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 looks like more than I wanted to know: Event timing in human vision: Modulating factors and independent functions https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32853238/ SOA is a magic TLA: Stimulus-onset asynchrony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus_onset_asynchrony The ballpark from the graphs is 30-50ms depending on accuracy. Along the way, I learned about Pulfrich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulfrich_effect The latency depends on brightness. You get neat illusiions if you put a dark filter over one eye. >From Wikipedia: > The Pulfrich effect has typically been measured under full field conditions > with dark targets on a bright background, and yields about a 15 ms delay for > a factor of ten difference in average retinal illuminance.[7][8][9][10] These > delays increase monotonically with decreased luminance over a wide (> 6 > log-units) range of luminance.[7][8] The effect is also seen with bright > targets on a black background and exhibits the same luminance-to-latency > relationship. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] -- To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to and follow the instructions there.
