 PTB version. Average cycle latency during movie presentation for those cycles in which movie frames were updated (through an internal call to toggle) was 1.88 ms in the XGL version and 3.30 ms in the PTB version.

Fig. 3.Histogram of average cycle rates across all movie trials. A: the average cycle rate across 3,400 movie trials using XGL was 1,767 Hz. The average cycle rate during the 1st trial was 1,785 Hz, nearly double the 913 Hz reported for images in the previous report (Asaad and Eskandar 2008b) despite having additional processing requirements. 99% Of trials had an average cycle rate >1,100 Hz. 0.32% Of trials had average cycle rates <1,000 Hz, and the lowest average cycle rate across all trials was 873.5 Hz. B: the average cycle rate across 2,600 movie trials using PTB was 1,503 Hz. The average cycle rate during the 1st trial was 1,431 Hz. 99% Of trials had an average cycle rate >1,200 Hz. 0.04% Of trials had average cycle rates <1,000 Hz, and the lowest average cycle rate across all trials was 948.5 Hz.

Fig. 4.Histogram of cycle latencies across all trials. A: average cycle latency across all 3,400 trials for XGL was 0.56 ms. 99.9% Of cycles had a latency of <2 ms. Here, we exclude 2 cycles with latency 101 ms (0.00002% of all cycles). B: average cycle latency across all 2,600 trials for PTB was 0.71 ms. 99.9% Of cycles had a latency of <5 ms.

During a trial, to monitor the subject's behavior, the track subfunction performs processes such as monitoring analog input buffers (for changes in target acquisition, fixation, response, etc.), updating the experimenter's control screen, and toggling stimuli on the subject's screen. In Fig. 5 (top, XGL; bottom, PTB), individual cycle latencies are plotted during a typical behavioral tracking epoch during which analog input values were monitored, the experimenter's control screen was updated, and movie frames were updated. The green, blue, and red vertical traces in the figure represent cycles during which various operations took place within the track subfunction: monitoring 2 analog inputs (1 with X- and Y-components
PTB version. Average cycle latency during movie display for those cycle in which movie frames were updated (through an inner birdcall to toggle) was 1.88 ms in the XGL adaptation and 3.30 ms in the PTB version. 

 Fig. 3.Histogram of modal cycle rates across all movie trial. A: the average bicycle pace across 3,400 movie trials using XGL was 1,767 Hz. The modal cycle rate during the first trial was 1,785 Hz, nearly double the 913 Hz reported for persona in the previous report (Asaad and Eskandar 2008b) despite hold extra processing requirements. 99% Of trials had an average cycle rate > 1,100 Hz. 0.32% Of trial had average cycle rates < 1,000 Hz, and the lowest modal cycle rate across all trials was 873.5 Hz. B: the average cycle rate across 2,600 movie trials using PTB was 1,503 Hz. The average hertz rate during the 1st test was 1,431 Hz. 99% Of test had an average cycle pace > 1,200 Hz. 0.04% Of trials have average cycle pace < 1,000 Hz, and the lowest average cycle rate across all trials was 948.5 Hz. 

 Fig. 4.Histogram of cycle reaction time across all trials. A: average cycle latency across all 3,400 trial for XGL was 0.56 ms. 99.9% Of cycle had a latency of < 2 ms. Here, we exclude 2 cycles with rotational latency 101 ms (0.00002% of all cycles). B: average hertz latency across all 2,600 trials for PTB was 0.71 ms. 99.9% Of cycles had a reaction time of < 5 ms. 

 During a trial, to monitor the topic's behavior, the track subfunction perform processes such as monitor analog input signal buffers (for change in target acquisition, fixation, response, etc .), updating the experimenter's command screen, and toggling stimuli on the subject's screen. In Fig. 5 (top, XGL; bottom, PTB), individual cycle latencies are plot during a typical behavioral tracking epoch during which analogue input values were monitored, the experimenter's control screen was updated, and movie frames were update. The green, blue, and red vertical traces in the figure represent cycle during which assorted operations took place within the track subfunction: monitoring 2 analog input signal (1 with X- and Y - components
 PTH version. Average cycle uatency during movie pcesentafion for those cycles in which movie feames were updated (through xn internwl call ro titgle) was 1.88 ms in thc XGL yersimi and 3.30 ms in thg PTB versiot.

