ライフサイエンスコーパス: response time

1 its sensitivity, stability, selectivity and response time.

2 ane and ethanol vapors but exhibiting longer response time.

3 didate alarms in identification accuracy and response time.

4 ming response dynamics and predicts the peak response time.

5 ng on disposable electrodes and with a 1.5 h response time.

6 represent modifiable factors associated with response time.

7 their high sensitivity, portability and fast response time.

8 receding 120 minutes was not associated with response time.

9 igh and low abilities), and average question response time.

10 hem, potentially accounting for the improved response time.

11 wider optimal AC frequency range, and faster response time.

12 ted with better stability, repeatability and response time.

13 compromising its sensitivity, stability and response time.

14 rs associated with physiologic monitor alarm response time.

15 requires frequent calibration and has a long response time.

16 alarm-level factors hypothesized to predict response time.

17 rovide positive/negative judgment in a short response time.

18 radius, relative constriction, latency, and response time.

19 in research and clinical settings with fast response time.

20 enhanced photocurrent and largely shortened response time.

21 ing small 10 muL sample volume with a 10-min response time.

22 knit networks may be one strategy to improve response times.

23 ized as bold, shy or intermediate based upon response times.

24 more efficient search, as indexed by faster response times.

25 tion, with later bursts resulting in delayed response times.

26 ct of cortical stimulation train duration on response times.

27 ng that is reflected in both performance and response times.

28 = 3.29, SE = 1.17, P = 0.006, respectively) response times.

29 demonstrated high photoresponsivity and fast response times.

30 n was the more detrimental was the effect on response times.

31 n processes that characterized participants' response times.

32 c responses and therefore exhibit very short response times.

33 ces with small geometric footprints and fast response times.

34 being extremely sensitive while having fast response times.

35 nt occurred in trials with prolonged initial response times.

36 nals further correlate strongly with Blocker response times.

37 ttribute ones, in accounting for choices and response-times.

38 y-choice, which account for both choices and response-times.

39 g/m(3) limits of detection (LoD), and a fast response time (1 s).

40 ective detection of various ions with a fast response time (~1 s), a super-Nernstian sensitivity (85

41 response (0 degrees -90 degrees ), and fast response time (~1.3 s).

42 As expected, the response time (15-60 min) primarily depends on the CRE d

43 GO/VS-PANI/LuPc2-MFH biosensor showed a fast response time (1s) to the addition of glucose with high

44 c response range (1-200 muM H(2)O(2)), short response times (2 s) and a superior sensitivity (1.3-1.4

45 films with 5% Ti significantly improves the response time (~20 times) while retaining the stability

46 sitivity (723.08 uA cm(-2) mM(-1)) with less response time (3 s) with a detection limit of 0.88 uM.

47 bsystems listed in increasing order of their response times; (3) the matrix ATP hydrolysis mass actio

48 reaks (5.7 million people vaccinated, median response time 36 days).

49 n a continuous-flow system exhibiting a fast response time, 4s, and a full recovery to the baseline l

50 rse's shift was associated with a 15% longer response time (6.1 minutes [95% CI, 2.8-9.3] in hour 2 v

51 a low detection limit (0.0625mg/L) and fast response time (61s).

52 ividuals exhibited temporal changes in their response times, a clear effect of temperature was presen

53 3% and 3.28 for AT and VC respectively), and response time about 3.5 min were obtained.

54 ]) and manifest variables of behavior (e.g., response times, accuracy) through hierarchical latent va

55 ranking alternatives through direct rating (response time) accurately predicts preference in choice,

56 d spike rates in L2/3 but not L5/6 predicted response time adaptation.

57 ercise practice (0.3 +/- 0.2 mV h(-1)), fast response time, adequate selectivity for sweat measuremen

58 .35 +/- 0.28 mV h(-1)), together with a fast response time, adequate selectivity, and excellent repro

59 e photocurrent and a twofold decrease in the response time after an external electric field poling.

60 The sensor shows better selectivity and response time along with its real time applications, onl

61 The adjusted median response time among nurses was 10.4 minutes (95% CI, 5.0

62 d +/-0.6 mg/L of oxygen), near instantaneous response time and a flexible architecture for addition o

63 (SECM) probes because of their inherent fast response time and ease of miniaturization.

64 aving offspring was associated with a faster response time and fewer mistakes made in the visual memo

65 ogrammable in any desired fashion, with fast response time and high efficiency.

