Over the past few decades, there has been a significant number of reports that suggested that reaction times for different sensory modalities were different – e.g., that visual reaction time was slower than tactile reaction time. A recent report by Holden and colleagues stated that (1) there has been a significant historic upward drift in reaction times reported in the literature, (2) that this drift or degradation in reaction times could be accounted for by inaccuracies in the methods used and (3) that these inaccurate methods led to inaccurate reporting of differences between visual and tactile based reaction time testing. The Holden study utilized robotics (i.e., no human factors) to test visual and tactile reaction time methods but did not assess how individuals would perform on different sensory modalities. This study utilized three different sensory modalities: visual, auditory, and tactile, to test reaction time. By changing the way in which the subjects were prompted and measuring subsequent reaction time, the impact of sensory modality could be analyzed. Reaction time testing for two sensory modalities, auditory and visual, were administered through an Arduino Uno microcontroller device, while tactile-based reaction time testing was administered with the Brain Gauge. A range of stimulus intensities was delivered for the reaction times delivered by each sensory modality. The average reaction time and reaction time variability was assessed and a trend could be identified for the reaction time measurements of each of the sensory modalities. Switching the sensory modality did not result in a difference in reaction time and it was concluded that this was due to the implementation of accurate circuitry used to deliver each test. Increasing stimulus intensity for each sensory modality resulted in faster reaction times. The results of this study confirm the findings of Holden and colleagues and contradict the results reported in countless studies that conclude that (1) reaction times are historically slower now than they were 50 years ago and (2) that there are differences in reaction times for different sensory modalities (vision, hearing, tactile). The implications of this are that utilization of accurate reaction time methods could have a significant impact on clinical outcomes and that many methods in current clinical use are basically perpetuating poor methods and wasting time and money of countless subjects or patients.
Lateralization of attention in adults with ADHD: Evidence of pseudoneglect