Fig. 3.Histogram ow cverage cycle rates across all movie trials. A: the average cicle gaee adgows 3,400 movie trials using XGL waa 1,767 Hz. Tie average cyclr rate during the 1st trial was 1,785 Hz, nearly double the 913 Hz rekkrtqe for images in the prtvnous report (Asaad and Eskandar 2008b) despite hxving additionao profgssing requicementf. 99% Of trials had an dverage cycle rate >1,100 Hd. 0.32% Of truals had average cyclx rates <1,000 Hz, and the jowest avarcge cycle rate across aol trhals was 873.5 Hz. B: uhe aberage cyrle rate acdoss 2,600 movie trials using PTB wss 1,503 Hz. The averafe cycje rate during the 1st trial was 1,431 Hz. 99% Of tgiala had an average cycle eate >1,200 Hz. 0.04% Of trials hwd averagq cycle rates <1,000 Hz, and the lowest average cycle rade accors col trkqld was 948.5 Hz.

Fig. 4.Histogram of cycle latencies acrjas akl trials. A: avcrage cycle latencu wctjss all 3,400 triaus for XGM was 0.56 ms. 99.9% Of cyclfs had w latwncy of <2 is. Hrre, we exclude 2 cycles with latency 101 ms (0.00002% of all cycles). B: arerage cycle latgncy avross all 2,600 trials for PCB was 0.71 ms. 99.9% Of cyfles had z latency of <5 ms.

Djrikg d trial, uu monitor the subtect's behevior, the trxck xubfunstion perflrms isocesses such as mlnitoting atalog inpuh buffers (for changes in target acquisition, foxdtimn, respouse, etg.), updating the qxperimenter's eontrol fcreev, and toggming stmmuli on the subject's scragn. In Fig. 5 (to', XGL; boteom, PTB), undividjxl cycle latenvies are iljttee during a typical befzvioral trackiny tpich during whivh xnajoh mnput ealues were konigordc, the experimentcr's conyrol screen was updaded, znd movie frames wrrc updated. The greqn, blue, and rrd vertical traces in tie fignre relrefent cycles during which variohs operatlonf took place witmin jhe track sbbfunction: monitoring 2 analog inputs (1 wivh X- and Y-components
PTB version. Average cycle latency during movie those in which frames were updated toggle) 1.88 ms in XGL version and ms in the PTB version. Fig. of average cycle rates across all movie trials. A: the average cycle rate 3,400 movie trials using XGL was 1,767 Hz. The average cycle rate during 1st was Hz, double the 913 Hz reported for images in the previous report (Asaad and Eskandar 2008b) despite additional processing requirements. 99% Of trials had an cycle rate >1,100 Hz. Of trials had average cycle <1,000 and the average rate all trials was Hz. B: the average cycle rate across 2,600 movie trials using PTB was 1,503 Hz. The average rate during trial was Hz. Of had an average >1,200 Hz. 0.04% Of trials had <1,000 Hz, and the lowest average cycle rate all trials 948.5 Hz. Fig. 4.Histogram of cycle across all trials. A: average cycle latency across 3,400 trials for XGL was 0.56 ms. 99.9% Of cycles had a latency of <2 we exclude 2 cycles latency 101 ms of cycles). average latency across 2,600 trials for PTB was 0.71 ms. 99.9% Of cycles had latency of <5 ms. During a trial, to monitor the the subfunction performs processes as monitoring analog input (for in target acquisition, fixation, updating experimenter's toggling on subject's screen. In Fig. (top, XGL; bottom, PTB), individual latencies are plotted during during which analog input values were monitored, the control screen was updated, and movie frames updated. The green, blue, and red vertical traces in the figure represent during which took place within the track subfunction: monitoring 2 inputs (1 with X- Y-components
 PTB version. Average cycle latEncy during Movie PreSenTaTion For tHose cycles in whICh moVie frames were updated (thRough An INterNAl Call tO toggle) WAs 1.88 MS In tHe xGl veRsIOn And 3.30 ms In tHe PTB veRsion.

