scholarly journals Diurnal Variation in Visual Simple Reaction Time between and within Genders in Young Adults: An Exploratory, Comparative, Pilot Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Hanumantha S ◽  
Ashwin Kamath ◽  
Rajeshwari Shastry
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Time Of Day ◽  
Practice Session ◽  
Language Version ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Time Required

Simple reaction time (SRT) is the minimum time required to respond to a stimulus; it is a measure of processing speed. Our study aimed to determine the variation in visual SRT with time among individuals of the same gender and between genders. We carried out a prospective, parallel group, pilot study involving ten male and ten female medical students aged 18–25 years. After obtaining written informed consent, the participants were familiarized with the procedures, and each completed a single practice session of a computerized visual SRT which was administered using Psychology Experiment Building Language Version 2.0 software. On a predetermined day, the participants completed the exercise at 10 a.m., 1 p.m., and 5 p.m. The results showed no statistically significant difference in SRT based on time of day between genders (χ2(2) = 4.300, p = 0.116 ) as well as within gender (males (χ2(2) = 0.600, p = 0.741 ); females (χ2(2) = 5.000, p = 0.082 ). Our study showed that visual SRT does not change significantly at different times of the day and within and between genders. Intraindividual variations in visual SRT can mask the presence of a small but significant difference; hence, further studies are warranted.

Do Difficulties in Stimulus Discrimination Affect Luminance Processing?

Perception ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 25 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 124-124
Author(s):  
D Pins ◽  
M Treisman ◽  
R Johnston
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Choice Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Discrimination Task ◽  
Hyperbolic Function ◽  
Specific Time ◽  
Stimulus Discrimination ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Time Required

Simple reaction time is known to decay as a hyperbolic function of luminance (Piéron's function). An identical relationship has also been demonstrated recently (Pins and Bonnet, 1996 Perception & Psychophysics in press) with different choice-reaction-time tasks. Although mean choice reaction time increased with the complexity of the task, the exponents of the functions relating reaction time (RT) to luminance were found to be equal in each experiment. These results suggest that the task specific time required by the different tasks only adds to the time necessary for luminance processing. In these experiments, the different stimuli presented were easily discriminable. In the present study, we examined the effect of variation in luminance on a more difficult discrimination task involving variation in orientation. Five different luminance levels covering the entire mesopic range were used. In two conditions, tilted lines at nine different angles were used, at a spacing of 2°. In the first condition, the orientations were chosen on both sides of the vertical (the subject responded “left” or “right”); in the second condition, the orientations were on both sides of a line oriented at −40° to the vertical (the subject responded “high” or “low”). The results were compared to those of a second experiment in which only two easily discriminable orientations were used. The results show that RT is greater in the experiments in which nine orientations are used, while the effect of intensity on RT is lower. This effect does not depend on orientation.

scholarly journals The Effect of Agility Training on Reaction Time in Fencers

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 127
Author(s):  
Bulent Turna
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Vertical Jump ◽  
Training Group ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Time Test ◽  
Reaction Time Test

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of agility training on reaction time in fencers. Accordingly, 48 athletes (24 females and 24 males) actively involved in fencing participated in the study. Fencers were divided into two groups as 24 fencers in the Agility Training Group (ATG: 12F, 12M) (aged 11.95 years, sports age 2.54 years, height 159 cm, body weight 48.08 kg and body mass index 18.81 kg/m²) and Conventional Training Group (CTG: 12F, 12M) (aged 12.12 years, sports age 2.20 years, height 156.54 cm, body weight 46.25 kg and body mass index 18.81 kg/m²). There was a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test values in agility, vertical jump, simple reaction time and multiple reaction time tests in the ATG (p<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test values in agility and vertical jump tests in the CTG (p<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the pre-tests between the groups in the simple reaction time test (p<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in post-tests between the groups in the agility, simple reaction time and multiple reaction time test values (p<0.05). Based on the results of the study, it was found that simple and multiple reaction time could be positively affected by active-reactive agility training applications.

