)] The entropy calculation contains arithmetic inconsistencies that undermine confidence in the dependent variable. In Eq. (12), the second term is written as 0.5 x log2(1/0.25) although the preceding sentence specifies probability 0.25; with the printed coefficients the expression equals 1.311, not 0.811. The six-state example also uses probabilities that do not sum to unity ({0.16,...,0.16} sums to 0.96) and reports 2.5 instead of log2(6) ~ 2.585. Because entropy is the sole outcome measure in Part 3, these errors need correction and the analysis should be rerun.
[Closing remarks, lambda definition] The sensitivity measure lambda = lim (r_k^n)^(1/n) is presented as evidence connecting the simulation and experiments, but it is simply the definition of a Lyapunov exponent and is never computed from either the simulation output or the experimental time series. No values of lambda are reported for Part 2 or Part 3, and Fig. 5 is described as a schematic. Therefore the closing claim that the same high-sensitivity rule underlies all presented results is unsupported.
[Part 2 and Supplement 1.1] The agent-based model introduces many free parameters (k, k', t, omega, id) and reports no quantitative model output statistics or sensitivity analyses beyond selected trajectories and density plots. More importantly, the model is not connected to Eq. (2): no definition of s or m for the simulated displacement or velocity is given, so the simulation cannot serve as evidence for the universality of h. The text's assertion that a small change in social ties produces 'dramatic impact' is illustrated but not quantified.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors, including 'moreove' (Part 3), 'System dynamics can be as a tool' (Main Text), 'charactersitics' (Fig. 1.2), and 'cuased' (Supplement 2.3). A thorough language edit is needed.
[Supplement 2.2, Eq. (16)] Equation numbering is inconsistent: the temperature relation is labeled Eq. (16) although the preceding equations in the Supplement are numbered (1-1) through (7), and the main text equations are numbered (1) and (2). Please renumber consistently.
[Supplement 2.3, participant counts] The participant counts are inconsistent: Tables S2-S4 state N=8, but the text for designs 1 and 2 says 'participants (10: M=6, F=2)' and design 3 says '8: M=5, F=3'. Please clarify the actual sample sizes and the exclusion procedure described in Supplement 2.6.
[Supplement 2.3, ANOVA reporting] The F-statistics are reported as F(1,3) even for a four-level factor in Experiment 1, and the degrees of freedom are not justified. Please report the full repeated-measures ANOVA structure, including within-subject factors and error terms.
[Supplement references] The Supplement's reference list begins at number 41, while the main text references are numbered 1-40, and one reference entry for Treffner and Turvey appears to lack a number. The numbering should be unified or clearly separated.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Part 4 Eq. (2) defines h as the composite m∘s and then presents that definition as the discovered universal behavioral rule.

self definitional [Part 1, Eq. (1); Part 4, Eq. (2)]
"h(x) = m(s(x−1)) ... The expression h(x) represents our way of modeling that denotes wherever and whenever the evolutionary system is observed. This model takes (x) and it inputs the (x) into (s) and gets out (s(x)), and then the model inputs that into the (m) and finally takes m(s(x))."

h is introduced as exactly the composite m∘s (first s, then m), while Eq. (1) defines m(s)=<C(s),E(s),S(s)>. No independent definition or instantiation of C, E, S, m, or s is given for the simulation variables (velocities, displacements, social ties) or for the experimental variables (relative phase, entropy, temperature). Therefore the universal claim that the complexity of the system 'falls into the same rules that are estimating the pattern' does not follow from the data or from any derivation; it is the defining equation of h. Because m and s are free placeholders, every observed pattern can be represented after the fact by Eq. (2), making the identification true by construction rather than derived.
renaming known result [Closing remarks, after Part 4]
"Possible evidence for the association of this property is found when we compute an approximation of its sensitivity (39); the collective structure can show the possible entity as a function of the system’s own unique set of behavior in a long-time limit [λ = lim_{n→∞}(r_k^n)^{1/n}]. ... We observed this by measuring the contraction (stable system) or expansion (chaotic system) near the orbit of distance [d(x0, x0 + ε)], during the next iteration of distance [d(f(x0), f(x0 + ε))]."

