The relation between duration and reaction time difference to fixed duration and response terminated stimuli.

1950 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 329-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee W. Gregg ◽  
W. J. Brogden
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Time Difference ◽  
Reaction Time Difference ◽  
Fixed Duration

scholarly journals Intact predictive motor sequence learning in autism spectrum disorder

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. J. Rybicki ◽  
J. M. Galea ◽  
B. A. Schuster ◽  
C. Hiles ◽  
C. Fabian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Motor Learning ◽  
Sequence Learning ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Time Difference ◽  
Reaction Time Difference ◽  
Motor Sequence Learning ◽  
Motor Sequence ◽  
Action Sequence

AbstractAtypical motor learning has been suggested to underpin the development of motoric challenges (e.g., handwriting difficulties) in autism. Bayesian accounts of autistic cognition propose a mechanistic explanation for differences in the learning process in autism. Specifically, that autistic individuals overweight incoming, at the expense of prior, information and are thus less likely to (a) build stable expectations of upcoming events and (b) react to statistically surprising events. Although Bayesian accounts have been suggested to explain differences in learning across a range of domains, to date, such accounts have not been extended to motor learning. 28 autistic and 35 non-autistic controls (IQ > 70) completed a computerised task in which they learned sequences of actions. On occasional “surprising” trials, an expected action had to be replaced with an unexpected action. Sequence learning was indexed as the reaction time difference between blocks which featured a predictable sequence and those that did not. Surprise-related slowing was indexed as the reaction time difference between surprising and unsurprising trials. No differences in sequence-learning or surprise-related slowing were observed between the groups. Bayesian statistics provided anecdotal to moderate evidence to support the conclusion that sequence learning and surprise-related slowing were comparable between the two groups. We conclude that individuals with autism do not show atypicalities in response to surprising events in the context of motor sequence-learning. These data demand careful consideration of the way in which Bayesian accounts of autism can (and cannot) be extended to the domain of motor learning.

Reaction Time Difference Electric Actuator and Pneumatic Actuator Using Simulation X program

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-230
Author(s):  
Abdullah Hawari
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Time Difference ◽  
Pneumatic Actuator ◽  
Reaction Time Difference ◽  
Easy Task ◽  
Electric Actuator ◽  
The Right

Electric actuator and pneumatic actuator have some difference in the system, but need to find which one that have better efficiency and applicable on the designed system. Comparing two different system is not an easy task, need to find the right variable to be compared to define which one is more applicable. Reaction time is one of the variable determined by the velocity and the distance reached by the actuator to find which one is applicable. Using simulation X 3.3 to take the simulation on the pneumatics and the electronics using another parameter to find the reaction time of each system.

Developmental Differences in Sleep's Role for Implicit Off-line Learning: Comparing Children with Adults

2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Fischer ◽  
Ines Wilhelm ◽  
Jan Born
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Response Time ◽  
Implicit Memory ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Brain Structures ◽  
Implicit Knowledge ◽  
Developmental Differences ◽  
Time Difference ◽  
Reaction Time Difference ◽  
Stimulus Materials

Sleep crucially contributes to the off-line consolidation of memories. Although this view was confirmed in numerous studies in adults, it is not known whether it can be generalized to sleep during development. Here, we examined effects of sleep on implicit memory formation considered of particular relevance in children, because brain structures underlying implicit learning develop earlier in ontogeny than structures supporting explicit learning. Subjects were 7- to 11-year-old children (n = 14) and 20- to 30-year-old adults (n = 12) tested on a serial reaction time task before (learning) and after (retest) equal length retention periods of overnight sleep and daytime wakefulness. At learning, after eight training blocks, all subjects had acquired implicit knowledge of the probabilistic rules underlying the sequential stimulus materials, as indicated by a substantial difference in response time to grammatical versus nongrammatical trials in two test blocks that followed the training blocks. At learning, this response time difference was greater in children (48.49 ± 6.08 msec) than adults (28.02 ± 3.65 msec, p < .01), but did not differ between sleep and wake retention conditions in either age group. Consistent with previous studies, retesting in the adults revealed that the reaction time differences between grammatical and nongrammatical trials increased by 9.78 ± 4.82 msec after sleep, but decreased by −12.76 ± 5.49 msec after the wake retention period (p < .01). Contrary to this finding in adults, sleep in children did not lead to an increase, but to a decrease in the reaction time difference averaging −26.68 ± 12.25 msec (p < .05), whereas across the wake retention interval the reaction time difference remained nearly unchanged. The sleep-dependent deterioration in measures of implicit sequence knowledge in children was in striking contrast to the gain of such knowledge in the adults during sleep (p < .01). Our findings indicate that the functional role of sleep in implicit memory consolidation depends on age. We speculate that the overnight decrease of implicit knowledge in children reflects a preferential effect of sleep toward the enhancement of explicit aspects of task performance that interferes with implicit performance gains.

