You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
An experiment always seems to take slightly longer (a matter of seconds) than predicted because the predicted time only takes into account the experiment itself and not any time the code spends updating variables or graphics in between trials. At the end, the elapsed time ends up anywhere from a few seconds to a minute longer depending on the length of the experiment, so the remaining time ends up negative. This is not a big deal but it might be nice to account for how much "extra" time will be spent executing code and factor this into the predicted length.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
An experiment always seems to take slightly longer (a matter of seconds) than predicted because the predicted time only takes into account the experiment itself and not any time the code spends updating variables or graphics in between trials. At the end, the elapsed time ends up anywhere from a few seconds to a minute longer depending on the length of the experiment, so the remaining time ends up negative. This is not a big deal but it might be nice to account for how much "extra" time will be spent executing code and factor this into the predicted length.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: