Abstract
Time delay embedding is a method that is often used when estimating continuous-time differential equation parameters from univariate and multivariate time series, and this method assumes equal time intervals between samples. But in much real-world social science data, time intervals between samples can vary widely. This chapter simulates several common types of time interval misspecification and compares three methods commonly used for accounting for unequal intervals against each other and against the case where no correction is made. Surprisingly, no correction performs almost as well as the best method: in most of the simulated conditions, there was no significant difference between no correction and a sophisticated full information maximum likelihood method where filter loadings were tailored to the actual intervals between samples for each row of data. Time delay embedding appears to be relatively robust to sampling interval misspecification. Reasons for this robustness are presented and discussed. Caveats are presented and discussed regarding cases when time misspecification may still induce bias in results from time delay embedding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Boker, S. M. (2007). Specifying latent differential equations models. In S. M. Boker & M. J. Wenger (Eds.), Data analytic techniques for dynamical systems in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 131–159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Boker, S. M., Deboeck, P. R., Edler, C., & Keel, P. K. (2010). Generalized local linear approximation of derivatives from time series. In S.-M. Chow & E. Ferrar (Eds.), Statistical methods for modeling human dynamics: An interdisciplinary dialogue (pp. 161–178). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Boker, S. M., Neale, M. C., & Rausch, J. (2004). Latent differential equation modeling with multivariate multi-occasion indicators. In K. van Montfort, J. H. L. Oud, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Recent developments on structural equation models: Theory and applications (pp. 151–174). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-1958-6_9
Boker, S. M., Staples, A., & Hu, Y. (2016). Dynamics of change and changes in dynamics. Journal of Person-Oriented Research, 2(1–2), 34–55. https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2016.05
Cook, R. L. (1986). Stochastic sampling in computer graphics. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 5(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/7529.8927
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198709000-00004
Delsing, M. J. M. H., & Oud, J. H. L. (2008). Analyzing reciprocal relationships by means of the continuous-time autoregressive latent trajectory model. Statistica Neerlandica, 62(1), 58–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9574.2007.00386.x
Dufau, S., Duñabeitia, J. A., Moret-Tatay, C., McGonigal, A., Peeters, D., Alario, F.-X., et al. (2011). Smart phone, smart science: How the use of smartphones can revolutionize research in cognitive science. PLoS ONE, 6(9), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024974
Erbacher, M. K., Schmidt, K. M., Boker, S. M., & Bergeman, C. S. (2012). Measuring positive and negative affect in older adults over 56 days: Comparing trait level scoring methods using the partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13(2), 146–164.
Goldman, R. N. (1983). An urnful of blending functions. IEEE Computer Graphics and Application, 3, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.1983.263276
Graham, J. W., Taylor, B. J., Olchowski, A. E., & Cumsille, P. E. (2006). Planned missing data designs in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 11(4), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.323
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Hennig, M. H., & Wörgötter, F. (2004). Eye micro-movements improve stimulus detection beyond the Nyquist limit in the peripheral retina. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 1475–1482).
Hu, Y., Boker, S. M., Neale, M. C., & Klump, K. (2014). Latent differential equations with moderators: Simulation and application. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032476
Jagerman, D., & Fogel, L. (1956). Some general aspects of the sampling theorem. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(4), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1956.1056821
Klump, K. L., Keel, P. K., Kashy, D. A., Racine, S., Burt, S. A., Neale, M., et al. (2013). The interactive effects of estrogen and progesterone on changes in binge eating across the menstrual cycle. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(1), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029524
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1989). The analysis of social science data with missing values. Socialogical Methods and Research, 18, 292–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124189018002004
McArdle, J. J. (1994). Structural factor analysis experiments with incomplete data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29(4), 409–454. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2904_5
McArdle, J. J., & Woodcock, J. R. (1997). Expanding test rest designs to include developmental time lag components. Psychological Methods, 2(4), 403–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.2.4.403
Neale, M. C., Hunter, M. D., Pritikin, J. N., Zahery, M., Brick, T. R., Kirkpatrick, R., et al. (2016). Openmx 2.0: Extended structural equation and statistical modeling. Psychometrika, 81(2), 535–549. PMCID: 25622929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-014-9435-8
Oud, J. H. L. (2007). Continuous time modeling of reciprocal relationships in the cross-lagged panel design. In S. M. Boker & M. J. Wenger (Eds.), Data analytic techniques for dynamical systems (pp. 87–130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Oud, J. H. L., & Jansen, R. A. R. G. (2000). Continuous time state space modeling of panel data by means of SEM. Psychometrika, 65(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294374
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
Salthouse, T. A., Schroeder, D. H., & Ferrer, E. (2004). Estimating retest effects in longitudinal assessments of cognitive functioning in adults between 18 and 60 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 813–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.813
Salthouse, T. A., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2008). Implications of short-term retest effects for the interpretation of longitudinal change. Neuropsychology, 22(6), 800–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013091
Sauer, T., Yorke, J. A., & Casdagli, M. (1991). Embedology. Journal of Statistical Physics, 65(3,4), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01053745
Savitzky, A., & Golay, M. J. E. (1964). Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares. Analytical Chemistry, 36, 1627–1639. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60214a047
Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415
Stone, A. A., & Shiffman, S. (1994). Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in behavioral medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 199–202.
Takens, F. (1985). Detecting strange attractors in turbulence. In A. Dold & B. Eckman (Eds.), Lecture notes in mathematics 1125: Dynamical systems and bifurcations (pp. 99–106). Berlin: Springer.
Trull, T. J., & Ebner-Priemer, U. (2013). Ambulatory assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185510
Voelkle, M. C., & Oud, J. H. (2013). Continuous time modelling with individually varying time intervals for oscillating and non-oscillating processes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02043.x
von Oertzen, T., & Boker, S. M. (2010). Time delay embedding increases estimation precision of models of intraindividual variability. Psychometrika, 75(1), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9137-9
Acknowledgements
Funding for this work was provided in part by NIH Grant 1R21DA024304–01. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institutes of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
10.1 Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boker, S.M., Tiberio, S.S., Moulder, R.G. (2018). Robustness of Time Delay Embedding to Sampling Interval Misspecification. In: van Montfort, K., Oud, J.H.L., Voelkle, M.C. (eds) Continuous Time Modeling in the Behavioral and Related Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77219-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77219-6_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77218-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77219-6
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)