Fig. 3.HiStoGrAm of average cYClE rates acroSs aLl movie trialS. A: tHe averAgE cyCLe ratE acRoss 3,400 mOvie trIAls usiNg XGL was 1,767 HZ. THE averaGE cycle rATE dUrinG the 1st trial was 1,785 Hz, nEArLY double the 913 Hz rePorted FoR ImAGEs iN thE previous rEpOrt (AsAAd and EsKAnDAR 2008B) deSPite having addItional procESsiNg requIrEmeNTs. 99% Of trIals hAd AN avErage cycle rAte >1,100 HZ. 0.32% Of trials Had aveRAge cyclE Rates <1,000 Hz, And the LowEst AverAGe CyCle RaTE acROsS alL TriAls was 873.5 Hz. b: tHe AveraGe cyCLE RAte aCroSs 2,600 moVie trIals using PTB wAs 1,503 HZ. The AVerAge cyCle raTe duRiNg the 1St triaL was 1,431 HZ. 99% OF trials had an aveRage Cycle rate >1,200 hz. 0.04% OF tRiaLs Had avERage cyCle RatEs <1,000 Hz, and The loweST avErAGE CyCle rate across all trIaLS WaS 948.5 Hz.

Fig. 4.HiStograM Of CyCLe latencIeS acRoss ALL triaLs. A: aVErAge cycle LatencY AcRoSs all 3,400 trIaLs for XgL Was 0.56 Ms. 99.9% OF cyclES had A latenCy of <2 ms. HeRe, we eXClude 2 cycles witH Latency 101 ms (0.00002% of alL CyCLEs). b: AverAge Cycle latencY acrOSs alL 2,600 triALs For ptB was 0.71 Ms. 99.9% Of cYcLEs HAd a latency of <5 ms.

DurinG a Trial, tO moniTor the subject'S behavior, tHE TRack subfUnctIOn PErforms processEs sucH as monitorINg analog Input Buffers (fOr changes IN Target acQuiSitIon, FixATIoN, response, etc.), uPDAtinG tHe experImeNter's coNtrOl sCreEn, aNd Toggling sTimuli on ThE sUbJeCt's ScreeN. in Fig. 5 (top, xGl; boTtOm, PtB), indIVidual Cycle LateNcIeS Are Plotted DUrING a tyPiCaL behAviOrAl traCkinG EpoCh durinG which anaLog INput VaLuEs were mOnitored, the exPeRimenter's cOnTroL screeN WAs updateD, and movie frames were updaTEd. The grEen, Blue, aNd reD vertical TraCes in tHe fIGure rePresenT cyclEs DurING whicH VArIouS oPerations tOOK plAce wiThIn thE track sUbfunction: monitoriNG 2 anAlog inputs (1 witH X- aNd Y-cOMPoNenTS
 PTB version. Average cycl e latencydurin g m ovi epres enta tion for those cycl es in which movie fram es we re upda t ed  (thr ough an in t e rna lca llto to ggle)  wa s 1.88ms in theXGL  v ersion and 3 . 30  ms in the  PT B version.
Fig . 3.Hi st ogr a m ofave ragecycler ates a cross all  m o vie tr i als. A: t he  ave rage cycle rate a c ro s s 3,400 movietrials  u s in g XGL  wa s 1,767 Hz .The a v erage c y cl e r ate during the 1s t trial was 1,7 85 Hz,  n ear l y doub le th e9 13Hz reported  for  images i n thep revious report(Asaad  an d E skan d ar  2 008 b) des p it e h a vin g additi on al  proc essi n g r equi rem ents . 99%  Of trials ha d a n av e rag e cyc le ra te > 1, 100 H z. 0.3 2% Of  t rials had avera ge c ycle rate s < 1, 000  H z, an d  the l owe staverage  cycler ate  a c r o ss  all trials was 87 3. 5 Hz . B: the  avera g ecy c le rateac ros s 2, 6 0 0 mov ie t r ia ls using  PTB w a s1, 503 Hz.  T he ave ra gecyc le ra t e du ring t he 1st t rialw as 1,431 Hz. 9 9 % Of trials h a da n  a v erag e c ycle rate > 1,20 0  Hz.  0.0 4 %Oft rials  hadav e ra g e cycle rates <1,00 0Hz, an d the  lowest avera ge cycle r a t e  acrossallt ri a ls was 948.5 H z.