66 ensor system that has high specificity, fast response time and is easily applicable by user for the d

67 nce was compared in terms of response value, response time and limit of detection (LOD) for each plat

68 ange, high sensitivity and selectivity, fast response time and low oxygen-, temperature- and pH- depe

69 s, overall, NanoLuc and deGFP led to shorter response time and lower LOD than the others.

70 s showed a posterior to anterior gradient in response time and selectivity.

71 We found significant advantages in response time and sensitivity (dprime) for stimuli assoc

72 reme environment oxygen sensors with a rapid response time and sensitivity represent key advancement

73 (2)O(3) and other existing materials lack in response time and stability at elevated temperatures.

74 The sensitivity, response time and the detection limit of the biosensor f

75 A simple, rapid response time and ultrahigh sensitive electrochemilumine

76 ential to discriminate CPL with a fast light response time and with a very high photocurrent dissymme

77 r application in biology was limited by slow response times and a modest possibility to modulate tens

78 and learning, and has been shown to improve response times and accuracy of subsequent motor actions

79 We report improved measurement response times and greater sensitivity across a suite of

80 cator, SomArchon, which exhibits millisecond response times and is compatible with optogenetic contro

81 tly lower diffusivities, suffer from lengthy response times and lower sensitivity, limiting the use o

82 ation of heat exposure (heat*time) increased response times and negatively impacted executive functio

83 The effects on response times and on frontal action selection mechanism

84 rences may originate from differences in the response times and temporal profiles of neurons in the r

85 t predictor of trial-by-trial variability in response times and was selectively related to an importa

86 target stimulus offset, correlated with task response timing and action.

87 een the rated size of individual objects and response times (and shifting costs).

88 major challenges: (1) assay sensitivity, (2) response time, and (3) selectivity (including limiting b

89 e probe has a sensitivity > 0.01 units, 2 ms response time, and 50 nm spatial resolution.

90 s selectively with a comparable sensitivity, response time, and bandwidth of existing methods.

91 based devices exhibit excellent sensitivity, response time, and detection limits, making them promisi

92 epinephrine dose, emergency medical services response time, and duration of resuscitation.

93 ce exhibits a high proton conductivity, fast response time, and extremely large on/off ratio upon vis

94 onal UV lamps, they offer lower cost, faster response time, and higher photon conversion efficiency.

95 times better sensitivity, three times better response time, and is significantly cheaper compared to

96 tion (LOD), input and output dynamic ranges, response time, and output visibility.

97 In a given GRIR drug formulation, accuracy, response time, and reversibility of the GRIR functions a

98 have caused poor stability, drift, sluggish response times, and interference from other biologically

99 distribution of primary choices, associated response times, and the distribution of second guesses.

100 In addition, the sensor displays a fast response time, appropriate selectivity, and excellent re

101 The heterojunction device shows a fast response time ( approximately 45 ms) and a significantly

102 sensitivity ( approximately 0.018 kPa(-1) ), response time ( approximately 60 ms), and good mechanica

103 stability, sensitivity, detection range, and response time are fully characterized.

104 Response times are approximately 3x faster for the large

105 fuel cell sensor was 10muM, with an average response time as short as 3min.

106 ce showed fairly low responsivities but fast response times, as well as a constant photocurrent again

107 Our model explains the long response times associated with changes-of-mind through h

108 artle response, all animals lengthened their response times at high temperatures but animals collecte

109 ype associated with the low-shore-lengthened response times at high temperatures.

110 while intermediate individuals raised their response times at higher temperatures for startle respon

111 with higher baseline LBP had less consistent response times (B = 0.002, SE = 0.0008, P = 0.04).

112 ond opinion for diagnosis, and the amount of response time before a reply answer was sent.

113 shed stress-induced recognition accuracy and response time biases towards fear.

114 d colour cues, but dependent on the baseline response time, both between subjects and across conditio

115 inally priming an action not only influences response times, but also influences reported sense of ag

116 quired to deliver an AED ahead of median 911 response times by 3 minutes.

117 he anti-activator ExsD, while ExsD increases response times by decreasing the free ExsA concentration

118 ing for age, sex, emergency medical services response time, clustering of county, transport time to n

119 Intriguingly, response time costs associated with changing task-sets a

120 MP one of the important determinants for the response time course.

121 We contrast response time courses and information content of two maj

122 ive materials in machine implementations are response time, cyclability (frequency and ruggedness), s

123 Using computational modeling of response time data, we found evidence for dissociable ve

124 premotor neurons changed such that auditory response times decreased, and vocal premotor lead times

125 according to spatially variable groundwater response times determined by geology and topography.

