Reaction Time

In experiment 1, participants were instructed to press a key to determine if the stimulus was red, blue, yellow, or green. On the second half of the experiment, the stimulus appeared in grey with only one colored letter which was positioned randomly. Error rates for the experiment were below 2.5% for each condition, which is quite low. Experiment 2 was the same as experiment 1 except that there were 114 data collections instead of 288 and there were 36 practice trials instead of 72. According to experiment 1 and 2 it is suggested that the effect of

Following classical conditioning the data show a decrease in variability and in the latency between stimulus presentation and the response. There is also a change in trend from increasing to no trend.

If the response time for this experiment by saying the word” now” falls between 100 and 200 milliseconds, I would conclude that

Hypothesis: If the temperature (I.V.) of materials in the reaction are increased, the reaction time (D.V.) will decrease.

To first understand the importance of the clinical reaction time test, the physiological pathways involved in reaction time must first be

1. Form hypothesis: Do you think you will react more quickly to sights or sounds? Explain why.

The reaction timer from Maths Is Fun (2014) is specific to three decimal places. The accuracy of the chosen source reduces the risk of statistical measures being slightly greater or less than they would be if only one or two decimal places were provided. Unlike other reaction timers that are available online, this particular source requires the subject to complete five trials before the mean is calculated. Undertaking multiple trials will be vital to this investigation because if the subject was to anticipate the event or have one delayed response, the trials that follow would reveal such errors, therefore increasing the reliability of the results.

After this activity, they were asked to do a “lexical decision task” (a standard approach for measuring unconscious responses) in which they were shown a series of words and nonwords in random order and had to press “C” if it was a real word or “N” if not. Half of the real words were related to autonomy (e.g., freedom, choice) and half were neutral (e.g., whisper, hammer). The key focus of the study was on how long it took people to press the button *(“response latency”) for each kind of real word, averaged over the many words of each type. The table below

Reflexes are the body's reaction something, reflexes are signals that are sent from your neurans to your brain and your brain processes the information then responds. To test if the difference between voluntary and involuntary effects the reaction time. In this lab the voluntary reaction time was the time between when the hammer hit the table and when the leg moved. The involuntary reaction time in this lab was the time between the time when the hammer hit the knee and the time where the leg moved.

To learn more about this phenomenon, researchers conducted a study by which they attempted to condition a dog’s leg reflex by flashing a light before giving a small shock to the dog’s paw. Several trials took place in the following order: flashing of the light, shock, then a leg reflex. After several trials, the dog paired the light with the shock. It came to the point where the dog began to respond immediately after the light flash, even when a shock was not paired with it. It would be assumed that the light flash is now the conditioned stimulus and that the leg reflex is now the conditioned response. However, to be sure of this, researchers decided to test if there is a reflex when a beep sound is presented. Indeed, there was a response after the presentation beep. The elicited response, which was at first

Ullsperger, Bylsma, and Botvinick (2005) investigated whether the findings of Mayr, Awh, and Laurey (2003) can be replicated and how much they can be shown across different task performances. Their specific study was motivated by a prior experiment where Gratton, Coles, and Donchin (1992) found that after an incompatible type trial reaction times were reduced and target processing occurred more frequently than flanker processing on the next trial. Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, and Cohen (2001) believed that this follows the conflict monitoring hypothesis where incompatible trials involve a conflict with the response leading to greater top-down information processing (Botvinick, Nystrom, Fissell, Carter, & Cohen, 1999). However, Mayr et. al (2003) argued that the congruency sequence effect found by Gratton et al. (1992) was due to repetition priming because of stimulus repeats in a flanker task. This may have led to a faster reaction time with repeated trials. Mayr et al. (2003) used two experiments to present evidence for their argument. Both experiments failed to show the effect found by Gratton et al. (1992) when target and stimulus items did not repeat from trial to trial.

The Stroop experiment by J. Ridley Stroop in 1935 was performed in order to analyze the reaction time of participant’s stimuli and desired results while also obtaining a collective result of color interference and word reading(Stroop, 1935; Lee & Chan, 2000). In the experiment three forms of the test were given, the first consisting of color patches, the second had the color words printed in black and the other was an incongruent test beaming the color did not match the color word

The trials for each of the six conditions were presented in a random order. The experimenter controlled for differences among participants by having them set their own equiluminant point for the cue stimuli and eliminated luminance differences by embedding the stimuli in a random luminance noise. The experimenter also controlled for outliers by eliminating response

The reaction time (RT) of students was measured in the experiment to determine whether light or sound stimulus initiates a quicker response time. The question of whether or not RT was related to movement time (MT) was also challenged. Each student performed two test in random order; one testing the reaction time of a red light stimulus, or visual reaction time (VRT); and the other testing the reaction time of a “beeping” sound stimulus, or auditory reaction time (ART). The student completed the VRT trial by simply receiving the stimulus and pressing a button. The student placing and holding their hand on a button starts the ART trial. Once the student receives the stimulus (beep) they press the adjacent button as fast as they can. The ART trial does not only include the data of the RT, but also the data from the MT. Having previous knowledge that light travels faster than sound; one can predict that VRT is faster than ART. The prediction that MT is independent upon RT can be made with the thought that there are so many opposing variables that could affect the MT of an individual unrelated RT such as old age

To find out what happens to a subject’s reaction time when different independent variables are applied.