The Simplest Chronoscope II: Reaction Time Measured by Meterstick versus Machine

Abstract

Visual simple reaction time (SRT) scores measured in 31 college students of both sexes by use of the simplest chronoscope methodology (meterstick SRT) were compared to scores obtained by use of an electromechanical multi-choice reaction timer (machine SRT). Four hypotheses were tested. Results indicated that the previous mean value of meterstick SRT was replicated; meterstick SRT was significantly faster than long-standing population estimates of mean SRT; and machine SRT was significantly slower than the same long-standing mean SRT estimates for the population. Also, the mean meterstick SRT of 181 msec. was significantly faster than the mean machine SRT of 294 msec. It was theorized that differential visual information processing occurred such that the dorsal visual stream subserved meterstick SRT; whereas the ventral visual stream subserved machine SRT.

Simplest Chronoscope III: Further Comparisons between Reaction Times Obtained by Meterstick versus Machine

“…Analysis of the eff ect sizes in the present study as well as in the Montare (2010) study support the conclusion that mean diff erences between meterstick and machine methods are on the order of about 150 milliseconds. Diff erences between meterstick RT and machine RT thus seem to persist even in the presence of the relatively higher cognitive demands.…”

“…To this end, the present study used the same experimental design employed in Montare (2009Montare ( , 2010 to measure Donders' (1868measure Donders' ( /1969) classical a-, b-, and c-reaction times, by both meterstick and machine. In the present study for both meterstick and machine, the a-reaction (simple reaction time) involved a single visual stimulus and a single response, with instructions to respond as quickly as possible to the stimulus onset.…”

Complex and Simple Clinical Reaction Times Are Associated with Gait, Balance, and Major Fall Injury in Older Subjects with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy

“…Another potential advantage over standard methods of measuring executive function is that RT clin Dev is a three dimensional object rather than a screen image. We, along with Montare, 29,30 have found that simple and complex reaction time tests using falling objects yield quicker responses and decreased variability as compared to screen-based measurements, possibly due to the fact that moving objects activate the visuo-motor pathways while the latter works through visuo-perceptual pathways. 29 In one of the only other studies to evaluate short latency inhibitory executive function and prospective falls, Schoene et al evaluated a large group of older subjects with respect to their ability to perform a Stroop-like stepping test on a computer-controlled mat which provided cues.…”

“…23 We, and others, have found this action-based technique of determining simple and recognition reaction times to be superior (faster and less variable) than perception/computer-based techniques. 28–30 Therefore, the RT clin Dev allows the measurement of short latency inhibitory executive function by measuring the frequency with which subjects can withhold a pre-potent/automatic response. Complex RT clin Accuracy and Simple RT clin Latency are of interest separately, and also as a ratio (Complex RT clin Accuracy:Simple RT clin Latency) which reflects both accuracy of decision-making and speed of response.…”

Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time

“…However, an alternative explanation of the apparent SRT slowing is that the SRT latencies reported in recent studies have been inflated by hardware and software delays in computer-based paradigms ( Dordonova and Dordonov, 2013 ). In support of this argument, contemporary studies using mechanical SRT measurements ( Montare, 2010 ; Eckner et al, 2011 ), including SRT testing procedures similar to those used by Galton ( Dordonova and Dordonov, 2013 ), report SRT latencies similar to those observed in the Victorian era.…”