126 was spatial bias on the Posner cueing task (response time difference: left minus right target trials

127 otodetectors with high photocurrent and fast response time, displaying a tenfold enhancement in the p

128 Drift-diffusion analysis of the response time distributions allowed us to better charact

129 The third models the RSE on the level of response time distributions using a context-variant race

130 fers a large phase change while keeping fast response time due to the decoupling between phase change

131 t dentate gyrus volume predicts accuracy and response time during behavioural pattern separation wher

132 ted a severe reading impairment with delayed response times during reading aloud tasks, but not lexic

133 on, substantially improved both accuracy and response times during the earliest stage of learning pse

134 itive testing was negatively associated with response times during the most challenging memory task (

135 ctive coupling, has minimal hysteresis, fast response times, excellent cycling stability, is highly r

136 More errors and slower response times followed costimulation at above- or below

137 show a key trade-off between sensitivity and response time for such structures and provide solutions

138 3 minutes faster than historical median 911 response times for each region independently.

139 Median response times for haptic stimulation varied from 198 ms

140 Median response times for the pre- and post-operative AHQ were

141 se AGM data are reasonably likely to predict response times for treatment in humans.

142 ding protein stability control allows faster response times, fully tunable and enhanced dynamic range

143 system is an ideal solution to minimize the response time, however, they often feature complex desig

144 response time was reduced from 7 (the median response time in this study) to 5 minutes.

145 e relationship between decision conflict and response times in individual participants.

146 g oscillator circuits, we measure repression response times in open-loop systems with inducible RNA s

147 ed to associate with longer emotional Stroop response times in T1D only.

148 strategies between conditions revealed that response times in the gain condition were longer than th

149 Using a cache mechanism, mzAccess achieves response times in the millisecond range for typical liqu

150 es and 43 seconds relative to historical 911 response times in the region.

151 of task DVs (e.g., model parameters vs. raw response times) in their suitability as individual diffe

152 the auditory system exhibits a highly rapid response time, in the sub-millisecond regime.

153 which correlated with the observed effect in response times, indicative of differences in top-down pr

154 e this finding together with a heterogeneous response time into a cascade model.

155 o 100 mM with the detection limit of 1.5 mM; response time is 2-3 min.

156 Its response time is also better than the p-cresol sensor cu

157 W at room temperature (27 degrees C) and the response time is as short as 30 mus.

158 The EuAD's response time is of 50 s, including an incubation time o

159 perovskite photodetector with sub-nanosecond response time is presented.

160 sychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT-B), with long response times (lapses) indicating reduced alertness.

161 uting and provide solutions within practical response times, leading to fast and accurate parameter i

162 wide linear range of 4.0nM to 800muM with a response time less than 4s and detection limit (based on

163 of quantification (LOQ) of 0.80microM and a response time less than 8s towards MG.

164 iniaturization, operational simplicity, fast response time (less than 5min), useful sensitivity.

165 fraction of active neurons had sensory-like responses time-locked to each pulse.

166 a range of time dependent phenomena such as response times, long and medium term potential drifts, d

167 We further demonstrate a fast response time (<1 min) of our devices, which enables rea

168 nsor possesses numerous advantages like fast response time (<15s), simple, low cost, highly selective

169 ding under large vis-light noise, with short response time (<66 ms), excellent UV photoresponsivity (

170 mbination of both high responsivity and fast response times makes these photodetectors suitable for v

171 ient scintillation detectors with nanosecond response time, marking a step-change in opportunities fo

172 ides considerably more information than mere response times, may provide a comprehensive understandin

173 eral advantages, like high sensitivity, fast response time, minimal sample preparation, miniaturizati

174 The proposed sensor possesses a response time of 15s which is 8 times better than that r

175 le LOD value of 0.0127microM together with a response time of 1min.

176 inear plasmonic modulator, with an ultrafast response time of 290 fs.

177 tion in ice cores and offering a 10-90% peak response time of 45 s and a combined uncertainty of 9%.

178 ide) - based sodium selective sensor, with a response time of 45s.

179 ns show prominent photoresponse, with a fast response time of 500 mus, faster than all the directly g

180 f 12.044microA (ng per mL cm(-2))(-1) with a response time of 5min.

181 power conversion efficiency of 9% and a fast response time of 9 mus are achieved.

182 or the EDTA soil extracts were achieved at a response time of 90 min.

