ライフサイエンスコーパス: response latency

1 10 dB and 40 dB above threshold, and minimum response latency.

2 of mice with CCL3 decreased their hot-plate response latency.

3 dies have examined neuromodulator effects on response latency.

4 with a greater population spike with shorter response latency.

5 SI results in a shortening of climbing fiber response latency.

6 ds and apparently compensates for the visual response latency.

7 which manifests as a progressive increase in response latency.

8 had predicted effects, as did variations in response latency.

9 days in vitro and were inversely related to response latency.

10 tioning protocols used in bees and the bees' response latency.

11 no hemispheric difference in face-selective response latency.

12 en) correlated with perseverative errors and response latency.

13 a slight increase in the stimulus-selective response latency.

14 age-related changes in wrist kinematics and response latency.

15 egration, and trial-to-trial fluctuations in response latency.

16 curacy, increase in omissions, and increased response latency.

17 been little evidence for attention affecting response latency.

18 parasympathetic nerve activity influence CBR response latency.

19 aE were seen with reference memory errors or response latency.

20 ormalin injection site and increased thermal response latencies.

21 l stimulation shortened only the oesophageal response latencies.

22 ll 3 doses of atropine resulted in increased response latencies.

23 d the usual arecoline-induced enhancement of response latencies.

24 ose (10 mg/kg) was associated with prolonged response latencies.

25 ution" is reflected in post-error slowing of response latencies.

26 t changes in timing and precision of startle response latencies.

27 inal tasks with time-sensitive outcomes like response latencies.

28 orientation selectivity is weaker at earlier response latencies.

29 ime-correlated (~10 s) fluctuations of burst response latencies.

30 n increase perceptual sensitivity and reduce response latencies.

31 l neurons and interneurons displayed similar response latencies.

32 one-quarter being shorter than the shortest response latencies.

33 oding reward quantity and did so with faster response latencies.

34 the human brain show position-sensitive VWFA response latencies.

35 on, impulsivity, perseverative responses and response latencies.

36 contrast and robust to noisy fluctuations in response latencies.

37 lls with different receptive field sizes and response latencies.

38 I -0.03 to -0.01; p=0.003) and visual evoked response latency (-1.33 ms, -2.44 to -0.21; p=0.020), wi

39 faster kinetics with less variability in the response latencies; (2) a larger dynamic range; and (3)

40 harper orientation tuning, (2) longer visual response latencies, (3) lower spontaneous and (4) visual

41 levated reward thresholds without increasing response latencies, a measure of performance.

42 e not simply rescaled with time and variable response latencies across the population.

43 no variation of single- or multi-unit visual response latency across layers, and putative pyramidal n

44 ed decreased premature responding and slower response latencies after satiety manipulations.

45 ompared with the first, and the reduction in response latency after a third stimulus compared with th

46 (,)(17)(,)(18) with reliable counter-singing response latencies, allowing for a vocal signature that

47 JB2 rescued deficits in the auditory evoked response latency, alpha peak frequency, and steady-state

48 Notably, response latency analysis and computational modeling sug

49 Neurons in this group had short visual response latencies and comprised all recorded narrow-spi

50 ve dysfunction was associated with increased response latencies and decreased mid-frontal delta power

51 wed broad stimulus selectivity with sluggish response latencies and extended temporal non-linearities

52 While sites with longer response latencies and greater distance from the primary

53 arly peak attenuation showed short CT-evoked response latencies and large responses to relatively few

54 ith response conflict as evidenced by longer response latencies and more errors.

55 roduced consistent differences in both motor response latencies and onset latency of gamma ERS, parti

56 late peak attenuation showed long CT-evoked response latencies and small taste responses with less s

57 inhibitory activities, resulting in various response latencies and stimulus-specific post-odour neur

58 These neurons had longer visual response latencies and were composed exclusively of broa

59 e in sound level not only elicited a shorter response latency and an increase in spike count but also

60 slowed C-start motor performance, increasing response latency and decreasing peak velocity and peak a

61 as found only for the target, with a greater response latency and distinct anatomical organization co

62 culate neurons, the shortest combined visual response latency and feedback latency was 37 ms (mean, 5

63 Within a single region we measured Ca2+ response latency and rate of rise to construct an InsP3

64 In addition, the response latency and reach duration were significantly s

65 Instead, response latency and receptive field analyses demonstrat

66 Group 3 neurons (n=6) exhibited the longest response latency and responded over a wider cooler range

67 We found that receptive field size, response latency and selectivity for naturalistic textur

68 hat have not received much attention such as response latency and temporal frequency.

69 es to deactivation, which in turn determines response latency and threshold sensitivity of the ipRGCs

70 with considerable overlap), (3) had shorter response latencies, and (4) were more transient.

71 e movements measured by eye tracking, manual response latencies, and blood-oxygen-level-dependent res

72 , indicative of evaluation processes, faster response latencies, and greater memory at Time 1 predict

73 hannels and vesicular release sites, shorter response latencies, and higher initial release rates.

