Hubbry Logo
Response time (technology)Response time (technology)Main
Open search
Response time (technology)
Community hub
Response time (technology)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Response time (technology)
Response time (technology)
Response time (technology)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In technology, response time is the time a system or functional unit takes to react to a given input.

Computing

[edit]

In computing, the responsiveness of a service, how long a system takes to respond to a request for service, is measured through the response time. That service can be anything from a[citation needed] memory fetch, to a disk IO, to a complex database query, or loading a full web page. Ignoring transmission time for a moment, the response time is the sum of the service time and wait time. The service time is the time it takes to do the work you requested. For a given request the service time varies little as the workload increases – to do X amount of work it always takes X amount of time. The wait time is how long the request had to wait in a queue before being serviced and it varies from zero, when no waiting is required, to a large multiple of the service time, as many requests are already in the queue and have to be serviced first.[original research?]

With basic queueing theory math[1] you can calculate how the average wait time increases as the device providing the service goes from 0-100% busy. As the device becomes busier, the average wait time increases in a non-linear fashion. The busier the device is, the more dramatic the response time increases will seem as you approach 100% busy; all of that increase is caused by increases in wait time, which is the result of all the requests waiting in queue that have to run first.

Transmission time gets added to response time when your request and the resulting response has to travel over a network and it can be very significant.[2] Transmission time can include propagation delays due to distance (the speed of light is finite), delays due to transmission errors, and data communication bandwidth limits (especially at the last mile) slowing the transmission speed of the request or the reply.

Developers can reduce the response time of a system (for end users or not) using program optimization techniques.

Real-time systems

[edit]
Further information: Real-time computing

In real-time systems the response time of a task or thread is defined as the time elapsed between the dispatch (time when task is ready to execute) to the time when it finishes its job (one dispatch). Response time is different from WCET which is the maximum time the task would take if it were to execute without interference. It is also different from deadline which is the length of time during which the task's output would be valid in the context of the specific system. And it has a relation to the TTFB, which is the time between the dispatch and the time when the response starts.

Display technologies

[edit]

Response time is the amount of time a pixel in a display takes to change. It is measured in milliseconds (ms). Lower numbers mean faster transitions and therefore fewer visible image artifacts. Display monitors with long response times would create display motion blur around moving objects, making them unacceptable for rapidly moving images. Response times are usually measured from grey-to-grey transitions, based on a VESA industry standard from the 10% to the 90% points in the pixel response curve.[3][4]

In fast paced competitive games such as Counter-Strike, the response time of a display is crucial for optimal performance. Displays that have a lower response time are more responsive to player input and produce less visual errors when displaying a rapidly changing image, making low response time important for competitive gaming. Most modern monitors that are marketed for gaming have a response time of 1ms, although it is not uncommon to see <1ms response time in high end monitors, and >1ms response time on less expensive monitors or monitors that have a higher resolution.[5]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Response time (technology)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In technology, response time refers to the duration between an input or stimulus to a and the corresponding output or reaction, encompassing the , transmission, and delivery phases. This metric is fundamental across various technological domains, including , networking, and hardware interfaces, where it directly influences , efficiency, and benchmarks. In computer systems and human-computer interaction (HCI), response time is typically measured from the moment a user submits a command—such as pressing a key or clicking a —until the provides feedback, often aiming for sub-second delays to maintain natural interaction flow. Optimal response times in interactive s are generally under 0.1 seconds for immediate feedback, 1 second for uninterrupted flow, and up to 10 seconds for tolerable delays, as longer intervals can lead to user frustration and reduced productivity. Factors affecting this include processing power, network latency, and software optimization, with historical research emphasizing its role in conversational computing interfaces. In display technologies, such as displays (LCDs) and organic (OLED) monitors, response time specifically denotes the interval for a to transition between color states, commonly measured as the time to switch from black to white () and back (), expressed in milliseconds. This parameter, standardized in , is critical for minimizing motion blur in dynamic visuals like gaming or video playback, with faster response times (e.g., 1-5 ms) preferred for high-refresh-rate applications to enhance clarity and reduce ghosting artifacts. Advances in panel technologies have progressively reduced these times, improving perceptual quality in real-time rendering scenarios. Beyond these areas, response time extends to real-time systems, where it ensures timely task completion within strict deadlines to meet operational correctness, as in embedded devices or control systems. In networking and web services, it quantifies server latency from request receipt to response dispatch, often targeted below 200 ms for optimal user satisfaction. Overall, minimizing response time remains a key engineering goal, balancing hardware capabilities, , and application demands to support seamless technological interactions.