This formula is the standard definition of a Lyapunov exponent—the long-time growth or decay rate of the distance between nearby orbits—and the logistic-map iteration mentioned in Fig. 5 is a textbook demonstration of sensitive dependence. Presenting it as 'possible evidence for the association of this property' recasts a known measure and example in the paper's notation rather than deriving the behavioral commonality from the preceding model or data. It therefore provides no independent confirmation of h(x)=m(s(x−1)).

full rationale

The paper contains substantial non-circular components—the agent-based simulation (Supplement 1.1) and the bimanual-circadian experiments (Supplement 2.2) stand on their own as empirical and modeling work. However, the advertised unifying result is not obtained from those blocks. Part 4 introduces h(x)=m(s(x−1)) as 'our way of modeling that denotes wherever and whenever the evolutionary system is observed,' after Part 1 had defined m(s)=<C(s),E(s),S(s)>. Since neither m nor s is instantiated for the simulation variables or the experimental entropy data, the equality is a definition of h in terms of m and s, not a theorem. Any dataset can be absorbed by rechoosing these unconstrained maps, so the claim that all these systems 'fall into the same rules' is true by construction. The closing 'sensitivity' computation is likewise the standard Lyapunov-exponent definition and the logistic-map example; it is a label, not independent evidence. There is no self-citation chain here; the circularity is definitional. Score 8 reflects that the central unifying claim reduces by definition, even though the individual experiments and simulations are not themselves circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unproven assumptions from ecological psychology and coordination dynamics, and on a large set of hand-set simulation parameters. The composite formula is an ad hoc construction with no independent evidence.

free parameters (8)

k (individual-group velocity trade-off) = 0.1-0.9
Systemic scalar in Model 1 (Supplement 1.1) controlling the trade-off between individual velocity and group heading; chosen by hand, central to the simulation's behavior.
k' (mutation rate) = 0.1-0.9
Controls propagation of network influence in Model 1; no independent constraint.
t (social ties) = 0.55, 0.56, 0.57
The simulation's sensitivity claim is illustrated at these three values (Fig. 1.2), selected to demonstrate a transition.
omega (selection intensity) = 1-10
Intensity of selection in the imitation probability formula; varied without data.
id (index of difficulty) = 0.1-0.9
Ratio 2D/W in Model 1; W is an 'arbitrary value' (Supplement 1.1), so the index is unconstrained.
alpha, b (HKB coupling coefficients) = not reported
Standard HKB model coefficients in Supplement 2.1; the paper does not fit them to the current data, but the model's application depends on them.
c, d (asymmetric thermal coupling) = not reported
Added symmetry-breaking coefficients in Eq (7); paper suggests setting c to zero but does not estimate d.
noise rho = not reported
Stochastic noise amplitude in Eqs (5)-(7); not estimated.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The minimal starting point for understanding any system is the loop of entailment X->Y->X (Rosen's impoverished entailment), which is assumed to propagate truth hereditarily.
Used in Part 1 to justify Eq (1) m(s)=<C(s),E(s),S(s)>; no empirical or formal support provided.
domain assumption A system is a collection of interacting individual elements embedded in a coherent behavior.
Definition introduced at the start of Part 1; not proved.
domain assumption The HKB model V(phi) = -a cos(phi) - b cos(2phi) describes human bimanual coordination.
Adopted in Supplement 2.1 from prior literature; not tested in this paper.
domain assumption Entropy computed from the distribution of relative phase bins is a measure of biological disorder or stability.
The main experimental dependent variable is H(x) from Supplement 2.4, based on a binary classification of non-zero relative phase; validity for coordination stability is asserted, not established.
domain assumption Body core temperature can be manipulated by wearing heating or ice vests, and this changes the thermoregulatory coupling without other mechanical confounds.
Underlies Experiments 2 and 3; the vests could affect movement comfort or biomechanics independently of core temperature.
ad hoc to paper The composite function h(x)=m(s(x-1)) is universal across scales.
This universality is the paper's thesis but is asserted in Part 4 Eq (2) with no derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolutionary Understanding of the Conditions Leading to Estimation of Behavioral Properties through System Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YG3AEWVJ