74 hree levels of analysis--social preferences, response latencies, and modeling neural responses--are c

75 discharges at moderate doses, (2) decreased response latency, and (3) dose-dependent increases in th

76 ure tones, intensity tuning and sensitivity, response latency, and binaural interaction types all sho

77 ulation (F1 values), significantly shortened response latency, and dramatically increased response re

78 eference, orientation/direction selectivity, response latency, and ON-OFF polarity/structure.

79 Supporting this model, auditory-response latencies are shorter in area X than VP, and sh

80 Analysis of response latency as a function of the different optical

81 ty to presentation context and timescales of response latency, as observed experimentally.

82 , consistent with longer and variable neural response latencies at low contrast, psychophysically rev

83 ty-seven IC neurons (29%) exhibited a longer response latency at higher sound levels compared with lo

84 Response latencies averaged 281 ms and were significantl

85 semantic priming in terms of differences in response latencies between related word-pair conditions

86 eprivation before bilateral CI use prolonged response latencies but that amplitudes were not signific

87 il flick assay of nociception, TAL increased response latency by 65 and 70% in WT and R2ko mice, but

88 Thus, SC neural response latency can be dissociated from response sensit

89 es were also significantly related to visual response latency, contrast sensitivity (C-50 values), di

90 The pattern of errors, coupled with response latency data, implicated deficits in the abilit

91 Response latency decreased after adaptation, irrespectiv

92 Response latency decreased as stimulus intensity was inc

93 short ISIs and recovers for longer ISIs, and response latency decreases with increasing contrast.

94 ge 900ms after rule presentation onset, when response latencies dropped to levels consistent with bas

95 not only explains memory accuracy, but also response latencies during retrieval, subsuming, in the l

96 roach to probe these mechanisms by comparing response latencies during sampling versus choice trials.

97 e score, SAPS, AMDP ego-disorder) as well as response latencies during the estimation process.

98 Response latencies during the training were recorded.

99 sioned rats failed to show normal changes in response latency during discrimination learning, particu

100 In contrast, response latency effects that are indicative of relation

101 all other antennal-tactile interneurons had response latencies exceeding 40 ms.

102 Surprisingly, STS response latencies for audiovisual speech were significa

103 25 microliter), into the PAG failed to alter response latencies for defensive rage behavior.

104 perimental group showed shorter haemodynamic response latencies for forward vs backward vowels at T1,

105 edial amygdala and lateral hypothalamus upon response latencies for predatory attack were compared wi

106 ability and reduced activity associated with response latencies for reward collection.

107 rly-lesion group also demonstrated increased response latencies for the S2 stimuli during task acquis

108 Response latencies for these cells were compatible with

109 acrine or E2020), or nicotine, increased the response latencies for young rats to that of adult level

110 STS: compared with auditory-only speech, the response latency for audiovisual speech was 40% faster a

111 nt that reflects a significant difference in response latency for low and high SF stimuli.

112 ntly observed behaviourally as a decrease in response latency for repeated items, and was found for b

113 es defining the most effective dose and dose-response latency for targeting the amygdala.

114 than bright stimuli, evidenced by a smaller response latency for the dark stimuli.

115 Response latency, Fourier transform and spike counts sho

116 Here, we compare distributions of neural response latencies from 10 different areas of macaque au

117 tative analyses show that neurons with short response latencies have low spatial acuity and high sens

118 azep ine hydrochloride (SCH 23390) increased response latencies; however, the same behavior was unaff

119 Microinfusion of this drug elevated attack response latencies in a dose- and time-dependent manner.

120 Longer response latencies in contralateral than ipsilateral VRs

121 ld allodynia consisted of a stabilization of response latencies in contrast to the continued decrease

122 is inherited from early visual areas, since response latencies in FEF are shorter than those of visu

123 rgely on spike timings in monkeys and evoked-response latencies in humans.

124 There were minimal effects on response latencies in layer IV under any of the experime

125 Mapping results showed longer response latencies in more rostral sites and possible to

126 Walking also reduced response latencies in visual interneurons, an effect not

127 the separation according to cortical region, response latency in each neuronal cluster was correlated

128 oduced dose- and time-dependent increases in response latency in male but not female Sprague-Dawley r

129 source off the midline causes a decrease in response latency in that ear relative to the other ear.

130 on following the jamming signal, revealing a response latency in the range of 66 to 94 ms.

131 e highest correlation existed between median response latency in the search task and best attainable

132 rs high light sensitivity, millisecond-scale response latency in vivo, as well as adjustable channel

133 gs confirm that periodic stimulation reduces response latencies, in agreement with the hypothesis of

134 The results show that response latencies increased as N-back increased, and pu

135 tial attention decreased response magnitude, response latency increased much less than when the same

136 nhancing CG feedback reduced visually evoked response latencies, increased spike-timing precision, an

137 iately after conditioning: decreases in unit response latency, increases in unit response reliability

138 significantly increased omission and correct response latencies, indicating that the neuronal activit

139 Across sensory systems, response latency is important for encoding not only the

140 The response latency is minimized by electrical synapses bet

141 l pathways become less responsive, slower in response latency, less sensitive, and less effective and