Fundamentals

Definition and Importance

In technology, particularly computing, response time refers to the elapsed duration between an input event—such as a user command or an external signal—and the corresponding output response, like data processing or a visual update on a display. This metric quantifies a system's reactivity and is fundamental to evaluating overall across hardware, software, and networked environments. The concept of response time originated in the early days of computing during the 1950s, when mainframe systems relied on , where jobs were queued and executed sequentially, often resulting in delays of hours or even days for results. The introduction of systems in the early , pioneered at institutions like MIT, transformed this by enabling multiple users to interact concurrently, reducing response times to seconds and laying the groundwork for interactive computing. Moore's Law, articulated by in 1965, further accelerated this evolution by forecasting the doubling of counts on integrated circuits approximately every two years, exponentially boosting processing speeds and shrinking response times, which in turn heightened user expectations for near-instantaneous performance. Response time holds critical importance in technology due to its direct influence on , system reliability, and . For instance, human perception studies show that responses under 100 milliseconds are perceived as instantaneous, preserving user flow, while delays up to 1 second feel continuous and beyond 10 seconds lead to frustration and task abandonment. In broader terms, suboptimal response times can compromise reliability by increasing error rates from user impatience or system timeouts, and they hinder efficiency by bottlenecking throughput in resource-shared environments. Several key factors influence response time, including computational load from task volume and , hardware constraints such as processor speed and capacity, and software overhead from inefficient algorithms or operating system scheduling. These elements interact dynamically, where higher loads or slower hardware can amplify delays unless mitigated by optimized software.

Measurement Techniques

Response time in technology is quantified using several common metrics that capture different aspects of . End-to-end latency measures the total duration from an input event, such as a user request, to the corresponding output or response, encompassing all , transmission, and queuing delays across the . represents the variation or inconsistency in these response times, often expressed as standard deviation or peak-to-peak differences, which is critical for applications requiring predictable timing like video streaming. Additionally, throughput—the rate at which a processes requests—and response time exhibit inherent trade-offs; higher throughput under load can increase average latency due to , necessitating balanced optimization in design. Measurement techniques typically involve timestamping key events to compute these metrics accurately. A fundamental process includes recording a high-precision at the initiation of an input event (e.g., via system clocks synchronized with ) and another at the completion of the output event, then calculating the difference while subtracting any known fixed delays like time. For networks, ping tests utilize ICMP requests to assess round-trip latency, sending packets and measuring the time until acknowledgment, providing a simple baseline for connectivity and delay. In , tools like simulate multiple virtual users to generate load and record response times for each transaction, aggregating metrics such as average, median, and 90th percentile latencies from server logs. For hardware signals, oscilloscopes capture electrical waveforms in real-time, allowing measurement of response characteristics like —the duration for a signal to transition from 10% to 90% of its final value—by triggering on input edges and analyzing the trace. Packet-level analysis in networks employs to dissect captured traffic, timestamping individual packets to compute precise delays, jitter, and retransmission impacts. Standardized frameworks guide these measurements to ensure consistency and comparability. The ISO/IEC 25010 standard, under its performance efficiency characteristic, defines time behaviour as the degree to which the response and processing times meet user requirements, recommending metrics like maximum response time for specified workloads. In telecommunications, Recommendation G.114 specifies one-way transmission time thresholds, advising that delays below 150 ms support satisfactory interactive voice quality, with impairments becoming noticeable above this limit. Challenges in response time measurement arise from system variability, requiring multiple runs and statistical analysis to isolate true performance. Caching effects in software and networks can artificially reduce subsequent response times by storing frequently accessed data, skewing averages unless tests incorporate or warm-up periods. Environmental noise, such as electromagnetic interference in hardware setups or fluctuating network conditions, introduces jitter and outliers, mitigated by controlled test environments and filtering techniques in tools like oscilloscopes.

