ArticlePDF Available

Reaction Times for Esport Competitors and Traditional Physical Athletes are Faster than Noncompetitive Peers

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Reaction time (RT), time to respond to a stimulus, has been shown to be faster among traditional physical athletes and esport competitors than nonathletes/noncompetitors; however, no comparison has been made between traditional physical athletes and esport competitors. This research examined RTs of healthy 18 to 22 year-old college football athletes, esport competitors, and a control group (n = 12 for each group). RT (ms) to visual (color cue test, ruler drop test), auditory (sound cue test), and tactile stimuli (probe grabbing test) was collected in duplicate. RTs for individual tests and calculated composite RTs were compared between groups by ANOVA and post hoc t-tests. RTs to auditory stimuli were significantly slower than to visual or tactile stimuli (F(140, 3) = 286.5, p = 0.0000). Esport competitors significantly outperformed noncompetitive controls in probe grabbing (p = 0.0175) and ruler drop tests (p = 0.0016). Football players had similar faster RTs in probe grabbing (p = 0.0002) and ruler drop tests (p = 0.0013) compared to controls. Esport competitors also had significantly faster RTs in the color cue test than controls (p = 0.05). Although esport competitors and football athletes had faster composite RTs than controls (p = 0.0042 and p = 0.0104, respectively), RTs between esport competitors and football athletes were not significantly different. A trend was seen in that esport competitors had faster RTs than football athletes in all tests except probe grabbing. Involvement in esports or football is positively correlated with faster RT, although it is not demonstrated whether play improves RT or those with inherently faster RTs tend to excel in activities requiring rapid response.
Content may be subject to copyright.
OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 15
A. LUU ET AL. .
INTRODUCTION
Reaction time (RT) is the time interval between a
signal and the reaction to it (Radák 2018). Response
times to specic stimuli have been shown to be
age-dependent (improving from ages 3 to 15, not
changing signicantly to age 30, and deteriorating
thereafter) (Bucsuházy and Semela 2017), but not
gender-dependent (Woods et al. 2015) or IQ-
dependent (Aktas 2019). Rate of eye movement in
response to visual stimuli is directly proportional
to hand-eye coordination (Dean et al. 2011).
RT can be measured by several methods,
including the ruler drop test (Latorre-Roman et
al. 2018), measuring reaction to a visual stimulus
(Bucsuházy and Semela 2017), a sound stimulus
(Kemp 1984), or a tactile stimulus (Hernández et
al. 2005); test protocols will be elucidated in the
methods section.
Esport competitors, gamers who play genres
that are considered action esport games (such
as rst-person shooter (FPS) and massive online
battle arena (MOBA) games) had faster RTs on
the trail-making (visual/cognitive) test than those
Reaction Times for Esport Competitors and Traditional Physical
Athletes are Faster than Noncompetitive Peers
ANH LUU, AVORY WINANS, REMA SUNIGA, and VICKI A. MOTZ 1, Ohio Northern University, Ada, OH, USA.
ABSTRACT. Reaction time (RT), time to respond to a stimulus, has been shown to be faster among traditional
physical athletes and esport competitors than nonathletes/noncompetitors; however, no comparison has been
made between traditional physical athletes and esport competitors. This research examined RTs of healthy 18
to 22 year-old college football athletes, esport competitors, and a control group (n = 12 for each group). RT (ms)
to visual (color cue test, ruler drop test), auditory (sound cue test), and tactile stimuli (probe grabbing test) was
collected in duplicate. RTs for individual tests and calculated composite RTs were compared between groups
by ANOVA and post hoc t-tests. RTs to auditory stimuli were signicantly slower than to visual or tactile stimuli
(F(140, 3) = 286.5, p = 0.0000). Esport competitors signicantly outperformed noncompetitive controls in probe
grabbing ( p = 0.0175) and ruler drop tests ( p = 0.0016). Football players had similar faster RTs in probe grabbing
( p = 0.0002) and ruler drop tests ( p = 0.0013) compared to controls. Esport competitors also had signicantly
faster RTs in the color cue test than controls ( p = 0.05). Although esport competitors and football athletes had
faster composite RTs than controls ( p = 0.0042 and p = 0.0104, respectively), RTs between esport competitors
and football athletes were not signicantly dierent. A trend was seen in that esport competitors had faster
RTs than football athletes in all tests except probe grabbing. Involvement in esports or football is positively
correlated with faster RT, although it is not demonstrated whether play improves RT or those with inherently
faster RTs tend to excel in activities requiring rapid response.
