ライフサイエンスコーパス: response latency

1 with a greater population spike with shorter response latency.

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

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

4 ds and apparently compensates for the visual response latency.

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

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

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

8 which manifests as a progressive increase in response latency.

9 been little evidence for attention affecting response latency.

10 parasympathetic nerve activity influence CBR response latency.

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

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

13 10 dB and 40 dB above threshold, and minimum response latency.

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

15 dies have examined neuromodulator effects on response latency.

16 ormalin injection site and increased thermal response latencies.

17 l stimulation shortened only the oesophageal response latencies.

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

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

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

21 n increase perceptual sensitivity and reduce response latencies.

22 l neurons and interneurons displayed similar response latencies.

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

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

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

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

27 on, impulsivity, perseverative responses and response latencies.

28 contrast and robust to noisy fluctuations in response latencies.

29 lls with different receptive field sizes and response latencies.

30 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

60 Response latencies averaged 281 ms and were significantl

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

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

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

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

65 Response latency decreased after adaptation, irrespectiv

66 Response latency decreased as stimulus intensity was inc

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

68 Response latencies during the training were recorded.

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

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

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

72 25 microliter), into the PAG failed to alter response latencies for defensive rage behavior.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

80 Response latency, Fourier transform and spike counts sho

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

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

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

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

85 Longer response latencies in contralateral than ipsilateral VRs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

103 The response latency is minimized by electrical synapses bet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

133 Response latencies to thermal nociceptive stimuli were m

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

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

136 The response latency to tibialis anterior correlated with di

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

151 Mean response latencies were substantially larger than those

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

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

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

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

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

157 Comparison of response latencies within and across tracts revealed odo