Computing Applications

Software and System Response

In software systems, response time is influenced by , where algorithms with lower , such as O(1) constant-time operations compared to O(n) linear-time ones, reduce computational overhead and thus shorten overall execution duration. Threading models further impact responsiveness; multithreading enables concurrent task execution, allowing systems to handle multiple operations simultaneously and maintain performance even when individual threads are blocked, unlike single-threaded approaches that serialize work. In managed languages like , garbage collection introduces pauses that suspend application threads to reclaim memory, directly degrading response time; for instance, dedicating just 1% of execution time to garbage collection can reduce throughput by over 20% in multi-processor environments. At the operating system level, context switching— the process of saving and restoring process states to switch CPU control— incurs overhead typically in the range of several microseconds, which accumulates in high-frequency switching scenarios and delays task resumption. Interrupt handling adds to this latency, as the time from interrupt assertion to handler execution can span microseconds to milliseconds depending on system configuration, affecting how quickly the OS responds to hardware events. Scheduler policies also play a key role; round-robin scheduling promotes fairness by allocating fixed time slices but leads to higher context switch rates and longer average wait times (e.g., up to 94 ms in sample workloads), whereas priority-based scheduling prioritizes critical tasks for faster response at the potential cost of lower-priority delays. User interface response in computing applications, particularly web-based ones, follows guidelines like Google's RAIL model, which targets processing input within 50 ms to ensure a visible response under 100 ms, animations under 10 ms per frame for smoothness (accounting for browser rendering time), idle periods under 50 ms to handle deferred work without blocking, and page loads under 5 seconds for initial interactivity. These thresholds help maintain user satisfaction by aligning with human perception limits. To mitigate response time issues, developers employ strategies such as caching frequently accessed data to avoid recomputation, asynchronous to overlap I/O-bound tasks with via multithreading, and profiling tools like perf for analysis or for detection to identify and resolve bottlenecks systematically.

Network and Database Latency

In systems, network latency arises from several key components that collectively determine the time required for data transmission between nodes. Propagation delay represents the fundamental physical limit imposed by the in the , approximately 5 μs per kilometer in due to the signal's being about two-thirds that of in . This delay is deterministic and scales linearly with distance, making it a critical factor in wide-area networks where transcontinental links can introduce tens of milliseconds. Processing delay occurs at network nodes, such as routers, where packets undergo examination and forwarding; for simple IPv4 lookups, this is typically around 10 μs, but complex operations like can extend it to 1 ms or more per packet. , variable and congestion-dependent, models packet waiting times at buffers using ; in the M/M/1 single-server model with Poisson arrivals (rate λ) and exponential service times (rate μ), the average waiting time in the queue is given by Wq=λμ(μ−λ)W_q = \frac{\lambda}{\mu (\mu - \lambda)}, where utilization ρ = λ/μ must be less than 1 for stability, highlighting how high loads exponentially increase delays. Database latency extends these network effects into query processing and , where response times are influenced by internal operations and system . Query execution time varies significantly based on access methods: index scans, which leverage structured indexes for targeted lookups, are generally much faster than full table scans without indexes, which examine every record. Locking mechanisms, essential for maintaining data consistency in concurrent environments, introduce delays in relational SQL databases through mechanisms like row-level or table-level locks, which can escalate contention and block transactions under high load. In contrast, databases such as minimize locking overhead with schema-less designs and optimistic concurrency, enabling faster writes but potentially at the expense of immediate consistency. Replication lag further differentiates systems: SQL databases often employ synchronous replication to ensure , resulting in higher latency (e.g., 5 seconds or more during network partitions), while systems like use asynchronous replication and sharding for horizontal scaling, achieving sub-second lags with tunable to prioritize availability. Key metrics quantify these delays in practical protocols. Round-trip time (RTT) measures the duration for a packet to travel to a destination and receive an acknowledgment, with typical values ranging from 14 ms (local) to over 600 ms (global), and medians around 180 ms in traces. In HTTP requests, time-to-first-byte (TTFB) captures the latency from request issuance to the initial response byte, encompassing network transit, server processing, and initial data serialization, often dominating perceived load times. The TCP/IP stack's SYN-ACK handshake, establishing connections, exemplifies this with delays of 50-200 ms, reflecting RTT plus minimal processing, as observed in empirical studies where average SYN-ACK times hover near 145 ms. Mitigations target these components to optimize end-to-end response. Content delivery networks (CDNs) cache data at edge locations, reducing propagation and queuing delays by serving requests from geographically proximate servers. Load balancing distributes queries across database replicas or shards, alleviating queuing at bottlenecks and improving throughput in both SQL and setups, such as MongoDB's sharding which balances writes to minimize replication lag. Data compression techniques, like for payloads, shrink transmission sizes to lower bandwidth demands and queuing times, with studies showing up to 70% reductions in transfer delays for compressible traffic. In emerging paradigms, networks enable with ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC), achieving air interface latencies under 1 ms through localized processing at base stations, as standardized for applications like industrial .