Publication Date: April 2021 https://doi.org/10.18061/ojs.v121i2.7677 OHIO J SCI 121(2):15-20
without a gaming background (Kowal et al. 2018).
Furthermore, players of these types of competitive
action video games had quicker RTs in auditory
and visual perceptual decision making tasks than
players without that exposure (Green et al. 2010).
Gozli et al. (2014) found that serious gamers (who
played video games 2 hours per day, 3 to 4 days
per week, for a minimum of 6 months) held an
advantage in sensorimotor learning and hand-eye
coordination over nongamers. RT is important
for esport competitors as the average professional
conducts 500 to 600 actions per minute (LeJacq
2013). In addition, those who participated in
video games located visual objects or features on a
screen faster, and demonstrated a greater ability in
visual mapping, than those who did not play video
games (Castel et al. 2005). Experienced gamers
had faster RTs to a ashed visual stimulation test,
without decreases in accuracy of performance,
compared to novice players (Dye et al. 2009). ese
studies suggest that gaming experience is positively
correlated with RT.
1
Address correspondence to Vicki A. Motz, Ohio Northern
University, 525 South Main St., Ada, OH 45801, USA
.
Email: v-motz@onu.edu
© 2021 Luu et al. is article is published under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
16 VOL. 121(2)
REACTION TIMES.
Within traditional athletes, RTs reported in
dierent studies, and under dierent conditions,
varied. In 483 sprinters, those with quicker RTs
performed better in a 60 m sprint than those who
had slower RTs (where RT was dened as the time
dierence between the start signal and the moment
the athlete exerted pressure on the starting block)
(Gürses and Kami 2019). Greater involvement in
traditional physical sports activities improved an
individual’s hand-eye RT and anticipation time
responses to LED light cues (Kuan et al. 2018).
Interestingly, tennis players displayed faster RTs
than both sedentary participants and swimmers
when subjected to visual-cue and button-pressing
testing (Wang et al. 2013). Even within the same
sport, response to dierent stimuli varied. National
Collegiate Athletic Association Division I male
soccer players responded faster to a visual command
(visible movement 10 m away) than an auditory
one (sound command “Go”) (Spierer et al. 2011).
us, participation in competitive physical sports
is associated with improved RTs; especially to visual
stimuli.
Little is known about the relative RTs of
traditional physical athletes in comparison to esport
competitors. is study examined the RTs of college
football players (as representatives of traditional
physical athletes) and esport competitors. Future
studies would then determine whether RTs improve
with training, and whether there is a discernible
dierence in decrease in RTs for competitors
training in esports vs. traditional sports. is may
lead to training regimens directly associated with
improving RT. It was hypothesized that both football
players and esport competitors would have faster
RTs in visual, auditory, and tactile assessments of
RT than the nonactive control groupwith esport
competitors having the fastest composite RTs (see
methods for determination of composite RT).
METHODS AND MATERIALS
For this IRB-approved study, 3 groups of
healthy male college students (n = 12 per group)
were studied: (1) players on the Ohio Northern
University football team (NCAA Division III) with
at least 2 years of football experience, (2) esport team
members at the same college with at least 2 years
of gaming experienceranked between gold and
diamond, and (3) a control student group (those who
perform little to no physical activity or competitive
gaming activity in their daily lives). Although gender
has not been observed to inuence RT (Woods
et al. 2015), this study involved only males. No
participant belonged to more than 1 group or had
any neurological conditions. Participants were
asked to abstain from alcohol, coee, and energy
drinks for 24 hours prior to testing. RTs to visual
(color cue test and ruler drop test), auditory (sound
cue test), and tactile (probe grabbing test) stimuli
were tested in random order. Testing occurred in
the esport oce at Ohio Northern University, a
4-year regional college located in the Midwest of the
United States. For electronic-based tests, a 13-inch
2017 model MacBook Pro® was utilized. Each test
was conducted twice using the same device across
all participants, and scores were averaged.
RT Tests
Visual Testing : Visual testing consisted of a
computer generated color cue test (RTT 2020)
and the ruler drop test. In the color cue test, the
participant looked at the computer screen and clicked
the computer mouse as fast as he could when the
screen switched from red to green. RT was recorded
in milliseconds. In the ruler drop test, the participant
placed his dominant arm on the table with their hand
over the edge of the table in an open “c” position;
the meter stick was held at the midpoint between
his thumb and ngertips. As soon as the researcher
(sitting opposite to the participant) dropped the
ruler, the participant grabbed the meter stick. e
vertical distance that the meter stick travelled in
centimeters was recorded, then converted into RT
(ms) based on the acceleration due to gravity of a free
falling object (9.8 m/s
2
) provided by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA 2020):
RT in ms = 1000 · √2 · (distance in cm/100/9.8) .
