To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
The purpose of this laboratory experiment was to acquire an average timed value for a person’s reaction time. This was accomplished through the gathering of data using two approaches: the first of which involved visual reaction time, and the second being auditory reaction time. The data was collected using a stop/start clock timer apparatus and was statistically analyzed using the Logger Pro software. Using the information obtained from Logger Pro, we could then determine the uncertainty of the mean, and acquire a t-test which would then give us an overall reaction time.
The reaction time of an organism is the time interval it takes to respond to a certain external stimulus.
In humans this is accomplished through a variety of forms, two notable cases are where external stimulus is intercepted through visual or auditory methods and thus a reaction occurs accordingly. In the following laboratory a clock timer is triggered using either a silent or audible switch, and the person being tested must quickly stop the clock using a clicker when he or she intercepts the external stimulus (visual/sound).
Verified writer
Proficient in: Science
5 (204)
“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”
This data is then recorded using logger pro software.
The experiment utilized a timer clock, a push-button clicker, silent/audible switches, and a laptop with Logger Pro software. Participants were required to stop the clock upon perceiving either a visual or an auditory stimulus. The reaction times were recorded and analyzed to calculate the average reaction times, standard deviations, and uncertainties.
The statistical analysis of the date results in the average value of the samples collected and is defined by the equation
t_av=(∑t_i )/N (1)
Where t_avis the data points collected, and N is the number of samples in the given data.
The standard deviation calculation is as follows:
σ_SD=√(1/((N-1)) ∑_(i=1)^N((t_i-t_av))^2 ) (2)
This calculation represents the Standard deviation from the mean and is calculated by the logger pro software.
Once the above calculations are complete the logger pro software will then make a Gaussian distribution, this distribution is used to identify and validate that more than 68% of data collected is “normal”, which is represented by the following equation
f(t)=(Nh/(σ_Sd √2π) e)^(-((t-t_av))^2/((2σ)^2 SD)) (3)
Where N is the number of trials, h the bin size, σ_SD is the standard deviation, and lastly, t_av is the average distribution.
Once the σ_SD is obtained we can use that to determine the statistical uncertainty of the measurement, which in define as the standard deviation of the mean
σ_mean=σ_SD/√N (4)
Where σ_SD is the standard deviation, and the number of samples represented N.
Using this statistical uncertainty that’s been calculated we can than perform a t-test between the two average reaction times and determine if they are consistent with one another.
t=|t_av^vis-t_av^aud |/√(σ_(mean,vis)^2+σ_(mean,aud)^2 ) (4)
Calculation for the standard deviation of the mean (for visual reaction time) is:
σ_mean=σ_SD/√N
σ_mean=((35.13 ms))/√30
σ_mean=6.414 ms
Therefore, the value for the standard deviation of the mean (for visual stimulus) is:
σ_mean=6.414 ms
Calculation for the standard deviation of the mean (for auditory reaction time) is:
σ_mean=σ_SD/√N
σ_mean=((17.74 ms))/√28
σ_mean=3.353 ms
Therefore, the value for the standard deviation of the mean (for visual stimulus) is: σ_mean=3.353 ms
T-test calculation to determine consistency:
t=|t_av^vis-t_av^aud |/√(σ_(mean,vis)^2+σ_(mean,aud)^2 )
t=|217.2 ms-164.0 ms|/√(((6.414 ms))^2+((3.353 ms))^2 )
t=7.351
Therefore, the value for the t-test which is:
t=7.351
Since the t-test results proved my values to be in consistent (t>2), then we need to use the uncertainty equations:
t_final=(t_av^vis+t_av^aud)/2
t_final=(217.2 ms+164.0 ms)/2
t_final=190.6 ms
And now the calculation for the average uncertainty:
σ_(t_final )=(|t_av^vis-t_av^aud |+(σ_(t_av^vis ) +σ_(t_av^aud ) ))/2
σ_(t_final )=(|217.2 ms-164.0 ms|+(6.414 ms +3.353 ms))/2
σ_(t_final )= 31.4835 ms
Therefore, the average reaction time is:
t_final=(191+30) ms
The results for the average reaction time are t_final=(191+30) ms.
Furthermore, the results of the t-test proved that the auditory and visual reaction times were inconsistent with one another, producing a t value of approximately
t=7.351 .
This experiment was done in order to determine the timed average reaction time to both auditory and visual stimulus. The experiment proceeded rather seemingly at first, the initial set up was quick and easy to accomplish. However, during the duration of the lab the push-button clicker (which stops the clock) became very difficult to work with, and thus a large portion of time was taken to re-adjust and collect data. In addition to this, the data analysis went rather smoothly, as most of the analysis was taken care of by the Logger Pro software. Therefore, the required value was obtained using the data collected from the experiment, which went somewhat according to plan.