Real-Time Systems

Core Principles

In real-time systems, response time is defined as the elapsed interval from the release of a task—when it becomes eligible for execution—to its completion, with the paramount emphasis placed on ensuring predictability and bounded guarantees rather than solely on achieving the shortest possible duration. This distinguishes real-time response from general latency, where variability and average performance often suffice, as real-time contexts demand verifiable adherence to deadlines to prevent system failures. Unlike average-case metrics prevalent in non-critical applications, real-time response prioritizes worst-case bounds to maintain system reliability under all feasible conditions. Core attributes of response time in these systems include , which ensures consistent and repeatable behavior despite external perturbations; (WCET) estimation, providing an upper bound on a task's runtime by analyzing , data dependencies, and hardware effects like caching; and schedulability, assessed through algorithms such as (RMS), where tasks are assigned fixed priorities inversely proportional to their periods—shorter-period tasks receive higher priority to maximize the likelihood of meeting all deadlines. analysis, foundational since the , employs static methods like and integer linear programming to derive safe bounds without exhaustive testing, enabling pre-runtime verification. RMS, introduced in seminal work on multiprogramming, offers a utilization bound of approximately 69% for schedulable task sets under , serving as a baseline for in constrained environments. These principles find application in embedded systems, such as automotive electronic control units (ECUs), where response times must align with safety-critical cycles often in the order of milliseconds for functions like engine management and braking. In industrial control, programmable logic controllers (PLCs) operate with scan cycles typically below 10 milliseconds to synchronize inputs, execute logic, and update outputs in manufacturing processes, ensuring timely reactions to sensor data. Such systems rely on these attributes to guarantee operational integrity in resource-limited hardware. The evolution of response time principles traces back to the 1970s, influenced by early networked systems like , which demonstrated the need for timely packet delivery in distributed environments and spurred advancements in protocol design for predictable communication. This foundation extended into modern IoT standards, such as OPC UA, which integrates real-time extensions over (TSN) to achieve sub-100-millisecond responses for interoperable device coordination in industrial and connected ecosystems. As of 2025, advancements in TSN under standards have enabled OPC UA implementations with latencies as low as 1 ms in controlled environments.