Sound Cue: Auditory testing utilized a
computer generated test (TYRSS 2020) which was
administered by having the participant (with eyes
closed) press the spacebar on the testing laptop as
soon as he heard a sound from the computer. RT in
milliseconds was recorded. Loudness and duration
of the signal were consistent across subjects.
Probe Grabbing
:
Tactile testing consisted of
a novel RT test developed by the authors of this
study. e researcher hovered a probe (a Dell
®
Active
Pen
a metallic cylinder approximately 15 cm long
by 0.75 cm in diameter and weighing 20 g ) above
the participant’s open and relaxed dominant hand
OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 17
A. LUU ET AL. .
(the participant had his eyes closed); the participant
clenched his st over the probe the moment he
felt the probe touch his hand. is process was
recorded with a camera at the rate of 60-frames
per second, and RT was measured by analyzing the
video frames of the action using Avidemux video
editing software (Avidemux 2020). RT was recorded
in milliseconds starting from when the probe rst
touched the participant’s hand and ending when
the participant’s ngers touched his palm.
Statistical Analysis
All tests were conducted in duplicate and the
average of the 2 scores was recorded as the participant
score. A composite score (the mean of the 4 tests)
was calculated. ANOVA testing was performed for
each RT test as well as for the composite scores. Post
hoc t-tests were performed to determine signicant
dierences between group RTs.
RESULTS
All participants were very consistent in their
responses. In the color cue test (Fig. 1A), mean
RT of esport competitors (269.83 ± 23.46 ms)
was signicantly lower than the control group
(290.83 ± 36.50 ms), indicating faster RTs. But, RT
of esport competitors did not dier signicantly
from the football players (276.50 ± 28.02 ms).
In the ruler drop test (Fig. 1B), RT of esport
competitors (174.58 ± 26.14 ms) and football
players (186.94 ± 20.30 ms) was significantly
faster than the control group (223.47 ± 31.11 ms),
again, football and esport were not signicantly
dierent from each other. In the probe grabbing
test (Fig. 1C), esport competitors (202.84 ± 42.91
ms) and football players (189.08 ± 28.21 ms) had
signicantly faster RTs than the control group
(248.08 ± 55 ms). In the sound cue test (Fig. 1D),
there was no evidence for a dierence between
FIGURE 1. Comparison of mean RTs (ms) of controls (CT), football players (FP), and esport competitors (EC) (n = 12 each group).
(A)
Color cue test. Asterisks indicate signicant dierences at p = 0.05 between EC and CT. (B) Ruler drop test. Asterisks indicate
signicant dierences at p = 0.0002 between EC/FP and CT. (C) Probe grabbing test. Asterisks indicate signicant dierences at
p = 0.0175 between EC/FP and CT. (D) Sound cue test. No signicant dierences were observed between EC and FP in any test.
18 VOL. 121(2)
REACTION TIMES.
esport competitors (429.87 ± 50.94 ms), football
players (455.33 ± 37.78 ms), and the control group
(461.44 ± 51.19 ms).
Overall, esport competitors had the fastest mean
composite RT (269.28 ± 27.02 ms), followed by
football players (276.96 ± 17.49 ms) (Fig. 2). e
control group (305.96 ± 30.5 ms) had the slowest
RT. No signicant dierence was found between
esport competitors and football players.
A signicant dierence was observed in RTs
between the 4 tests, with the sound cue test yielding
the slowest mean RT (Fig. 3).
RTs of esport competitors and football players
were not signicantly dierent, but they both
had signicantly faster RTs than controls in all
but the sound cue test. Involvement in esports
or football is associated with faster RTs than
nonparticipants, although a causative relationship
was not demonstrated in this study.
DISCUSSION
e signicantly faster RTs of esport competitors
over the controls in the color cue test supported the
ndings of Castel et al. (2005), who found that gamers
had faster RT to visual stimuli than nongamers.
Green et al. (2010) also found faster RTs in esport
competitors, using methodology which integrated
decision making (not just simple button pressing) in
response to stimuli. eir interpretation was that the
decreased RTs in gamers playing action games was
correlated to feedforward processing. Football players
trended toward faster RTs than controls; consistent
with the ndings of Lesiakowski et al. (2017) that
traditional physical athletes had signicantly faster
RTs in button pressing to a visual cue.