scholarly journals Intact Predictive Motor Sequence Learning in Autism Spectrum Disorder

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia J. Rybicki ◽  
J. M. Galea ◽  
Bianca Schuster ◽  
C. Hiles ◽  
C. Fabian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Motor Learning ◽  
Sequence Learning ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Time Difference ◽  
Reaction Time Difference ◽  
Motor Sequence Learning ◽  
Motor Sequence ◽  
Action Sequence

Abstract Background. Atypical motor learning has been suggested to underpin the development of motoric challenges (e.g., handwriting difficulties) in autism. Bayesian accounts of autistic cognition propose a mechanistic explanation for differences in the learning process in autism. Specifically, that autistic individuals overweight incoming, at the expense of prior, information and are thus less likely to a) build stable expectations of upcoming events and b) react to statistically surprising events. Although Bayesian accounts have been suggested to explain differences in learning across a range of domains, to date, such accounts have not been extended to motor learning.Methods. 28 autistic and 35 non-autistic controls (IQ > 70) completed a computerised task in which they learned sequences of actions. On occasional “surprising” trials, an expected action had to be replaced with an unexpected action. Sequence learning was indexed as the reaction time difference between blocks which featured a predictable sequence and those that did not. Surprise-related slowing was indexed as the reaction time difference between surprising and unsurprising trials.Results. No differences in sequence-learning or surprise-related slowing were observed between the groups. Bayesian statistics provided anecdotal to moderate evidence to support the conclusion that sequence learning and surprise-related slowing were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions. We conclude that individuals with autism do not show atypicalities in response to surprising events in the context of motor sequence-learning. These data demand careful consideration of the way in which Bayesian accounts of autism can (and cannot) be extended to the domain of motor learning.

scholarly journals Endogenous Spatial Attention Modulates the Magnitude of the Colavita Visual Dominance Effect

i-Perception ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 204166952110271
Author(s):  
Aijun Wang ◽  
Heng Zhou ◽  
Yuanyuan Hu ◽  
Qiong Wu ◽  
Tianyang Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Spatial Attention ◽  
Dominance Effect ◽  
Uncued Location ◽  
Reaction Time Difference ◽  
Spatial Cues ◽  
Auditory Cues ◽  
Colavita Effect ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Visual Dominance Effect

The Colavita effect refers to the phenomenon wherein people tend to not respond to an auditory stimulus when a visual stimulus is simultaneously presented. Although previous studies have shown that endogenous modality attention influences the Colavita effect, whether the Colavita effect is influenced by endogenous spatial attention remains unknown. In the present study, we established endogenous spatial cues to investigate whether the size of the Colavita effect changes under visual or auditory cues. We measured three indexes to investigate the effect of endogenous spatial attention on the size of the Colavita effect. These three indexes were developed based on the following observations in bimodal trials: (a) The proportion of the “only vision” response was significantly higher than that of the “only audition” response; (b) the proportion of the “vision precedes audition” response was significantly higher than that of the “audition precedes vision” response; and (c) the reaction time difference of the “vision precedes audition” response was significantly higher than that of the “audition precedes vision” response. Our results showed that the Colavita effect was always influenced by endogenous spatial attention and that its size was larger at the cued location than at the uncued location; the cue modality (visual vs. auditory) had no effect on the size of the Colavita effect. Taken together, the present results shed light on how endogenous spatial attention affects the Colavita effect.

scholarly journals Physics and Psychology: Practical Works

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Олег Яворук ◽  
Oleg Yavoruk
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Brownian Motion ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Monte Carlo Method ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Reaction Time Difference ◽  
University Teachers ◽  
Motion Speed ◽  
Difference Thresholds ◽  
Scientific Facts

The book provides a description of the interdisciplinary practical works in physics and psychology: “Observation”; “Scientific Facts”; “Time Perception”; “Reaction Time”; “Difference Thresholds”; “Scarborough’s Experiment”; “Monte Carlo Method”; “Brownian Motion”; “Speed Comparison”. It is addressed to high school and undergraduate students, as well as school and university teachers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document