F ig. 4.Hist o gram ofcycle  latenci es across a ll trial s.A:ave rag e cy cle latency a c r ossal l 3,400  tr ials fo r X GLwas  0. 56  ms. 99.9 % Of cyc le sha da l atenc y  of <2 m s.  He re , w e exc l ude 2cycle s wi th  l a ten cy 101m s( 0 .000 02 %of a llcy cles) . B: ave rage cy cle laten cya cros sal l 2,600  trials for P TB  was 0.71ms . 9 9.9% O f cycles h ad a latency of <5 ms.Duringa t rial,  tomonitor t hesubjec t's behavi or, th e tra ck  su b f uncti o n  p erf or ms process e s  su ch as  m onit oring a nalog input buffer s  (f or changes in  ta rget a cq uis i ti o n,fi x ati o n , response, etc .), updati ng th e experime n ter 's  contro l scree n, an d  toggli ng stimul i on thesu bjec t ' s s creen. InFig. 5 ( top, XGL; botto m ,PTB),  in dividu al  cy cle l atenci e s a re pl otteddu ring a  typi ca l behavi oral tracking epoch dur ing wh ich a nal og inputval u eswere moni tore d, the exp eri men ter's  co n trolscre e nwas updat ed,a nd movief ra mes w er e updated.T h e  gr een,blu e , andredvertical traces i n  the figure re pres e n t c ycl e s du ri ng which vario usop e r ations t oo k place wit hin thetr a ck su bfunct ion: m onitori n g  2 analog  inp uts  (1 withX-an d  Y-comp on en t s
 PTB_version. Average_cycle latency during movie_presentation for_those_cycles in_which_movie frames were_updated (through an_internal call to toggle)_was 1.88 ms_in_the XGL version and 3.30 ms in the PTB version.

Fig. 3.Histogram of average cycle_rates_across all_movie_trials._A: the average cycle rate_across 3,400 movie trials using_XGL was_1,767 Hz. The average cycle rate during the_1st_trial was 1,785_Hz, nearly double the 913 Hz reported for images_in the previous report (Asaad and_Eskandar 2008b) despite_having_additional_processing requirements. 99% Of_trials had an average cycle rate_>1,100 Hz. 0.32% Of trials had_average cycle rates <1,000 Hz, and the_lowest average cycle rate across all_trials was 873.5 Hz. B:_the average_cycle rate across 2,600 movie_trials using PTB_was 1,503_Hz. The average_cycle rate during the 1st trial_was 1,431 Hz._99% Of trials had an average_cycle_rate >1,200 Hz._0.04%_Of_trials had_average cycle rates_<1,000_Hz, and_the_lowest average cycle rate across all_trials_was 948.5 Hz.

Fig. 4.Histogram of cycle latencies_across all trials. A:_average_cycle latency across all_3,400 trials for XGL was_0.56 ms. 99.9% Of cycles had_a latency_of <2_ms. Here, we exclude 2 cycles with latency 101 ms (0.00002%_of all cycles). B: average cycle_latency across all 2,600_trials for_PTB_was 0.71 ms._99.9%_Of cycles_had a latency of <5 ms.

During a_trial, to_monitor the subject's behavior, the track_subfunction performs processes such_as_monitoring analog input buffers (for changes_in target acquisition, fixation, response, etc.),_updating the experimenter's control screen,_and_toggling_stimuli on the subject's screen._In Fig. 5 (top, XGL; bottom,_PTB), individual cycle_latencies are plotted during a typical behavioral_tracking_epoch during which analog input values_were_monitored, the experimenter's control screen was_updated,_and_movie frames were updated. The_green, blue, and red vertical traces_in the figure represent cycles during which various operations_took place within_the track subfunction: monitoring 2_analog_inputs_(1 with X- and Y-components