Feedforward processing may also explain why
both esport competitors and football players had
faster RTs than controls in the ruler drop test. Better
hand-eye coordination in response to visual stimuli
could possibly be explained by the observation of
Mack and Ilg (2014) on their study of gamers:
that competitors exhibited faster saccadic peak
velocity (eye movement between xation points)
and saccadic RT than noncompetitors. Faster eye
movement would give the competitors an advantage
responding to a moving visual stimulus, such as a
ruler falling. Potentially, video recordings of the
ruler drop test and correlated recordings of eye
movement might be needed to validate this point.
Probe grabbing was not, however, signicantly
different between football players and esport
competitors. Test analysis could be improved by using
a higher quality video recording device that could
capture at frame rates higher than 60 per second.
Although the RTs between esport competitors
and football players were not signicantly dierent,
a trend was seen in that esport competitors had
faster RTs than football athletes in all tests except
probe grabbing. is trend suggests that dierent
training experiences and activity involvement might
inuence RT to a specic stimulus.
Whereas Hernández et al. (2005) found no evidence
of dierent RTs to dierent sensory modalities, RTs
in the current study were modality-dependent.
Furthermore, in the current study, the auditory
based test produced slower RTs than visual based
tests, similar to the ndings of Spierer et al. (2011)
in which soccer players reacted to visual signals faster
than to auditory commands. However, these results
contradicted a study of nonathletes
(medical students
FIGURE 2. Mean composite RTs (ms) of the control group,
football players, and esport competitors (n = 12 each group).
Asterisks indicate signicant dierences between esport
competitors and controls ( p = 0.0025), and between football
players and controls ( p = 0.0046).
FIGURE 3. RTs (ms) for the 4 tests. Asterisks indicate signicant
dierences by ANOVA. F(140, 3) = 286.5, p = 0.0000.
OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 19
A. LUU ET AL. .
CONCLUSION
Although both esport competitors and football
players had faster RTs than the controls, the
hypothesis that esport competitors had faster
composite RTs than football players was not
conrmedbut a supportive trend was evident. is
study tested for a positive relationship, but not the
causative relationship, between activity involvement
and RT. Testing of pre-trained competitors, followed
by training and post-training testing, would be
needed to ascertain whether activity involvement
improved RT or whether fast inherent RT made
participants better gamers or athletes. Faster RT may
improve safety by facilitating protective maneuvers
such as in contact sports, driving, or piloting.
As the world becomes more virtually oriented,
manipulation of computer peripherals, and the
training evinced by repeated use of programs such
as competitive video games, may prove benecial
to those whose careers require rapid response
(e.g., in rewall protection and cybersecurity, or
even technical directors in television studios).
Furthermore, those who micromanipulate, such as
surgeons performing computer aided techniques,
may benet from the hand-eye coordination
associated with competitors in this study.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the Department of Biological and Allied
Health Sciences of Ohio Northern University for
sponsoring this study, Coach Troy Chiefari for
providing us access to the esport lounge as the
testing room, Coach Dean Paul for helping with
recruitment of football athletes, and Jessica Haynie
for her contribution to project design.
LITERATURE
CITED
Aktas Y. 2019. Investigation of relationship between reactive
agility and cognitive parameters in male football players.
J
Educ Learn. 8(4):58-63.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v8n4p58
Ando S, Kida N, Oda S. 2002. Practice eects on reaction
time for peripheral and central visual elds. Percept Motor
Skill. 95(3):747-751.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2002.95.3.747
Avidemux. 2020. [accessed 2020 Feb 6]. Open source video
editing and processing software.
Avidemux.sourceforge.net
Bucsuházy K, Semela M. 2017. Case study: reaction time of
children according to age. Procedia Engineer. 187:408–413.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROENG.2017.04.393
with various lifestyles) where RTs to auditory cues
were actually faster than to visual cues (Jain et al.
2015). In the current study, the color cue test used
a red-turning-green signal, similar to the change
seen in conventional trac lights. In contrast, the
sound signal for the sound cue test was a unique
buzz sound that subjects were unlikely to have heard
prior to testing. Lack of dierence in RT to sound
cue between the 3 groups may have reected the
unfamiliarity of the signal. e faster RT to color
cue over sound cue may have been inuenced by
familiarity to the stimulus, as was observed by
Ando et al. (2002). Moreover, during sound cue
testing, the subjects in the current study had their
eyes closed; this might have delayed their RTs to
a degree in comparison to an eyes-open condition
(Fuhrman et al. 2015).