142 by assessing LVST-mediated ventral root (VR) response latencies, manipulating synaptic responses phar

143 l stimuli frequently shortened physiological response latencies (mean shift, 6.2 ms) and that respons

144 tonic LC output generally decreased neuronal response latency measures for both BF cortical and VPM t

145 The increased cPRF response latency might reflect a greater role of rostral

146 Main outcome measure was response latency necessary to solve the task.

147 nts demonstrated that differences in neither response latencies nor response criteria could account f

148 work, a scheme also consistent with the long response latencies observed in human amygdala recordings

149 However, an increase in motor response latencies occurred only in the four patients wh

150 Given our measured thalamic response latencies of 20 ms and a mean estimated lateral

151 The response latencies of ON cells were approximately 5 ms s

152 revealed that the Lombard effect features a response latency of a mere 30 ms and provided the founda

153 re reexamined the effect of attention on the response latency of both single units and the local fiel

154 fference in the response magnitude or visual response latency of hippocampal neurons to the well-lear

155 Specifically, response latency of the receptive field center is relati

156 All three doses significantly increased response latencies on both tests, with the 125-nmol dose

157 alcohol dose, relative to placebo, increased response latencies on trials with alcohol-associated bac

158 relative contributions of age, accuracy, and response latency on activation.

159 Accuracy and response latency on the VSWM task improved gradually, ex

160 ds for light and sound, and different neural response latencies once the signals reach the receptors.

161 Rather, a reduction of response latencies only tended to occur in slower feedba

162 hibition of NAc FSIs, without any changes in response latencies or general locomotor activity.

163 relative to placebo, did not reliably affect response latencies or neural responses to background ima

164 ties, including single-photon response, long response latency, photon integration over time, and slow

165 We also found that, during NREM sleep, the response latency predicts the degree of sleep attenuatio

166 Features associated with transient pupil response latency (PRL) achieved Area Under the Curve Rec

167 entiated the increase in the foot-withdrawal response latency produced by microinjection of morphine

168 The increase in the foot withdrawal response latency produced by microinjection of morphine

169 In contrast, the increase in the tail flick response latency produced by morphine was reduced by eit

170 ally reversed the increase in the tail-flick response latency produced by morphine.

171 nd that four classical hierarchical measures-response latency, receptive-field size, phase-locking to

172 l surprises: amygdala neurons have very long response latencies, show highly nonlinear responses to w

173 of individual units is correlated with their response latency, such that units activated after a smal

174 ty is diminished, resulting in the prolonged response latencies, sudden hyperexcitability, enhanced c

175 cise measurements of behavioral and neuronal response latencies supported the idea that motor-related

176 puts have larger receptive fields and longer response latencies than basal dendrite inputs, suggestin

177 ing stream shows substantially faster neural response latencies than does the ventral stream.

178 PV+ neurons also had markedly faster response latencies than PV- neurons, consistent with a c

179 , with mostly higher spike rates and shorter response latencies to NSs than to WGN.

180 the other hand, frontal lobe areas with slow response latencies to stimuli must integrate and maintai

181 Response latencies to thermal nociceptive stimuli were m

182 r neuron of the leech varies spike count and response latency to both touch intensity and location, l

183 t results in a lengthening of climbing fiber response latency to peripheral stimuli.

184 of the LGN neuron, and (3) the interneuron's response latency to strong, synchronous LGN input.

185 The response latency to tibialis anterior correlated with di

186 We found that, while the response latency to visual stimulus onset was earlier fo

187 The groups further differed in response latency, tuning and extracellular waveforms.

188 This encoding was most pronounced at response latencies up to 350 ms, and in both planum temp

189 Finally, the neuronal map representing response latency versus best frequency was found to be a

190 A significant decrease in response latency was also found between stimulations, an

191 ionship between response magnitude and onset response latency was found across all types.

192 similar for auditory and visual stimuli, the response latency was longer for visual stimuli.

193 ponse areas was relatively broader in P, the response latency was often longer and more variable, and

194 This was true even though visual response latency was shorter in parietal than in prefron

195 ory) responses in P than in E and M, and the response latency was significantly longer in D and P tha

196 ntion did not change with estrous stage, but response latency was significantly longer in D than in P

197 attention, like contrast elevation, reduces response latencies, we find that the two have different

198 of the lateral and medial hypothalamus upon response latencies were compared with those following si

199 onse magnitude and an increase in VPM and SI response latencies were observed as well.

200 ing, increased neuronal firing occurred, and response latencies were prolonged.

201 ed in the same way as control subjects; grip response latencies were similar and responses were appro

202 Mean response latencies were substantially larger than those

203 Despite individual variability in threshold responses, latencies were consistently shortened.

204 frequency hearing loss demonstrated shorter response latencies when they rated the sentences as impo

205 on shortened both pharyngeal and oesophageal response latencies, whereas oesophageal stimulation shor

206 Specifically, CGS 21680 had no effect on response latency, whereas APEC shortened latencies.

207 young animals and a progressive decrease in response latency with development.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

208 Comparison of response latencies within and across tracts revealed odo