Hard vs. Soft Real-Time

In real-time systems, the distinction between hard and soft real-time classifications hinges on the consequences of missing response time deadlines. Hard real-time systems require that every deadline be met, as failure to do so constitutes a complete failure with potentially catastrophic outcomes, such as loss of life or equipment damage. For instance, automotive deployment systems must respond within strict time bounds, typically around 20 milliseconds from to , to effectively mitigate ; any delay beyond this could render the system ineffective. In contrast, soft real-time systems tolerate occasional deadline misses without total failure, though such violations degrade performance or (QoS). An example is video streaming applications, where below 200 milliseconds is generally tolerable for video conferencing, but for smooth playback, should be kept below 30 milliseconds to minimize buffering interruptions. Design approaches for hard real-time systems emphasize predictability and rigorous validation to ensure deadlines are never missed, often employing fixed-priority scheduling algorithms like Earliest Deadline First (EDF), which dynamically assigns priorities based on impending deadlines to optimize preemptible task execution. Response-time analysis techniques, such as those evaluating (WCET), are used to verify schedulability. A seminal bound for (RMS) in hard real-time contexts is the Liu-Layland utilization limit, which guarantees feasibility if the total processor utilization UU satisfies: U<n(21/n−1)U < n \left(2^{1/n} - 1\right) where nn is the number of tasks; for large nn, this approaches ln⁡2≈0.693\ln 2 \approx 0.693. Tools like Cheddar facilitate simulation and analysis of these systems by modeling task sets and computing response times under various scenarios, aiding in early detection of potential deadline violations. Soft real-time designs, however, incorporate flexibility, such as adaptive QoS mechanisms that adjust resource allocation during overloads to minimize overall impact, as seen in multimedia frameworks where bandwidth is dynamically reallocated to prioritize critical frames. Prominent applications of hard real-time systems include , where software must adhere to certification standards to ensure deterministic timing in safety-critical flight controls, preventing failures like delayed sensor responses that could lead to accidents. In soft real-time contexts, smartphones exemplify the approach through the (ART), which applies and profile-guided optimizations to reduce application launch times and UI responsiveness delays, tolerating rare hiccups to balance battery life and multitasking.

Display and Hardware Technologies

Pixel Response in Displays

Pixel response time in displays refers to the duration required for a pixel to transition from one color or shade to another, typically measured in milliseconds (ms) using the gray-to-gray (GtG) method, which tracks the change from 10% to 90% of the level for a given gray scale. This metric is crucial for minimizing visual distortions during dynamic content, as slower transitions can lead to perceptible delays in image updates. In displays (LCDs), pixel response times are generally slower due to the liquid crystal molecules' twisting mechanism, with typical GtG values ranging from 1 to 8 ms, influenced by panel types such as twisted nematic (TN) at around 5 ms. Overdrive techniques, which apply higher voltages to accelerate molecular reorientation, can reduce these times but may introduce overshoot artifacts if not calibrated properly. Organic (OLED) displays achieve significantly faster responses, often below 1 ms and as low as 0.1 ms for phosphorescent decay, owing to self-emissive pixels that switch states almost instantaneously without backlighting dependencies. Plasma displays, now largely obsolete since around 2014 due to energy inefficiency and production costs, featured fast response times around 1-2 ms governed by phosphor decay (typically 1-5 ms), making them suitable for motion-heavy applications. Slow pixel response times contribute to motion artifacts such as blur, where trailing edges appear in fast-moving objects due to incomplete pixel transitions within a frame period, and ghosting, which manifests as faint residual images from prior frames. These effects degrade perceived sharpness, particularly at high refresh rates, as the eye integrates incomplete pixel states over time. Measurement of pixel response follows standards like , which defines rise and fall times as the total duration for a pixel to shift from black to white and back, summing these for an overall response value, though modern GtG testing provides a more practical assessment for transitions. The VESA Certified ClearMR standard addresses motion clarity by quantifying the Clear Motion Ratio (CMR), a metric comparing clear to blurry pixels, with certifications like ClearMR 13000 indicating high performance (125-135 times more clear pixels than blurry); tiers have been expanded up to ClearMR 21000 as of December 2024 to support advanced high-refresh-rate displays. Backlighting technologies impact effective response in LCDs; traditional LED backlights can exacerbate blur through uniform illumination, while mini-LED arrays enable finer local dimming, indirectly improving motion handling by reducing halo effects and supporting faster perceived transitions in high-contrast scenes.

