Erik E. Fair said:
> This apparently relevant paper is, alas, behind a paywall:
...
> The magic (google-fu) word is "latency" ...
Ah... Thanks.
NIH should have a lot of papers on visual stuff,
so I fed >pubmed visual latency< to Google
That got a bunch of hits. Some are behind paywalls.
This apparently relevant paper is, alas, behind a paywall:
Investigation on human visual response latency
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5540888
DOI: 10.1109/ICCDA.2010.5540888
The magic (google-fu) word is "latency" just as in computer networking & time
Hi
Actually Have Quick (at least the airborne VHF version) was developed
in parallel with SINCGARS. For quite a while it was unclear which one
would “get there” first.
The “time transfer” function is required for crypto synch. Without it, there
the typical radio can not lock up to the current
Hi Jim:
Interesting paper on flashing temporal response.
"Have Quick" is primarily a spread spectrum radio protocol but it also
includes a time transfer/setting protocol.
The early Trimpack GPS receivers included a time setting output.
https://prc68.com/I/Trimpack.shtml
The PLGR & DAGR
On 12/10/21 12:31 PM, Brooke Clarke via time-nuts wrote:
Hi Hal:
There has been some recent research into illusions related to sight
and sound.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect - related to speech
and search "audio optical illusion"
I like a crisp "tick" for clock human
On 12/10/21 12:09 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
Does anybody have numbers for how long it takes for a visual signal to get
into your brain?
I think it's around 250 ms for a human to push a button when a light goes on.
Less if the penalty for false pushes is low. I don't have a handy URL to back
that
Hi Hal:
There has been some recent research into illusions related to sight and sound.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect - related to speech
and search "audio optical illusion"
I like a crisp "tick" for clock human synchronization.
I wonder why there has not been more done with