A-171 An Evaluation of Remotely Administered Reaction Time Subtests

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1226-1226
Author(s):  
Christina Nunez ◽  
Bailey McDonald ◽  
Samantha Spagna ◽  
Charles Golden
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Choice Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Medium Effect ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Neuropsychological Measures ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Medium Effect Size ◽  
Different Response

Abstract Objective Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many services attempted to quickly transition to a remote format. A need to incorporate and evaluate a remote delivery of neuropsychological measures arose. TestMyBrain (TMB) from the Many Brains Project has been utilizing teleneuropsychology in research since 2017. Method Volunteer research participants (N = 176, Mage = 29, Medu = 15 years, 64.7% white, 54.2% female, 83.2% right-handed) were administered TMB Simple Reaction Time and Choice Reaction Time subtest as part of a larger battery via zoom. Participants were able to choose between completing these measures using a keyboard, mouse, or a touch screen. There were no significant differences among demographic variables across the different completion methods. Results An ANCOVA indicated there was not a significant difference in simple reaction time across the different response F(2,168) = 0.482, p = 0.618, ηp2 = 0.006. There was however a significant difference in choice reaction time across the different response methods F(2,168) = 11.486, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.120. Conclusion Results suggest different response methods maybe suitable for simpler tasks, yet there lacks consistency in response methods for more complex tasks. This medium effect size may have occurred as a result of the lack of sensitivity for devices to detect taps on different portions of the screen as effectively as various keys on a keyboard. Administrators must be aware of the limitations response methods may introduce into results. Limitation to this analysis include limited samples and not controlling for other factors that may potentially influence reaction time such as internet connection. Future research should focus on creating a standardized method for teleneuropsychology administration.

Simple Reaction Times for Mentally Retarded and Epileptic Individuals

1981 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 1007-1010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine F. Summerford
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Mentally Retarded ◽  
Testing Apparatus ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
Response Stimulus ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Aged Subjects ◽  
Educable Mentally Retarded

A comparison was made to determine the effect of epilepsy on simple reaction time among 57 school-aged subjects. The subjects were classified intellectually as average, educable mentally retarded, or trainable mentally retarded, and neurologically as epileptic or nonepileptic. Following an explanation of the testing apparatus, 24 trials per day for five consecutive afternoons were given. The microswitch was depressed after a warning light and a foreperiod activated an audio response stimulus. A significant difference in RT was not found between subjects with epilepsy and those without epilepsy within each intellectual classification.

Effects of time-of-day and caffeine ingestion on mood states, simple reaction time, and short-term maximal performance in elite judoists

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 897-907 ◽  
Author(s):  
Makram Souissi ◽  
Salma Abedelmalek ◽  
Hamdi Chtourou ◽  
Akram Boussita ◽  
Ahmad Hakim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Time Of Day ◽  
Mood States ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Caffeine Ingestion ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
Maximal Performance

scholarly journals Barefoot running does not affect simple reaction time: an exploratory study

PeerJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. e4605
Author(s):  
Nicholas J. Snow ◽  
Jason F.L. Blair ◽  
Graham Z. MacDonald ◽  
Jeannette M. Byrne ◽  
Fabien A. Basset
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Treadmill Running ◽  
Button Press ◽  
Light Bulb ◽  
Distance Runners ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
Somatosensory Feedback ◽  
Significant Difference

Background Converging evidence comparing barefoot (BF) and shod (SH) running highlights differences in foot-strike patterns and somatosensory feedback, among others. Anecdotal evidence from SH runners attempting BF running suggests a greater attentional demand may be experienced during BF running. However, little work to date has examined whether there is an attentional cost of BF versus SH running. Objective This exploratory study aimed to examine whether an acute bout of BF running would impact simple reaction time (SRT) compared to SH running, in a sample of runners naïve to BF running. Methods Eight male distance runners completed SRT testing during 10 min of BF or SH treadmill running at 70% maximal aerobic speed (17.9 ± 1.4 km h−1). To test SRT, participants were required to press a hand-held button in response to the flash of a light bulb placed in the center of their visual field. SRT was tested at 1-minute intervals during running. BF and SH conditions were completed in a pseudo-randomized and counterbalanced crossover fashion. SRT was defined as the time elapsed between the light bulb flash and the button press. SRT errors were also recorded and were defined as the number of trials in which a button press was not recorded in response to the light bulb flash. Results Overall, SRT later in the exercise bouts showed a statistically significant increase compared to earlier (p < 0.05). Statistically significant increases in SRT were present at 7 min versus 5 min (0.29 ± 0.02 s vs. 0.27 ± 0.02 s, p < 0.05) and at 9 min versus 2 min (0.29 ± 0.03 s vs. 0.27 ± 0.03 s, p < 0.05). However, BF running did not influence this increase in SRT (p > 0.05) or the number of SRT errors (17.6 ± 6.6 trials vs. 17.0 ± 13.0 trials, p > 0.05). Discussion In a sample of distance runners naïve to BF running, there was no statistically significant difference in SRT or SRT errors during acute bouts of BF and SH running. We interpret these results to mean that BF running does not have a greater attentional cost compared to SH running during a SRT task throughout treadmill running. Literature suggests that stride-to-stride gait modulation during running may occur predominately via mechanisms that preclude conscious perception, thus potentially attenuating effects of increased somatosensory feedback experienced during BF running. Future research should explore the present experimental paradigm in a larger sample using over-ground running trials, as well as employing different tests of attention.

