<p>Mean latency (±2 SE) as a function of delay duration in <i>target</i> trials. Variable foreperiod (<i>Variable</i>) and fixed foreperiod blocks of trials (<i>Fixed</i>). In the variable foreperiod condition, mean latencies were longer for 400 ms delay duration. An opposite trend was found in the fixed foreperiod condition. Group data from 6 subjects (6/9) who participated in this control experiment.</p
<p>Mean response latencies (in ms) and mean error rates (in percentages) as a function of trial type...
<p>Latency to target (mean time from stimulus display to first target fixation) on correct trials. *...
<p>Time ranges where ERPs showed a main effect of stimulus type in Experiment 2 (post stimulus laten...
<p><i>A</i>: Mean relative latency (±2 SE) as a function of delay duration in <i>target</i> trials. ...
<p>A: Mean relative latency (±2 SE) as a function of delay duration in <i>cue&target</i> (dashed lin...
<p><i>A</i>: Mean relative latency during the current trial (<i>‘n’</i>) as a function of delay dura...
<p><i>A</i>: mean absolute latency (±2 SE) as a function of delay duration. <i>B</i>: Latency varian...
a b s t r a c t System delays considerably affect users ' experience and performance. Research ...
<p>Significant differences were found between the trials (REML, <i>P</i> < 0.001) but not between th...
<p>(A) Comparison of the latency of the peak correlate of ‘value difference’ regressor in VMPFC beta...
<p>Above: A significant interaction between Group and SOA(n) in Neutral trials. This indicates the p...
One factor influencing the perceived duration of a brief interval is the length of the period prece...
<p>The mean onset latencies in each condition in Experiments 1 and 2 (Session 1).</p
<p><b>A</b>, The standard task. Subjects viewed a horizontal bar (<i>L</i><sub>1</sub>) on a compute...
<p>Time ranges where ERPs for faces and scrambled faces differed significantly in Experiment 1 (post...
<p>Mean response latencies (in ms) and mean error rates (in percentages) as a function of trial type...
<p>Latency to target (mean time from stimulus display to first target fixation) on correct trials. *...
<p>Time ranges where ERPs showed a main effect of stimulus type in Experiment 2 (post stimulus laten...
<p><i>A</i>: Mean relative latency (±2 SE) as a function of delay duration in <i>target</i> trials. ...
<p>A: Mean relative latency (±2 SE) as a function of delay duration in <i>cue&target</i> (dashed lin...
<p><i>A</i>: Mean relative latency during the current trial (<i>‘n’</i>) as a function of delay dura...
<p><i>A</i>: mean absolute latency (±2 SE) as a function of delay duration. <i>B</i>: Latency varian...
a b s t r a c t System delays considerably affect users ' experience and performance. Research ...
<p>Significant differences were found between the trials (REML, <i>P</i> < 0.001) but not between th...
<p>(A) Comparison of the latency of the peak correlate of ‘value difference’ regressor in VMPFC beta...
<p>Above: A significant interaction between Group and SOA(n) in Neutral trials. This indicates the p...
One factor influencing the perceived duration of a brief interval is the length of the period prece...
<p>The mean onset latencies in each condition in Experiments 1 and 2 (Session 1).</p
<p><b>A</b>, The standard task. Subjects viewed a horizontal bar (<i>L</i><sub>1</sub>) on a compute...
<p>Time ranges where ERPs for faces and scrambled faces differed significantly in Experiment 1 (post...
<p>Mean response latencies (in ms) and mean error rates (in percentages) as a function of trial type...
<p>Latency to target (mean time from stimulus display to first target fixation) on correct trials. *...
<p>Time ranges where ERPs showed a main effect of stimulus type in Experiment 2 (post stimulus laten...