Input Device Response

Input device response time refers to the duration from the physical user interaction with a hardware peripheral—such as pressing a key or moving a —to the system's initial acknowledgment and processing of that signal. This encompasses signal detection at the level, transmission via interfaces like USB, and initial handling before software execution. In peripherals like mice and keyboards, low response times are critical for fluid user experiences, particularly in demanding applications such as gaming or professional design work, where delays can accumulate into noticeable lag. The mechanics of input response begin with hardware polling and signal stabilization. For USB mice, a standard polling rate of 1000 Hz means the device reports its state every 1 ms, enabling precise tracking of movements, though high-end gaming models now support up to 8000 Hz (0.125 ms) as of 2025, balancing enhanced responsiveness with USB bandwidth constraints. In keyboards, mechanical switches introduce debounce delays to filter electrical from switch bounce, typically lasting 5-10 ms to ensure a single, clean input registration per press. These intervals represent the foundational hardware latencies before data reaches the host system. Key technologies in input devices further define response characteristics. Capacitive touch sensors, common in touchpads and screens, achieve rise times under 10 ms for detecting finger proximity through changes, providing near-instantaneous initial response in interfaces. Optical sensors in gaming mice track surface motion with latencies around 0.5 ms, leveraging LED illumination and imaging for high-speed position updates. Haptic feedback loops in controllers close the interaction cycle by delivering tactile confirmation, with effective latencies below 30 ms to feel synchronous with user actions like button presses. End-to-end input lag, from device actuation to system output, is a key metric, ideally under 20 ms in gaming setups to maintain immersion without perceptible delay; for instance, controller inputs to on-screen response in competitive play target this threshold to avoid competitive disadvantages. often employs high-speed cameras to capture and timestamp the input event alongside display output, achieving sub-millisecond accuracy for peripherals. Optimizations like (DMA) mitigate CPU involvement in data transfer from input devices, reducing overhead and latency by allowing peripherals to write directly to system memory. In (VR) applications, such techniques contribute to motion-to-photon latencies below 20 ms, essential for preventing disorientation and ensuring seamless head-tracked immersion. These hardware-focused strategies complement display transition times by minimizing upstream delays in the input pipeline.

