Talk:Reaction time

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Mental chronometry
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Mental chronometry

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Barely a Start class.

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Biology?

This is bizar! Since when are reaction times a typical subject of biology?? the more appropriate classification would be psychology; experimental psychology is almost all about reaction times!

I concur, the correct heading would be psychology or sub-heading neuropsychology user: neotrantor

Actually, I disagree. The reason that I have come across this page in the first place is because I am a Biology student, gathering background information for our study of the human body and its systems. One of these is the nervous system, which you can't argue isn't a subject of Biology. Reflexes, in their perfect implementation of the sensory input / central nervous system integration / ordered motor output cycle fit in perfectly with the nervous system, and therefore deal completely with biology. 71.71.198.236 00:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the first poster, as a PhD student in experimental psychology/cognitive neuroscience my research and dissertation deals with the analysis of saccade (eye-movement) reaction-times (RTs) and RT-distributions and links these to other psychophysiological measures (e.g. EEG). The expertise on RTs (including their biological underpinnings) lies with psychologists, especially those in cognitive neuroscience and not with biologists. 146.50.209.116 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Chicken Pox?

Is there any reason that the article mentions chicken pox specifically when talking about reaciton times? is there a referance showing evidence of this? It just sounds kind of random... Is there some other desiese that affects reaction time more obviously?it itches very badly causing you to focus on the itch not the falling object, causing you not to react as fast!

Reaction Time

So if you have a higher reaction time are you smarter or something..?Expo377 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

I removed much of the article, which was directly copied from [1]. Twinxor t 05:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Nuerology and Psychology are really biological studies, it makes sense. But I agree, being specific never hurts. (as far as I know.)

This page could use a lot of work. Reaction times are something about which there is (quite literally) a ton of research.

Sub-topics might include:

Saccadic reaction times (SRTs -- time it takes for you to looks at something that appears in the periphery). Incidentally, in humans these tend to be between 110 and 150 ms (depending on what you're looking at when the stimulus is presented), but can drop as low as 70 ms in some circumstances.
Delays in neural pathways
Differential reaction times (RTs) for different sensory modalities (e.g. audition vs. vision)
Its major role throughout nearly all of psychology
Its history
Inter-species differences
Age-related differences
(any other ideas?)

LeoTrottier 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sorely lacking in actual experimentally derived numbers for human and other reaction times. There needs to be reference to some recent version of Experimental Psychology by Woodworth with cites for such as 100 msec simple reaction time, 300 msec for choice reaction time, the effect of preparation (get ready) versus RT to an unexpected event, the longer RT of people who are elderly or intoxicated, how this relates to "fastdraw" or stopping distance for cars, how psychologists have gotten thousands of research publications since the 1960's out of chronometric analysis of mental processes based on the work of Donders in the 19th century. RT measures such as pressing a button for simple RT, moving a lever or pressing more than one button for choice RT, and voice RT could be mentioned. Add in the effect of nerve transmission time: a little animal has shorted nerve pathways, so can react quicker so far as nerve transmission goes.Edison 19:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is copied from this source:

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Reaction_time

i think the fuy who created this should notice and change the text.

Nudity?

What does nudity have to do with reaction time? Is this vandalism?--65.190.103.147 03:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it turned out to be vandalism. User 220.233.173.218 has vandalized 3 other pages besides this one. Two were fixed by others, and I fixed the other one and this one.--65.190.103.147 03:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up

Just a note to explain that I removed the "factors" that were listed because they were generally too vague to be useful, and because few of them contained supporting citations or links. This is a method, and this is not the appropriate place to talk about the psychological issues that have been addressed with this method (there are way too many to list). It would be appropriate to include information about how the method should be used effectively. I would note that there is a more detailed treatment in mental chronometry.--Cooper24 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home side!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.102.208 (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it physics envy? What?

