Sentence examples for timing variance from inspiring English sources

Previous findings have demonstrated that the relationship between timing variance and timed duration is different in different temporal tasks [7], [8], [26], [36] and is influenced by interval structure (auditory/visual, filled/empty) [54], [55] and sensorimotor context (perception/production) [24], [25].

To provide evidence that a common timing process underlies different forms of timed behaviour, most studies have looked for similarities in the relationship between timing variance and the timed interval [8], [31].

In addition, the central component of timing variability, measured as the slope from the timing variance plotted against the square of the timed interval, also differed for tapping and drawing tasks [10].

A linear regression between timing variance (σ2) (i.e. the difference threshold) and the standard duration (D2) squared was thus, performed.

Despite the good fit in the linear regression between timing variance and the interval duration squared, the intercepts showed negative values in both tasks (TG: -9.59 msec [SD 52.27 msec]; TE: -17.65 msec [SD 108.42 msec]).

When variability in temporal estimates was modeled, the rate of increase in variability (the slope in the linear regression between timing variance and the standard duration) was larger in the implicit task and ascribable to the temporal, rather than non-temporal, mechanism engaged.

He said the agency would "roll this problem into 2010" with "cash management actions like delaying pension payments and other timing variances".

In practice, the timing error variance of PLL can be expressed into [28]: ε = 1 2 α 2 D N 0 B eq (8).

Specifically, if N0 is assumed to be 3 × 10-17 W/Hz (e.g., GPS frequency band) and D is 1.5 × 10-2, the resulting timing error variance ε is about 2 × 10-13 whish is only 0.04% of a typical impulse duration (e.g., 0.5 ns).

When timing variability has previously been compared in explicit and implicit measures of motor timing, temporal variance differed across tasks, suggesting that separable timing mechanisms were recruited [7], [8], [26], [36].

In contrast with the mean value of the timing errors, the variance across trials did not show any systematic trend as a function of experimental condition (Bartlett's χ2 test, P>0.18 in all but one subject, in whom the interaction between character type and figure type was significant, P<0.005).