It could be inferred that dierences in RT are due
to neural processing of incoming stimuli. However,
preprocessing signal conduction time might also
inuence measured RT as auditory stimuli reach
the brain in 8 to 10 ms (Kemp 1973), while visual
stimuli take 20 to 40 ms to reach the occipital
cortex (Marshall et al. 1943). In addition, RTs to
probe grabbing were signicantly faster than those
to color cue. Godlove et al. (2014), similarly, found
responses to vibration-to-the-hand stimuli were
faster than to color-ashing stimuli. Interestingly,
the ruler drop test, which incorporated a mobile
visual stimulus and hand-eye coordination, had
signicantly faster RTs than both the color cue test
and the probe grabbing test. is was potentially
due to the additive eects of seeing the ruler drop
and feeling the noncontact pressure generated by its
movement. In fact, stimulation with 2 signals, each
from a dierent sensory modality, could result in
faster RTs than with a single signal
a phenomenon
called coactivation (Miller 1982). Miller’s study,
however, did not test for tactile stimulation.
e composite RTs assigned each test subject
a score which incorporated responses to visual,
auditory, and tactile stimuli. is study had a small
sample size (n = 12 for each group), which might
have contributed to a lack of signicant ndings
in the color cue test (between football players and
controls) and the sound cue test. Furthermore,
control subjects may have participated in activities
with direct correlations to RT which were not
considered in this study, such as playing a musical
instrument.
20 VOL. 121(2)
REACTION TIMES.
Castel AD, Pratt J, Drummond E. 2005. e eects of action
video game experience on the time course of inhibition
of return and the eciency of visual search. Acta Psychol.
119(2):217-230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.02.004
Dean HL, Martí D, Tsui E, Rinzel J, Pesaran B. 2011. Reaction
time correlations during eye–hand coordination: behavior
and modeling. J Neurosci. 31(7):2399-2412.
https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4591-10.2011
Dye MWG, Green CS, Bavelier D. 2009. Increasing speed of
processing with action video games. Curr Dir Psychol Sci.
18(6):321-326.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01660.x
Fuhrman SI, Redfern MS, Jennings JR, Furman JM. 2015.
Interference between postural control and spatial vs. non-
spatial auditory reaction time tasks in older adults. J Vestibul
Res. 25(2):47-55.
https://doi.org/10.3233/ves-150546
Godlove JM, Whaite EO, Batista AP. 2014. Comparing temporal
aspects of visual, tactile, and microstimulation feedback for
motor control. J Neural Eng. 11(4):046025.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/11/4/046025
Gozli DG, Bavelier D, Pratt J. 2014. e eect of action video
game playing on sensorimotor learning: evidence from a
movement tracking task. Hum Movement Sci. 38:152-162
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2014.09.004
Green CS, Pouget A, Bavelier D. 2010. Improved probabilistic
inference as a general learning mechanism with action video
games. Curr Biol. 20(17):1573-1579.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.07.040
Gürses VV, Kami O. 2019. e relationship between reaction
time and 60 m performance in elite athletes. J Educ Train
Stud. 6(12a):64-69.
https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i12a.3931
Hernández OH, Huchín-Ramirez TC, Vogel-Sprott M. 2005.
Behaviorally fractionated reaction time to an omitted
stimulus: tests with visual, auditory, and tactile stimuli.
Percept Motor Skill. 100(3):1066-1080.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.100.3c.1066-1080
Jain A, Bansal R, Kumar A, Singh KD. 2015. A comparative
study of visual and auditory reaction times on the basis
of gender and physical activity levels of medical rst year
students. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 5(2):124-127.
https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-516x.157168
Kemp BJ. 1973. Reaction time of young and elderly subjects
in relation to perceptual deprivation and signal-on versus
signal-o condition. Dev Psychol. 8(2):268-272.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034147
Kemp S. 1984. Reaction time to a tone in noise as a function of
the signal-to-noise ratio and tone level. Percept Psychophys.
36(5):473-476.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207501
Kowal M, Toth AJ, Exton C, Campbell MJ. 2018. Dierent
cognitive abilities displayed by action video gamers and
non-gamers. Comput Hum Behav. 88:255-262.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.010
Kuan YM, Zuhairi NA, Manan FA, Knight VF, Omar R. 2018.
Visual reaction time and visual anticipation time between
athletes and non-athletes. Malays J Public Health Med.
Special volume (1):135-141.