@misc{pith2026190805956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolutionary Understanding of the Conditions Leading to Estimation of Behavioral Properties through System Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YG3AEWVJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05956}
}

read the original abstract

One of the basic frameworks in science views behavioral products as a process within a dynamic system. The mechanism might be seen as a representation of many instances of centralized control in real time. Many real systems, however, exhibit autonomy by denying statically treated mechanisms. This study addresses the issues related to the identification of dynamic systems and suggests how determining the basic principles of a collective structure may be key to understanding complex behavioral processes. A fundamental model is derived to assess the advantages of this perspective using a basic methodology. The connection between perspective and technique demonstrates certain aspects within their actual context, while also clearly including the framework of actual dynamic system identification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05956 by the authors.

**Figure 1.1.** Behavioral dynamics underlying social characteristics. Following the simulation, the left plot shows a displacement that separates individuals with a relative position structure controlled by the initial setting. This implies that although the pattern of individual behavior depends on a localized view of the initial conditions, a slight change in individual characteristics [IGT: individual’s velocity up (𝑣⃗𝑖 ) resul… view at source ↗

**Figure 1.2.** Approximation of the evolution underlying interconnected interactions. The plots indicate that the patterns which occur correspond to the relative value. With certain defaults of their relativity, a slight change in the scalar value (social ties = St) derives dramatic impact at a certain point [A = St(0.55), B = St(0.56), C = St(0.57)]: blue dot = individuals, red line = links, background = density with symmetrical … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Heuristics through the individual-based model. Based on the relativity defaults set by the model as an interconnected condition, the system becomes highly sensitive to small change in the scalar values (i.e., social tie) of individuals at a certain point. The horizontal axis denotes scalar (x = social ties in this simulation) from 0 to 1 and the vertical axis represents probability density at the scalar value (x). T… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 3.1.** Figure 3.1: Entropy production according to circadian cycles. Entropy features [H(x)] of the general tendencies in the normal condition [Temp(C°); see Supplement 2.2 for more detail on the entropy calculation]. Normalized = standard score (Z calculation), a.u. = arbitrary unit, …

**Figure 3.2.** Figure 3.2: Circadian and temperature perturbation dependent influences. Plots denote the estimated entropy forces according to the time series. The plot on the left denotes the entropy forces of the heat-based normal (Abh-circadian: red line = 5:00, black line = 17:00) vs. abno…

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Schematic illustration of the results according to the different experimental designs. The horizontal axis is the 24-hour circadian process as expressed by a sine function (pi/2 = 5:00, pi = 12:00, pi3/2 = 17:00, pi2 = 00:00), and the vertical axis is the optimized val…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Schematic illustration of the evolutionary understanding of the behavioral property. The plot represents the state of the system λ(ɸ) (one arbitrary cycle from -1.0 to 1.0) over time (horizontal axis). The green line indicates the damping force from the model 1 [decay …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

This information is based on spatially explicit mobility, where the individuals can move around their environment

Model 1 The broader agenda of this supplement is to show the mathematical process behind the fundamental modeling mechanisms used. This information is based on spatially explicit mobility, where the individuals can move around their environment. The rules and processes in the artificially modeled structure describe an individual’s homogeneous drives and a...

work page
[2]

Does an ecological feature influence our system?