References

  1. https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/response-time
  2. https://www.cs.umd.edu/~ben/papers/Shneiderman1984Response.pdf
  3. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1476589.1476628
  4. http://psy1.psych.arizona.edu/~jforster/dmdx/help/lcd-parameters.html
  5. https://spectrum.ieee.org/computer-display-500-hertz
  6. https://course.ece.cmu.edu/~ece749/docs/RTSHandbook.pdf
  7. https://sematext.com/glossary/response-time/
  8. https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~nelson/courses/elec5200_6200/ELEC5200_6200%2520Performance.pdf
  9. https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/mainframe-computers/7/166
  10. https://circulatingnow.nlm.nih.gov/2016/02/25/medlars-i-grace-the-early-mainframe-experience/
  11. https://www.ibm.com/history/time-sharing
  12. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mooreslaw.asp
  13. https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2009/12/optimization-applying-moores-law-to-user-experience.php
  14. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/response-times-3-important-limits/
  15. https://cs162.eecs.berkeley.edu/static/readings/patterson_queue.pdf
  16. https://people.computing.clemson.edu/~jmarty/courses/commonCourseContent/Module2-ProgrammingReview/PerformanceOfAComputingSystem.pdf
  17. https://www.riverbed.com/blogs/what-are-the-three-major-network-performance-metrics/
  18. https://aws.amazon.com/compare/the-difference-between-throughput-and-latency/
  19. https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/time-distribution/internet-time-service-its
  20. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/voice/voice-quality/5125-delay-details.html
  21. https://www.iso.org/standard/78176.html
  22. https://blazemeter.com/blog/jmeter-performance-metrics
  23. https://opendsa-server.cs.vt.edu/ODSA/Books/CS2/html/AnalCompvsAlg.html
  24. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/operating-systems/benefits-of-multithreading-in-operating-system/
  25. https://www.dynatrace.com/resources/ebooks/javabook/impact-of-garbage-collection-on-performance/
  26. https://cacm.acm.org/research/attack-of-the-killer-microseconds/
  27. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/operating-systems/what-is-interrupt-latency/
  28. https://thesai.org/Downloads/Volume13No4/Paper_63-A_New_Combination_Approach_to_CPU_Scheduling.pdf
  29. https://web.dev/articles/rail
  30. https://www.index.dev/blog/code-optimization-strategies
  31. https://intronetworks.cs.luc.edu/current/uhtml/packets.html
  32. https://www.ecs.umass.edu/ece/wolf/pubs/globecom2004.pdf
  33. https://web.mit.edu/dimitrib/www/Queueing_Data_Nets.pdf
  34. https://www.mdpi.com/2504-2289/7/2/97
  35. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/architecture/cloud-native/relational-vs-nosql-data
  36. https://people.cs.umass.edu/phillipa/papers/SPECTS.pdf
  37. https://www.ijirmps.org/papers/2019/5/231869.pdf
  38. https://www.cs.fsu.edu/~whalley/papers/tecs07.pdf
  39. https://cache.industry.siemens.com/dl/files/558/59193558/att_112303/v1/s71500_cycle_and_reaction_times_function_manual_en-US_en-US.pdf
  40. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.17052
  41. http://www.eecs.umich.edu/courses/eecs498-brehob/Labs/Lab5.pdf
  42. https://www.sei.cmu.edu/blog/ensuring-safety-in-cyber-physical-systems/
  43. http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~zmao/Papers/forecast2013.pdf
  44. https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/Design_and_Configure/Architecture_and_Best_Practices/What_is_Jitter%253F
  45. https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~scott/courses/Winter00/290S/burns.pdf
  46. https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~lee/09cis480/papers/LiuLayland.pdf
  47. http://beru.univ-brest.fr/cheddar/
  48. https://www.cs.wm.edu/~dcschmidt/PDF/MW03.pdf
  49. https://militaryembedded.com/avionics/safety-certification/deos-do-178c-rtos-face-conformance-announced-by-ddc-i
  50. https://source.android.com/docs/core/runtime/improvements
  51. https://www.displayninja.com/what-does-monitor-response-time-mean/
  52. https://www.tomshardware.com/reference/display-response-time-definition
  53. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/motion/motion-blur-and-response-time
  54. https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/response_time
  55. https://www.corsair.com/us/en/explorer/gamer/monitors/what-is-monitor-ghosting-and-how-to-fix-it/
  56. https://blurbusters.com/gtg-versus-mprt-frequently-asked-questions-about-display-pixel-response/
  57. https://www.displayninja.com/what-is-vesa-clearmr/
  58. https://vesa.org/press/vesa-adds-new-performance-levels-to-clearmr-and-displayhdr-true-black-standards-to-support-display-technology-advances-for-gamers-and-content-creators/
  59. https://displaydaily.com/dispelling-the-myths-of-miniled-tvs-impact-on-oled-tv-sales/
  60. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3472749.3474783
  61. https://www.rtings.com/mouse/reviews/best/by-usage/gaming
  62. https://www.eng.utah.edu/~cs5780/debouncing.pdf
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46280064_Comparative_Study_of_Various_Touchscreen_Technologies
  64. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2807442.2807454
  65. https://www.immersion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ux-impact_haptic-latency-in-auto_jul13v1.pdf
  66. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/inputs/input-lag
  67. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2628137_Video-Based_Measurement_of_System_Latency
  68. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/computer-organization-architecture/direct-memory-access-dma-controller-in-computer-architecture/
  69. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-022-01983-5
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.