Latorre-Roman PA, Robles-Fuentes A, García-Pinillos F, Salas-
Sánchez J. 2018. Reaction times of preschool children on
the ruler drop test: a cross-sectional study with reference
values. Percept Motor Skill. 125(5):866-878.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512518789563
LeJacq Y. 2013 Oct 24. How fast is fast? Some pro gamers
make 10 moves per second. NBC News Digital. [accessed
2020 Aug 4]. https://www.nbcnews.com/technolog/how-fast-
fast-some-pro-gamers-make-10-moves-second-8c11422946
Lesiakowski P, Krzepota J, Zwierko T. 2017. e dierentiation
of visual sensorimotor processes in the representatives
of various sport disciplines. Cent Eur J Sport Sci Med.
19(3):43-53.
https://doi.org/10.18276/cej.2017.3-04
Mack DJ, Ilg UJ. 2014. e eects of video game play on
the characteristics of saccadic eye movements. Vision Res.
102:26-32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.07.010
Marshall WH, Talbot SA, Ades HW. 1943. Cortical response of
the anaesthesized cat to gross photic and electrical aerent
stimulation. J Neurophysiol. 6(1):1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1943.6.1.1
Miller J. 1982. Divided attention: evidence for coactivation
with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychol. 14(2):247–279.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90010-x
[NASA] National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
2020. Motion of free falling object. [accessed 2020 Feb 6]
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/mofall.html
Radák Z. 2018. e physiology of physical training. London
(UK): Academic Press (an imprint of Elsevier). 280 p.
https://doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-01911-0
[RTT] Reaction time test. 2020. [accessed 2020 Feb 6]. Online
interactive test.
https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime
Spierer DK, Petersen RA, Duy K. 2011. Response time to
stimuli in Division I soccer players. J Strength Cond Res.
25(4):1134-1141.
https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181d09e4c
[TYRSS] Test your reaction speed to sound. 2020. [accessed
2020 Feb 6]. Online interactive test.
https://playback.fm/audio-reaction-time
Wang CH, Chang CC, Liang YM, Shih CM, Muggleton
NG, Juan CH. 2013. Temporal preparation in athletes: a
comparison of tennis players and swimmers with sedentary
controls. J Motor Behav. 45(1):55-63.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2012.740522
Woods DL, Wyma JM, Yund EW, Herron TJ, Reed B. 2015.
Factors inuencing the latency of simple reaction time.
Front Hum Neurosci. 9(article 131):1‒12.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131
Thesis
Full-text available
Espor’a hem ülkemizde hem de dünyanın genelinde bir önyargı olduğu bilinmektedir, çağın gereklilikleri kısa, orta ve uzun vadelerde olmak üzere sürekli değişmekteyken spor olgusunun da değişmesini görmek artık şaşırtıcı olmaktan çıkma noktasına gelmiştir. Bu temelden hareketle Espor’un, spor olgusunun değişiminin öbeğinde olduğu görülmektedir. Alanı daha iyi anlamak, keşfetmek ve spor vb. bilim dallarındaki bilinmezleri ortaya çıkartmak son derece önemlidir. Çünkü espor’un temelde hareketsiz yapıldığı düşüncesi yalnızca yapılacak çalışmalarla değiştirilebilir. Bu tez çalışma ise tam olarak bunu hedeflemektedir. Spor branşları için bilişsel özelliklerin başarısı ile performans düzeyi arasında bir bağ olduğu düşünüldüğünde, reaksiyon zamanı birçok spor branşı için son derece önemli olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Basketbol branşı son derece hızlı, anlık karar verilmesi gereken pozisyonları barındıran ve bununla birlikte belli bir noktadan sonra ince beceriler ile birlikte esas olan fiziksel ya da zihinsel becerilerin öne çıkması için performansın optimuma gelmesinde her eylemin kusursuza yakın olması gerekmektedir. Reaksiyon zamanı ise saniyenin çok küçük ölçeklerinde gerçekleştiğinden dolayı bu branş için son derece önemlidir. Espor’da ise yine hem görsel hem de işitsel reaksiyon zamanı son derece önemli olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Çünkü oyuncular yoğun olarak hem derinlik algılama, anlık karar verme, problem çözme yetenekleriyle birlikte olaylara doğru ve hızlı reaksiyon vermek zorundadırlar. Buradan yola çıkılarak yapılan bu tez çalışmasında görsel reaksiyon (FitLight) ve işitsel reaksiyon ölçümlerinde oturarak iki el (görsel reaksiyon) ile gerçekleştirilen ölçümde espor oyuncularının basketbol oyuncularından daha başarılı olduğu, ayakta ve oturarak yapılan diğer tüm testlerde de iki grup arasında anlamlı farkın olmadığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Kanonik verilerde de yine espor oyunlarının basketbol oyuncularının reaksiyon zamanlarını geliştirmek maksatlı kullanılabileceği öngörüsünde bulunulmuştur.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between 60m sprint results and reaction times in athletes who took part in the World Indoor Athletics Championships. The reaction times and 60m sprint results were compiled for 483 sprinters (253 male, 230 female) who performed 60m sprint event. Corresponding data were obtained from archives of the official website of the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF). The relationship between reaction time and 60m sprint results were calculated using Pearson correlation coefficient. Additionally, the Independent Samples T-Test was used to compare athletes’ reaction times and 60m sprint results. Positive moderate correlation was found between mean values of all 60m sprint results and reaction times, which were analyzed together in all categories (r=.436, p<0.01). Moreover, significant differences were also found between male and female finalists based on the 60m sprint times and reaction times respectively (t=-27.98, p<0.01; t=-3.26, p<0.01). As a result, it can be concluded that reaction time has great importance on 60 m performance. The best reaction time is related to the higher performance of 60m sprint in both male and female athletes. Moreover, this is also similar for round 1, semifinal and final categories. Coaches and athletes may consider improving reaction time to achieve better 60m performance.