Data analysis revealed that the two calculated values for visual and auditory reaction times were not consistent with one another. This meant that an arithmetic value must be calculated along with it’s corresponding uncertainty value (refer to calculations). The results being inconsistent was expected, this is due to the fact the push-button problems occurring during portions of the lab “skewed” the results (this will be further explained in a section below). In addition to this, the gaussian distribution which was calculated (refer to calculations) was below the “normal” amount of 68% (60% and 54% respectively), which lead to the conclusion that the visual and auditory reaction times were going to be inconsistent with one another.
Since the t-test proved the values to be inconsistent, this means that sources of uncertainty must have played a large role in this experiment. A big source of uncertainty comes from the unreliability of the push-button. Since the push-button is sometimes sticky, it can require multiple methods of pushing the button (e.g. using a thumb or the table) because of this the values inputted into Logger Pro are inconsistent due to the fact different variations of stopping the clock was used. Therefore, a particular method was not kept constant throughout the data collection thus resulting in random uncertainty occurring. Another source of random uncertainty occurs when recording values for visual stimulus.
Although the switch for the visual stimulus is supposed to be silent, in some cases it is not and results in a slightly audible “ping”. This ping may trigger a slightly faster reaction time which may produce inconsistent data. Lastly, noise disturbances created by the simultaneous clicking for the audible trials could cause the subject to lose focus or false start, and thus as a result random uncertainty could also occur via this method. (incorporate question two here)
This experiment can be improved with some minor changes. As stated above the major source of uncertainty is created by the unreliability of the push-button. To improve upon that portion of the procedure, the use of some form of lubrication should be added to the push-button. By doing so this would reduce the “stickiness” and amount of times the measuring device jams. In addition to this, the introduction of lubrication would make it possible to only rely on the subject’s thumb to activate the button throughout the entire experiment which removes a major source of random uncertainty. Furthermore, the person administering the visual test should be a good distance, from the test subject. This would ensure that the silent switches light audible ping would not be used to generate a false start.
Another way to improve this experiment would be to isolate each test subject on his own in order to reduce the noise interference generated when everyone is seated together, however this would not be very practical therefore the employment of the audible test using some form of headphones would be a great way to remove the noise disturbance. Also, the introduction of more decimal points to the timer clock would not affect the results by a greater degree than the present data. This is mainly due to the experiment greatly relying on the individual rather than the timer’s precision. However, if we were to reduce the timer clocks precision from three decimal places to two or even one places this would not be very optimal.
Although as stated above most of the lab is dictated by the test subjects’ reactions, the clock must also be precise enough to record the data. The three decimal places currently used in the experiment is a perfect fit because it allows for the most optimal precision that then can be used for various calculations (such as standard deviation, t_av, and standard deviation of the mean). If significantly fewer decimal places were present, then the recorded data and calculated values would greatly lose precision as well as number of significant figures.
Therefore, the addition of more decimal points would not greatly affect the results, however the reduction of decimal points from the current three will. Lastly, the most obvious way to improve the experiment would be the addition of more trials (increase the N value). By generating more trials, the entirety of values in table #3 would be altered. This occurs because all the parameters found in the table rely on the value of N in their equations. This can be proved if you refer to theory section of the lab.
The following experiment has helped display the limitations of the human reaction time which is between (100 ms- 300 ms), it has also helped display that the audible reaction time is significantly faster than the visual reaction time. Human reaction time is dependant on the mental processing of the test subject, and how fast the stimulus gets processed and relied from the receptors all the way to the cortex which then generates a response. This explains why it takes a while for a reaction in response to stimulus because it requires that the brain and nervous system process the information and relay it from the receptors, spinal cord, neurons, to the cortex, and back again to generate an appropriate response. Furthermore, the average time for the audible stimulus to reach the brain is significantly shorter than that of a visual stimulus (8-10 ms compared to 20-40 ms), which provides a proof as to why audible reaction times are faster than visual reaction times and why human reaction time is delayed.
Reaction time is a fundamental aspect of our daily lives, it is heavily incorporated in professional sports. Many times, a faster reaction time in sports such as soccer, basketball, fencing, and tennis result in much successful results. Many careers such as piloting an aircraft for example, require the pilot to be able to respond to certain external factors and act in a fast and concise matter to pilot the plane safely. A more specific example would be found in the reaction time of a goalkeeper, in the UEFA champions league the average goalie would have to react in under 300 ms in order to save a penalty kick. “Khan Academy” performed an analytical experiment in which they assumed that the ball speed is 60 mph and that the goalies jump speed is 15 mph, under these conditions it was determined that it would require a goalie roughly around 0.13 seconds to react and save the ball. The example above helps provide a detailed explanation of why reaction time is crucial in professional sports, as well as many other careers.
The laboratory experiment successfully measured and analyzed human reaction times to visual and auditory stimuli. The findings highlight the inherent differences in reaction times between the two types of stimuli and underscore the importance of considering individual variability and experimental uncertainties in such measurements. This research contributes to a better understanding of human sensory processing and response times, with implications for various fields, including sports, medicine, and cognitive science.
Analysis of Human Reaction Time in Auditory and Visual Stimuli. (2024, Feb 21). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/document/analysis-of-human-reaction-time-in-auditory-and-visual-stimuli
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