Thank y'all for the good "specialist's" info in this article, but it needs to be balanced. I'm finding this general pattern in Wikipedia to be frustrating, -- sorry for my exasperation. Once again a Wiki "technical article" illustrates that often experts make poor teachers/communicators of, or with the general public. It seems to me that the first, if not only function of an encyclopedia is by definition, to provide a general overview. If it does not do that, then it has failed.

encyclopedia: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/encyclopedia
ETYMOLOGY:
Medieval Latin encyclopaedia, general education course, from alteration of Greek enkuklios paideia, general education : enkuklios, circular, general ; ...
WORD HISTORY:
The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ... made up of ... "cyclical, periodic, ordinary," and ... "education," and meaning "general education." ...became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense "general course of instruction," first recorded in 1531.

...General info first, specialized or technical information is optional.

It seems to me that Reaction Time is a general, not a technical topic. Once discussed at the lay level, then getting technical is fine. I think to successfully merge the two levels into one place -- while creating a crystal clarity of both -- is almost impossible.

In the first paragraph we learn how reaction time might be of interest to experimental psychologists in the area of research known as mental chronometry, and to psychometric psychologists, but not a word of how "RT" might be of interest or importance to regular people. This sets the tone.

In the second paragraph we learn something interesting, that "RT" becomes slower as additional response options are added. How so, we may ask? Why, according to Hick's law, choice reaction time increases in proportion to the logarithm of the number of response alternatives, as expressed by the formula RT = a + blog2(n + 1), where a and b are constants representing the intercept and slope of the function, and n is the number of alternatives! While that might be true, it's pretty much crap in that context...being the entire contents of the second paragraph.

Funny, an article one would think, about (measured) times only has the time quantity, "second," in one sentence, under Measurement; Simple reaction time: "Mean RT for college-age individuals is about 160 milliseconds to detect an auditory stimulus, and approximately 190 milliseconds to detect visual stimulus." I'd think most people would look up reaction time not to discover what it means, (they know that,) but what the measured times were. Only one sentence? Also under Measurement are other types, but NO Measurements: What are the measured times for: Go/No-Go reaction time, Choice reaction time, Discrimination reaction time, random variability in an individual's reaction time.

...And nothing on automatic reactions/reflexes, such as kneejerk (pre-brain, monosynaptic reflex, 50 milliseconds ) or stepping on a sharp rock, and to what degree can they be learned/modified? I've seen several 100% unconsciously learned (via repeated pain) and automatic (difficult to supress) defense reactions such as ducking OR pulling limbs away for unexpected fast approaching nearby object...those speeds?...are they pre-brain?...what are they? And what of the body-learning that most pro atheletes (and typists?) strive for, and seemingly almost worship? NOTHING on reflexes? But what of this: "Reaction time (RT) is the elapsed time between the presentation of a sensory stimulus and the subsequent behavioral response."

Does this sentence actually mean something other than "smart people have faster reaction times??? - "Several studies have reported association between simple reaction time and intelligence or around (r=31), with a tendency for larger associations between choice reaction time and intelligence (r=49)." No, it does not, but sure sounds impressive! ...to science wannabees, I suppose. And to whom else? Oh, and to statisticians, mathematicians, and "RT" experts I suppose. Why bother with the English translation, -- for the numerically illiterate, for the uneducated, why bother with the little people!?!? That would be me.

And only humans have reaction times? What of bats and birds that turn and catch insects on the wing, and so forth? Or tender skin/feet Vs tough hide/hooves? ... Any corrilation or predictability?

I suggest World Bank economist Herman Daly's chapters on "misplaced concreteness" regarding misplaced and over-abstraction in academia. AND "physics envy;" attempting to force the messy Biologies into the Physics template -- in the book For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy ... (Herman E Daly, John B Cobb, Clifford W Cobb - 1994 - 548 pages.) (Example: Many experts say math over-abstractions helped cause the current Financial Crisis.)

Doug Bashford--69.110.91.25 (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got some good points, and a lot of this is why I think that most of the information in this article should be merged into mental chronometry, which I proposed a few days ago. MC is more or less a technical concept in psychology and most of the people who want to read it will be looking for the technical information specifically. The concept of reaction time is, as you mentioned, a much broader issue that should cover the "basics" of the idea. Feel free to leave any additional suggestions, but your post here supports the idea that these articles both (this and MC) need a major overhaul. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This page has now been merged into Mental chronometry. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]