Article
Full-text available
Reaction time (RT) tasks assess several brain functions, and a slow RT can be due to various brain diseases, disorders, and acquired conditions. This study examined age and gender differences in RTs of Spanish preschool children on the ruler drop test (RDT) and presents norm-referenced results. Participants were 3,741 children (1,845 girls and 1,896 boys; mean [M] age = 55.93, standard deviation [SD] = 11.14 months; M body mass index = 15.94, SD = 1.91 kg/m²), selected from 51 schools in southern Spain. We measured RT with the RDT, and we collected both right- and left-hand data. We expressed normative mean RDT values of both hands according to gender and age in percentiles. Based on mean RDT scores, girls exhibited a poorer performance than boys aged 4 years (p = .032, Cohen’s d = − 0.122) and 5 years (p = .001, Cohen’s d = −0.194). For the whole group, RDT performance was faster with increased age, from the age of five years.
Article
Full-text available
An experimental investigation was conducted to explore visual reaction time and visual anticipation time between athletes and non-athletes. These visual perceptual skills form the base for cognitive processes required by the brain to respond instantaneously to a stimulus. A total of 228 adolescents, equally distributed between athletes and non-athletes, aged 13 to 16 years (mean age 14.69 ± 0.99 years) were examined. The visual reaction time and visual anticipation time were measured using a Lafayette Reaction Timer (Model 63035) and Bassin Anticipation Timer (Model 35575) respectively. The visual reaction time results revealed that athletes have faster reaction time scores as compared to non-athletes, whereas with visual anticipation time, athletes had fewer errors and a higher consistency compared to non-athletes. There was, however, no interaction between gender and sports participation noted for both these visual perceptual skills. These research findings indicate that gender was not an obstacle in sports participation, therefore not limiting the potential to excel in sports performance. Knowledge gained from these research findings will benefit the sports industry, specifically in athletic and sports training as well as provide a basis for the identification of an individual's potential in their sports.
Article
Full-text available
Sport activities usually require a high efficiency of visual information processing. Therefore, it seems justified to determine the efficiency of visual sensorimotor processes in sports requiring a variety of perception competencies. The aim of this study was to assess the differentiation of sensorimotor processes in terms of simple and choice reaction time, and visual stimulus discrimination in various athletes and untrained persons. The study involved 119 men, of which 95 were athletes: football players (n = 24), volleyball players (n = 22), boxers (n = 26), and rowers (n = 23). The efficiency of sensorimotor processes was evaluated with the Vienna Test System (Schuhfried, Austria). The evaluations included simple reaction time (SRT), choice reaction time (CRT), and visual stimulus discrimination. Analysis of the results showed that volleyball and football players had shorter (p < 0.01) reaction times compared to non-athletes and representatives of the other sports. We found significant differences (p < 0.01) between athletes and non-athletes in visual stimulus discrimination. In addition, boxers showed fewer correct reactions than volleyball players, and shorter times of stimulus detection than in volleyball and soccer players.
