Simple Reaction Time as a Function of Response Complexity

Abstract

The prediction emanating from memory drum theory (Henry & Rogers, 1960') that simple reaction time (SRT) increases as a response becomes more complex (i.e., increases in number of movement parts) was investigated. Experiments 1 (N = 20) and 3 (N = 16) indicated that SRT was longer for responses consisting of two and three parts than it was for a one-part response and this may be interpreted as support for the prediction. Failing to support the prediction, however, was the finding that SRT was essentially the same for responses consisting of two and three parts. This may not be too damaging to the theory because it could simply be reflecting an upper limit in terms of numbers of parts or response duration for causing an increase in SRT. Experiments 2 (N = 20) and 3 revealed an SRT effect between two responses that were supposed to be equal in complexity. At first, this finding appeared to be contrary to the prediction, but it may be interpreted as support for it because one of the responses defined as having one movement part could actually have had two

Relationship between inertial features of the upper extremity and simple reaction time in boys and girls aged 17–18

“…Thus we restricted the scope of our research to find out the influence of the value of rotational iner tia of segments on reaction time. The conditions of the experiment were extremely simplified to avoid com plexity of reactions [40,[46][47][48]. During the experi ment participants adducted their forearms over a very short distance in a constant direction.…”

“…It is well known that the latency period of simple sensor motor reactions is based on perceptual func tions, decision making and motor performance [40,[46][47][48] and also depends upon the kinetic and kine matic properties of reacting segments [11,14,34]. Since in our case, the participants were focused only on rapid movement in a predetermined direction where no accuracy was required we can suggest a low level of complexity for this kind of motor reaction.…”

Internal consistency and test–retest reliability of an instrumented functional reaching task using wireless electromyographic sensors

“…Performing a reaching task from a standing position is far more challenging than it is from a seated one (Christina et al, 1982;Christina and Rose, 1985). Most of the previously mentioned studies limited their scope to understanding simple or choice reaction times of the arm prime-mover without introducing any form of task complexities, and hence used a rather balanced seated position.…”

Distributed Control in Rapid Sequential Aiming Responses

“…Of the response variables investigated. the effect of movement duration (e.g., Klapp, 1975Klapp, , 1981Klapp & Erwin, 1976;Klapp & Rodriguez, 1982;Klapp, Wyatt, & Lingo, 1974;Lajoie & Franks, I997a;Quinn, Schmidt, Zelaznik, Hawkins, & McFarquhar, 1980;Sicgel, 1986) and the effect of the number of sequential movement parts within a response (e.g., Chamberlin & Magill, 1989;Christina, Fischman, Lambert, & Moore, 1985;Christina, Fischman, Vercruyssen, & Anson, 1982;Fischman, 1984;Fischman 19 Lim, 1991;Fischman & Yao, 1994;Lajoie & Franks, 1997a;Sternberg et al, 1978) have attracted the most attention. In the preceding works, RT has usually been found to lengthen with increases in movement duration and with increases in the number of movement parts (tor a recent review, see Christina, 1992).…”