Simple Reaction Time as a Function of Response Complexity: Christina et al. (1982) Revisited

Abstract

Two alternative interpretations to the one proposed by Christina, Fischman, Vercruyssen, and Anson (1982) were investigated. They interpreted the simple reaction time (SRT) increase they found, which was thought to reflect an increase in programming time, to be due to the increase in number of movement parts from one response to another. Experiment 1(N = 15 males) tested the alternative interpretation that the SRT increase was caused by the difference in how the first movement part of the three responses was executed. However, no evidence was found to support this interpretation. Experiment 2 (N = 15 males) tested the alternative interpretation that the SRT increase was due to the increase in the demand for movement accuracy from one response to another. The results revealed that only a very small portion of the SRT increase could be attributed to the increased accuracy demand while the major portion of the increase was due to the increase in number of movement parts.     

Programming Time as a Function of Movement Constraint

Abstract

Although the benefits of exercise are well documented, an international problem of physical inactivity exists. More research, especially theory based, has been recommended. One promising approach for studying exercise behavior is that proposed in the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) of behavior change. This model, however, has received minimal cross-cultural attention and, relative to the current study, measurement instruments have only recently been translated into the Finnish language. The purpose of this study was to assess American and Finnish college students' exercise behaviors on the basis of TTM. Participants were American (n = 169) and Finnish (n = 168) college students who completed language-specific measures of exercise behavior, stage of change, processes of change, decisional balance, self-efficacy, and temptation. The only cultural difference observed was that the American participants rated themselves higher on barrier self-efficacy relative to the Finnish participants. Regardless of nationality or gender, participants classified by their stage of change differed on all the core constructs assessed. These results generally support the utility of TTM for understanding American and Finnish college students' exercise behavior.     

Movement Duration,Fractionated Reaction Time,and Response Programming

The purpose of this study was to determine how the manipulation of movement duration affects components of fractionated reaction time and presumably motor programming. Twelve subjects, in a simple reaction time paradigm, responded to an auditory signal by executing an elbow flexion movement in the sagittal plane through a range of motion of 100° in 150, 300, 600 and 1200 ms. Results indicated no changes in motor time but small increments in premotor and reaction time through the 600 ms condition. At 1200 ms, reaction time increased faster than premotor time, and this appeared to be predominantly a consequence of an increment in motor time. These data were interpreted to be supportive of the notion that movement duration is related to response complexity and the time required for motor programming.     

Premotor and Motor Reaction Time As a Function of Response Complexity

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to identify the response elements responsible for the complexity effect found by Henry and Rogers (1960). An attempt was made to determine if these elements were affecting the premotor time component of simple reaction time (SRT). If they were, a strong case could be made for the argument that neuromotor programming time was affected because premotor time is a more exact estimate of it than SRT. The results revealed that premotor time was unaffected by a forward change in movement direction, but increased as the number of movement parts increased from one to two and as the demand for movement accuracy increased. Thus, increasing the (1) number of parts and (2) accuracy demands were identified as elements of response complexity which increase programming time and support Henry and Rogers (1960) hypothesis that the time to initiate a response becomes longer as the programming process become more complex.     

Slowed driving-reaction time following concussion-symptom resolution

Background: Concussed patients have impaired reaction time (RT) and cognition following injury that may linger and impair driving performance. Limited research has used direct methods to assess driving-RT post-concussion. Our study compared driving RT during simulated scenarios between concussed and control individuals and examined driving-RT''s relationship with traditional computerized neurocognitive testing (CNT) domains.MethodsWe employed a cross-sectional study among 14 concussed (15.9 ± 9.8 days post-concussion, mean ± SD) individuals and 14 healthy controls matched for age, sex, and driving experience. Participants completed a driving simulator and CNT (CNS Vital Signs) assessment within 48 h of symptom resolution. A driving-RT composite (ms) was derived from 3 simulated driving scenarios: stoplight (green to yellow), evasion (avoiding approaching vehicle), and pedestrian (person running in front of vehicle). The CNT domains included verbal and visual memory; CNT-RT (simple-, complex-, Stroop-RT individually); simple and complex attention; motor, psychomotor, and processing speed; executive function; and cognitive flexibility. Independent t tests and Hedge d effect sizes assessed driving-RT differences between groups, Pearson correlations (r) examined driving RT and CNT domain relationships among cohorts separately, and p values were controlled for false discovery rate via Benjamini-Hochberg procedures (α = 0.05).ResultsConcussed participants demonstrated slower driving-RT composite scores than controls (mean difference = 292.86 ms; 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 70.18–515.54; p = 0.023; d = 0.992). Evasion-RT (p = 0.054; d = 0.806), pedestrian-RT (p = 0.258; d = 0.312), and stoplight-RT (p = 0.292; d = 0.585) outcomes were not statistically significant after false-discovery rate corrections but demonstrated medium to large effect sizes for concussed deficits. Among concussed individuals, driving-RT outcomes did not significantly correlate with CNT domains (r-range: –0.51 to 0.55; p > 0.05). No correlations existed between driving-RT outcomes and CNT domains among control participants either (r-range: –0.52 to 0.72; p > 0.05).ConclusionSlowed driving-RT composite scores and large effect sizes among concussed individuals when asymptomatic signify lingering impairment and raise driving-safety concerns. Driving-RT and CNT-RT measures correlated moderately but not statistically, which indicates that CNT-RT is not an optimal surrogate for driving RT.