Article
Full-text available
Reaction time (RT) is a measure of the response to a stimulus. RT plays a very important role in our lives as its practical implications may be of great consequences. Factors that can affect the average human RT include age, sex, left or right hand, central versus peripheral vision, practice, fatigue, fasting, breathing cycle, personality types, exercise, and intelligence of the subject. The aim was to compare visual RTs (VRTs) and auditory RTs (ARTs) on the basis of gender and physical activity levels of medical 1(st) year students. The present cross-sectional study was conducted on 120 healthy medical students in age group of 18-20 years. RT for target stimulus that is, for the beep tone for measuring ART, and red circle for measuring VRT was determined using Inquisit 4.0 (Computer Software) in the laptop. The task was to press the spacebar as soon as the stimulus is presented. Five readings of each stimulus were taken, and their respective fastest RT's for each stimuli were recorded. Statistical analysis was done. In both the sexes' RT to the auditory stimulus was significantly less (P < 0.001) as compared to the visual stimulus. Significant difference was found between RT of male and female medical students (P < 0.001) as well as between sedentary and regularly exercising healthy medical 1(st) year students. The ART is faster than the VRT in medical students. Furthermore, male medical students have faster RTs as compared to female medical students for both auditory as well as visual stimuli. Regularly exercising medical students have faster RTs when compared with medical students with sedentary lifestyles.
Article
Full-text available
Simple reaction time (SRT), the minimal time needed to respond to a stimulus, is a basic measure of processing speed. SRTs were first measured by Francis Galton in the 19th century, who reported visual SRT latencies below 190 ms in young subjects. However, recent large-scale studies have reported substantially increased SRT latencies that differ markedly in different laboratories, in part due to timing delays introduced by the computer hardware and software used for SRT measurement. We developed a calibrated and temporally precise SRT test to analyze the factors that influence SRT latencies in a paradigm where visual stimuli were presented to the left or right hemifield at varying stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). Experiment 1 examined a community sample of 1469 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 65. Mean SRT latencies were short (231, 213 ms when corrected for hardware delays) and increased significantly with age (0.55 ms/year), but were unaffected by sex or education. As in previous studies, SRTs were prolonged at shorter SOAs and were slightly faster for stimuli presented in the visual field contralateral to the responding hand. Stimulus detection time (SDT) was estimated by subtracting movement initiation time, measured in a speeded finger tapping test, from SRTs. SDT latencies averaged 131 ms and were unaffected by age. Experiment 2 tested 189 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 82 years in a different laboratory using a larger range of SOAs. Both SRTs and SDTs were slightly prolonged (by 7 ms). SRT latencies increased with age while SDT latencies remained stable. Precise computer-based measurements of SRT latencies show that processing speed is as fast in contemporary populations as in the Victorian era, and that age-related increases in SRT latencies are due primarily to slowed motor output.
Article
Playing action video games requires players to develop a cognitive profile that allows them to rapidly monitor and react to fast moving visual and auditory stimuli, and to inhibit erroneous actions. This study investigated whether experience with action video games is associated with an advantage on standardized cognitive tasks. Specifically, we investigated whether individuals who played action video games demonstrated enhanced cognitive processing speed, task-switching and inhibitive abilities. First person shooter (FPS) and Massive online battle arena (MOBA) experienced video game players (AVGPs) and individuals with little to no videogame experience (NVGPs) performed both a Stroop test and a Trail-Making test (TMT A&B). Results showed that on the Stroop test, AVGPs responded significantly faster than NVGPs but made significantly more errors. Alternatively, on the TMT test AVGPs displayed faster reaction times while error rates did not differ compared to NVGPs. Our findings suggest that while AVGPs may possess enhanced processing speed and task-switching ability, AVGPs adopt a strategy that favours speed over accuracy on a task evaluating cognitive inhibition ability. Our data corroborate and bolster previous findings demonstrating a different cognitive profile for individuals that specifically play action video games.
Article
This study investigated whether spatial aspects of an information processing task influence dual-task interference. Two groups (Older/Young) of healthy adults participated in dual-task experiments. Two auditory information processing tasks included a frequency discrimination choice reaction time task (non-spatial task) and a lateralization choice reaction time task (spatial task). Postural tasks included combinations of standing with eyes open or eyes closed on either a fixed floor or a sway-referenced floor. Reaction times and postural sway via center of pressure were recorded. Baseline measures of reaction time and sway were subtracted from the corresponding dual-task results to calculate reaction time task costs and postural task costs. Reaction time task cost increased with eye closure (p = 0.01), sway-referenced flooring (p < 0.0001), and the spatial task (p = 0.04). Additionally, a significant (p = 0.05) task x vision x age interaction indicated that older subjects had a significant vision X task interaction whereas young subjects did not. However, when analyzed by age group, the young group showed minimal differences in interference for the spatial and non-spatial tasks with eyes open, but showed increased interference on the spatial relative to non-spatial task with eyes closed. On the contrary, older subjects demonstrated increased interference on the spatial relative to the non-spatial task with eyes open, but not with eyes closed. These findings suggest that visual-spatial interference may occur in older subjects when vision is used to maintain posture.