183 ssure with sub-100 Pa detection limits and a response time of 90 ms is demonstrated.

184 The mechanical response time of a 100 nm long origami lever to an appli

185 and stability with an excellent amperometric response time of about 5 s.

186 a limit of detection of 10 mg/dL, and a step response time of approximately 1 h to abrupt shifts in c

187 highly specific microcantilever sensor has a response time of approximately 2min and is reusable up t

188 d within concentrations of 0.03-50 mM with a response time of approximately 3 s.

189 the audibility, identification accuracy, and response time of each of these icon alarms.

190 tion of nutritional substrates, and reducing response time of electricity generation owing to fast ma

191 biosensor for lactate detection which had a response time of less than 10 s over the range of 0.05-1

192 ovides high sample throughput due to a rapid response time of less than five seconds.

193 the first quantitative determination of the response time of North Atlantic climate to changes in hi

194 The response time of O(2) consumption to multiple alternatin

195 rovide insight into the factors limiting the response time of organic mixed-conductor-based devices,

196 s (k-1) decreased whereas an increase in the response time of solution P equilibration (Tc) was obser

197 We found that tRNS reduces the response time of subjects independent of the congruence

198 observed in spatial conflict tasks where the response time of subjects is increased if stimuli are pr

199 Response time of the anti-OTA/Protein-A/PSi-based immuno

200 an push the detection time to the biological response time of the bacteria.

201 Constraining the response time of the climate system to changes in North

202 rs, i.e., sensitivity, a detection limit and response time of the FeS and conventional pyrroloquinoli

203 The medium consumption and the response time of the flow-through device are reduced by

204 Response time of the immunosensor toward OTA was in the

205 Moreover, the response time of the material by bending upon irradiatio

206 This condition also determines the response time of the network.

207 The response time of the photodetector is reduced to the sub

208 y of 18.11 muA mM(-1) cm(-2) with an average response time of ~1 s, linearity from 1 to 20 mM, and lo

209 wide dynamic range of 400-8000 ppm, a short response time of ~10 secs, and a reset time of ~6 secs i

210 a-amylase in serum (25 - 100 U/l) at a quick response time of ~60 s.

211 nanogram per liter PAH detection limits and response times of <=1.6 min.

212 Through this approach, response times of 399 mus are observed, opening the door

213 nsing by neurons is coupled to transcription response times of germ cells to protect future offspring

214 es for reversible shape reconfiguration with response times of less than 1 s, as the basis of dynamic

215 physiologic changes among patients, but the response times of nurses are slow.

216 ght that have shown promise in improving the response times of photosynthesis-related processes to ch

217 0 ppm across a broad range of setpoints with response times of roughly 1 min or less.

218 where irrelevant spatial cues influence the response times of subjects to relevant colour cues.

219 or visible and near-infrared light achieving response times of the order of 100 milliseconds, almost

220 old and >4-fold, respectively; feature rapid response times of ~0.6 s; and exhibit good performance a

221 We experimentally demonstrate response times on the order of 3 mus, and a signal bandw

222 m the entire surface to the subcellular, and response times on the order of seconds.

223 attentional bias was indicated by elongated response times on trials with cocaine-associated distrac

224 ment disorders also had significantly slower response times (P = 0.0065).

225 T1D had longer SRET negative word response times (P = 0.017) and higher depression rating

226 rrelated with subsequent choice accuracy and response time, particularly in mazes affording sequentia

227 To model the choice and response time patterns, we developed a computational fra

228 Additionally, their response times reflected planning and production process

229 Response times returned to baseline 1-hour after rTMS.

230 errors, but their incidence was unrelated to response time (RT) adaptation.

231 Target detection response time (RT) after a shift or hold of covert spati

232 to data using maximum likelihood on the full response time (RT) distribution.

233 e suggests that these models can account for response time (RT) distributions that arise during reinf

234 The response time (RT), limit of detection (LOD), and linear

235 gets in a visual search task while recording response times (RTs) and event-related potentials, focus

236 tical detection abilities due to their rapid response time (seconds to minutes), specificity to a tar

237 e, identification accuracy (percentage), and response time (seconds).

238 in an opposite manner: theta correlated with response time slowing when the number of rules increased

239 hese hybrid cell-free biosensors have a fast response time, strong signal response, and a high dynami

240 This rapid response time suggests that CD133(+) cells in regenerati

241 f 0.8-200mM chloride and a diffusion-limited response time; sweat chloride levels corresponded to mea

242 ng because of the wide detection range, fast response time, system miniaturization, and enhanced sens

243 the estimation of P(labile), and the system response time ( T(c)).