scholarly journals An evaluation of bicycle-specific agility and reaction times in mountain bikers and road cyclists

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Kim Buchholtz ◽  
Theresa Burgess
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Choice Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Common Mechanism ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
Cognitive Arousal ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Study Participants

Background: Cycling is a popular recreational and competitive sport with many health benefits but also significant risks, with 85% of recreational cyclists reporting an injury each season. The most common mechanism of injury is through a loss of control of the bicycle, and collisions with other objects. Reaction time and agility in cyclists may contribute to the ability to control a bicycle. Objectives: To evaluate bicycle-specific agility and reaction time in cyclists. Methods: The study was a cross-sectional observational study. Thirty-five cyclists (27 males, eight females) participated in this study. Participants attended a single testing session where they completed a bicycle-specific agility test, and online simple and choice reaction time testing while cycling at three different exercise intensities. Results: There was a significant difference in agility between males and females (p=0.01). There was also a significant difference in choice reaction time between cycling at ‘light’ and ‘very hard’ intensities (p=0.004), and a significant positive relationship between agility and simple reaction time at a ‘hard’ intensity. Discussion: Choice reaction time improved at ‘very hard’ cycling intensity, supporting the theory that increased exercise intensity improves cognitive arousal. This reaction time may be essential as a means to avoid collisions and falls from bicycles. Bicycle-specific agility appears to be related to simple reaction time, but there are no existing validated bicycle-specific agility tests available. The value of the tests undertaken by the authors needs to be assessed further. Conclusion: Choice reaction time was significantly decreased in high intensity cycling compared to cycling at low intensities. Further prospective studies are needed to establish links between reaction times and bicycle-specific agility.

scholarly journals Manipulations of the Response-Stimulus Intervals as a Factor Inducing Controlled Amount of Reaction Time Intra-Individual Variability

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 669
Author(s):  
Paweł Krukow ◽  
Małgorzata Plechawska-Wójcik ◽  
Arkadiusz Podkowiński
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Individual Variability ◽  
Simple Reaction Time Task ◽  
Stimulus Interval ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
Response Stimulus

Aggrandized fluctuations in the series of reaction times (RTs) are a very sensitive marker of neurocognitive disorders present in neuropsychiatric populations, pathological ageing and in patients with acquired brain injury. Even though it was documented that processing inconsistency founds a background of higher-order cognitive functions disturbances, there is a vast heterogeneity regarding types of task used to compute RT-related variability, which impedes determining the relationship between elementary and more complex cognitive processes. Considering the above, our goal was to develop a relatively new assessment method based on a simple reaction time paradigm, conducive to eliciting a controlled range of intra-individual variability. It was hypothesized that performance variability might be induced by manipulation of response-stimulus interval’s length and regularity. In order to verify this hypothesis, a group of 107 healthy students was tested using a series of digitalized tasks and their results were analyzed using parametric and ex-Gaussian statistics of RTs distributional markers. In general, these analyses proved that intra-individual variability might be evoked by a given type of response-stimulus interval manipulation even when it is applied to the simple reaction time task. Collected outcomes were discussed with reference to neuroscientific concepts of attentional resources and functional neural networks.

Timing of expectancy peak in simple reaction time situation

1974 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 461-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Näätänen ◽  
V. Muranen ◽  
A. Merisalo
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document