Model 2 The supplementary information reported in this section is analytical information showing how interacting cyclic processes account for the emergence of new entities. It investigates whether unintentional coordination provides an environmental rhythm within an individual’s field of view, and will explain whether the dynamics of bimanual coordination...

work page
[41]

C. W. Reynolds, Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. In ACM SIGGRAPH computer graphics, 21, 25-34 (1987)

work page 1987
[42]

R. S. Woodworth, Accuracy of voluntary movement. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 3, I (1899)

work page
[43]

Demšar, I

J. Demšar, I. Lebar Bajec, Family bird: A heterogeneous simulated flock. Advances in Artificial Life, ECAL, 12, 1114-1115 (2013)

work page 2013
[44]

Traulsen, C

A. Traulsen, C. Hauert, H. De Silva, M. A. Nowak, K. Sigmund, Exploration dynamics in evolutionary games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 709-712 (2009)

work page 2009
[45]

Soodak, A

H. Soodak, A. Iberall, Homeokinetics. Science, 201, 579-582 (1978)

work page 1978
[46]

F. C. Santos, J. M. Pacheco, T. Lenaerts, Cooperation prevails when individuals adjust their social ties. PLoS computational biology, 2, e140, pp. 1284-1291 (2006)

work page 2006

Show all 32 references

[47]

Refinetti, M

R. Refinetti, M. Menaker, The circadian rhythm of body temperature. Physiology & behavior, 51, 613-637 (1992)

1992
[48]

Aschoff, Circadian control of body temperature

J. Aschoff, Circadian control of body temperature. Journal of thermal Biology, 8, 143- 147 (1983)

1983
[49]

R. Y. Moore, Organization of the mammalian circadian system. Circadian Clocks and Their Adjustments, 183, 88-106 (1995)

1995
[50]

Krauchi, & A

K. Krauchi, & A. Wirz-Justice, Circadian rhythm of heat production, heart rate, and skin and core temperature under unmasking conditions in men. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 267, 819-829 (1994)

1994
[51]

Aizawa, M

S. Aizawa, M. Cabanac, The influence of temporary semi-supine and supine postures on temperature regulation in humans. Journal of thermal biology, 27, 109-114 (2002)

2002
[52]

Cagnacci, K

A. Cagnacci, K. Kräuchi, A. Wirz-Justice, A. Volpe, Homeostatic versus circadian effects of melatonin on core body temperature in humans. Journal of biological rhythms, 12, 509-517 (1997)

1997
[53]

A. A. Borbély, P. Achermann, Sleep homeostasis and models of sleep regulation. Journal of biological rhythms, 14, 559-570 (1999)

1999
[54]

G. R. Walther, E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T. J. Beebee, ... F. Bairlein, Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature, 416, 389-395 (2002)

2002
[55]

Maury, K

E. Maury, K. M. Ramsey, J. Bass, Circadian rhythms and metabolic syndrome from experimental genetics to human disease. Circulation research, 106, 447-462 (2010)

2010
[56]

O. G. Edholm, R. H. Fox, H. S. Wolf, Body temperature during exercise and rest in cold and hot climates. Archives des sciences physiologiques, 27, 339–355 (1973)

1973
[57]

Waterhouse, B

J. Waterhouse, B. Drust, D. Weinert, B. Edwards, W. Gregson, G. Atkinson, ... T. Reilly, The circadian rhythm of core temperature: origin and some implications for exercise performance. Chronobiology international, 22, 207-225 (2005)

2005
[58]

Aschoff, A

J. Aschoff, A. Heise, Thermal conductance in man; its dependence on time of day and on ambient temperature. In: Itoh S, Ogata K, Toshimura H, eds., Advances in Climatic Physiology (Tokyo, Igaku Shoin, 1972) pp. 334–348

1972
[59]

Aldemir, G

H. Aldemir, G. Atkinson, T. Cable, B. Edwards, J. Waterhouse, T. Reilly, A comparison of the immediate effects of moderate exercise in the early morning and late afternoon on core temperature and cutaneous thermoregulatory mechanisms. Chronobiology international, 17, 197-207 (...