244 eriment 1, participants performed the serial response time task with reward, punishment, or control f

245 essed using a computerized battery including response time tasks.

246 larms may be a more important determinant of response time than short-term exposure.

247 which can achieve 4 times and 7 times faster response time than that of conventional single-layer LC

248 ere the temperature was not changed: startle response time, the time it took an anemone to re-extend

249 after a threatening stimulus, and immersion response time, the time to re-extend tentacles after sim

250 iple cues to modulate a myriad of downstream responses, timing them to occur at the best moment of th

251 thought to be slow devices with microsecond response times, thereby limiting their full scope of pot

252 Further, we show that the response time to a force step decreases with increasing

253 evaluate associations between exposures and response time to alarms that occurred while the nurse wa

254 We consider the reduction in response time to be non-specific to the Simon task, and

255 to planar electrodes for optimizing sensing response time to less than 1 min.

256 To help health policy makers gain response time to mitigate infectious disease threats, it

257 mation from EEG signals and combines it with response times to build an estimate of the decision conf

258 oved task performance (as indexed by shorter response times to correct "go" trials; r = -0.36, 95% CI

259 We compare the response times to DCS of human hand somatosensory cortex

260 tex through electrocorticographic grids with response times to haptic stimuli delivered to the hand i

261 Secondary outcomes included overall tumor response, time to imaging progression, overall survival,

262 Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic

263 cations, laboratory toxicity levels, imaging response, time to progression (TTP), 90-day mortality, a

264 roportion of patients achieving an objective response, time to radiographic progression, safety, time

265 ortion of patients who achieved an objective response, time to treatment failure, and overall surviva

266 is reasonable in patients with prior durable responses (time to next therapy >/=3 years) and good tol

267 ities-up to 34% DeltaF/F per 100 mV-and fast response times typical of untargeted RhoVRs, while gaini

268 Methods to improve response time typically focus on obtaining an intimate m

269 Response time was about 5-10s, and analysis time per sam

270 Continuous VOC detection with <5 s response time was achieved by measuring the intensity at

271 Response time was associated with factors that likely re

272 icles upon pH change was reversible, and the response time was less than 1.0 s.

273 ients could potentially be saved annually if response time was reduced from 10 to 5 minutes and 119 p

274 ced from 10 to 5 minutes and 119 patients if response time was reduced from 7 (the median response ti

275 cascade via indirect negative feedback, the response time was significantly reduced.

276 Response timing was consistent with this idea.

277 By fitting drift-diffusion models to response times, we found that toddlers accumulated evide

278 s of OV-101 polymer coating, sensitivity and response time were experimentally evaluated for hexane a

279 Response times were faster after at-resonance costimulat

280 modalities, and in both humans and monkeys, response times were faster when the target was congruent

281 Contrast sensitivity (CS) and detection response times were recorded using a visual detection pa

282 Response times were typically around 1 min.

283 e resulted in a 6-fold improvement in sensor response time when detecting a high molecular weight ana

284 les increased, whereas delta correlated with response time when rules became more abstract.

285 We observed increased response times when gaze was directed away from the locu

286 ished vocabulary, tested by the accuracy and response times when participants decided whether a real

287 Baboons showed slower response times when violations occurred in mirror sequen

288 Temporal expectations predominantly affected response times when visual demands were low and speed wa

289 eaches as low as 775 cells/mL within a 15 s' response time, which can satisfy the requirement for on-

290 cs within the visible spectral range, except response time, which is still video-rate compatible.

291 intrinsically limited by the transcriptional response time, which may restrict a cell's ability to ad

292 across the response selection and cognitive response time windows, providing neurophysiological char

293 Thus, a large antiviral T-cell response timed with virus exposure can limit viral trans

294 ne transporter binding showed improvement in response times with methylphenidate compared to placebo

295 as choices) and total action values (to bias response times) with slow decay.

296 Finally, the biosensors showed a fast response time, with an average value of 130 s and a good

297 Au-Pd NPs, and resazurin on the color change response time within the resazurin/Au-Pd NP system revea

298 ed with >=80% target population coverage and response times within 7 days.

299 Cys), appreciable water solubility and rapid response time (within 2 min for Cys/Hcy).

300 rease the vigor of their response, subjects' response times would slow as the overall rate of punishm