Other than that throw-away comment, nothing in the article was about achieving sub-100m UX performance or measuring the effectiveness of decreasing latency. Qu

Other than that throw-away comment, nothing in the article was about achieving sub-100m UX performance or measuring the effectiveness of decreasing latency. Quoting https://danluu.com/input-lag/ https://danluu.com/input-lag/ , "The most commonly cited document on response time is the Nielsen group article on response times, which claims that latencies below 100ms feel equivalent and perceived as instantaneous." [Typos fixed.] That article is at https://www.nngroup.com/articles/response-times-3-important-limits/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/response-times-3-important-... . Note that the danluu essay continues with "One easy way to see that this is false is .." and that section of the essay starts with "For very simple tasks, people can perceive latencies down to 2 ms or less", with a link to the research. FWIW, the original literature reference is likely: Miller, R. B. Response Time in Man-Computer Conversational Transactions. In Proceedings of the December 9-11, 1968, fall joint computer conference, part I; ACM: San Francisco, California, 1968; pp 267–277. Under "Topic 1. Response to control activation", Miller comments cases where response should be in "No more than 0.1 second", and "no more than 0.1 to 0.2 seconds".