Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261936AbVEaRKr (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 13:10:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261951AbVEaRJj (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 13:09:39 -0400 Received: from pop-savannah.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.69]:3800 "EHLO pop-savannah.atl.sa.earthlink.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261972AbVEaQ7L (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 12:59:11 -0400 Message-ID: <10471395.1117558743885.JavaMail.root@wamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:59:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Finney Reply-To: Steve Finney To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Human tIming perception (was: RT patch) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Earthlink Zoo Mail 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1856 Lines: 41 Ingo Molnar wrote: > so in terms of mouse pointer 'smoothness', it might very well be > possible for humans to detect a couple of msec delays visually - even > though they are unable to notice those delays directly. (Isnt there some > existing research on this?) With great trepidation, I put on my experimental psychologist hat and add to this thread from the recent archive... Bruno Repp at Haskins Labs has done some interesting work showing that the motor system can respond to timing perturbations which are below the limit of conscious perception. The experiments used synchronization tapping, where the person's task is to tap their finger in synchrony with a sequence of evenly timed tones (say, 5/second). It takes (IIRC) about a 10 ms or so difference in the sounded sequence for someone to be able to report that there's been a change, but a cnange in the timing of the person's finger movements occurs (_immediately_) at perturbations smaller than 10 ms. That is, there appears to be some dissociation between conscious perception and perceptual/motor behavior. This was audition, and vision might be signficantly different, but it provides some support for Ingo's hypothesis above. Sorry, I don't have my academic references handy, but the following is probably one of the relevant publications: Repp, B. H. (2002b). Automaticity and voluntary control of phase correction following event onset shifts in sensorimotor synchronization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 410-430. Back to lurking, Steve Finney PS Thanks for all the kernel work! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/