2000
[60]

P. N. Kugler, J. S. Kelso, M. T. Turvey, On the concept of coordinative structures as dissipative structures: I. Theoretical lines of convergence. Tutorials in motor behavior, 3, 3-47 (1980)

1980
[61]

P. N. Kugler, M. T. Turvey, Information, natural law and the self-assembly of rhythmic movement. (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1987), pp 130-270

1987
[62]

B. A. Kay, J. S. Kelso, E. L. Saltzman, G. Schöner, Space–time behavior of single and bimanual rhythmical movements: Data and limit cycle model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 178 (1987)

1987
[63]

Pikovsky, M

A. Pikovsky, M. Rosenblum, J. Kurths, Synchronization: a universal concept in nonlinear sciences (Cambridge university press, 2003) pp.28-40

2003
[64]

M. T. Turvey, Coordination. American psychologist, 45, 938-953 (1990)

1990
[65]

J. A. Kelso, Phase transitions and critical behavior in human bimanual coordination. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 246, 1000-1004 (1984)

1984
[66]

Haken, J

H. Haken, J. S. Kelso, H. Bunz, A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand movements. Biological cybernetics, 51, 347-356 (1985)

1985
[67]

P. G. Amazeen, E. L. Amazeen, M. T. Turvey, Breaking the reflectional symmetry of interlimb coordination dynamics. Journal of motor behavior, 30, 199-216 (1998). P. J. Treffner, M. T. Turvey, Symmetry, broken symmetry, and handedness in bimanual coordination dynamics. Experime...

1998
[68]

P. J. Treffner, M. T. Turvey, Handedness and the asymmetric dynamics of bimanual rhythmic coordination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 318-333 (1995)

1995
[69]

E. L. Amazeen, P. G. Amazeen, P. J. Treffner, M. T. Turvey, Attention and handedness in bimanual coordination dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1552-1560 (1997)

1997
[70]

C. E. Shannon, A note on the concept of entropy. Bell System Tech. J, 27, 379-423 (1948)

1948

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

This information is based on spatially explicit mobility, where the individuals can move around their environment

Model 1 The broader agenda of this supplement is to show the mathematical process behind the fundamental modeling mechanisms used. This information is based on spatially explicit mobility, where the individuals can move around their environment. The rules and processes in the artificially modeled structure describe an individual’s homogeneous drives and a...

work page

[2] [2]

Does an ecological feature influence our system?

Model 2 The supplementary information reported in this section is analytical information showing how interacting cyclic processes account for the emergence of new entities. It investigates whether unintentional coordination provides an environmental rhythm within an individual’s field of view, and will explain whether the dynamics of bimanual coordination...

work page

[3] [41]

C. W. Reynolds, Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. In ACM SIGGRAPH computer graphics, 21, 25-34 (1987)

work page 1987

[4] [42]

R. S. Woodworth, Accuracy of voluntary movement. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 3, I (1899)

work page

[5] [43]

Demšar, I

J. Demšar, I. Lebar Bajec, Family bird: A heterogeneous simulated flock. Advances in Artificial Life, ECAL, 12, 1114-1115 (2013)

work page 2013

[6] [44]

Traulsen, C

A. Traulsen, C. Hauert, H. De Silva, M. A. Nowak, K. Sigmund, Exploration dynamics in evolutionary games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 709-712 (2009)

work page 2009

[7] [45]

Soodak, A

H. Soodak, A. Iberall, Homeokinetics. Science, 201, 579-582 (1978)

work page 1978

[8] [46]

F. C. Santos, J. M. Pacheco, T. Lenaerts, Cooperation prevails when individuals adjust their social ties. PLoS computational biology, 2, e140, pp. 1284-1291 (2006)

work page 2006