PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA

College of Human Development

Intramuros, Manila

VARIATION: INDIVIDUAL SIMPLE REACTION TO TOUCH

Sharene Y. Neri
BS PSY III-2
2005-10577

Ms. Sarmiento
Experimental Psychology (lab)

1
 ABSTRACT

This experiment has an objective to identify and to determine reaction time of subjects to
touch. Handkerchief and stopwatch were used as materials in the experiment. The subject
was blindfolded. After the experimenter signaled “ready”, a tap was made in a certain
part of the body. He tapped the subject within half a second to 2 seconds and
simultaneously started the stopwatch. When the subject perceived the touch, he tapped
the table. The experimenter recorded the reaction time. Ten trials were made after in
different parts of the body.

2
INTRODUCTION

Many researchers have confirmed that reaction to sound is faster than reaction to light,
with mean auditory reaction times being 140-160 msec and visual reaction times being
180-200 msec. Perhaps this is because an auditory stimulus only takes 8-10 msec to reach
the brain, but a visual stimulus takes 20-40 msec. Reaction time to touch is intermediate,
at 155 msec. Differences in reaction time between these types of stimuli persist whether
the subject is asked to make a simple response or a complex response.

There are other factors that influence reaction time. Reaction time is fastest with an
intermediate level of arousal, and deteriorates when the subject is either too relaxed or
too tense. In almost every age group, males have faster reaction times than females, and
female disadvantage is not reduced by practice. Researchers think that the left hand
should be faster at reaction times involving spatial relationships (such as pointing at a
target). The preferred hand is generally faster. Sanders cited studies showing that when
subjects are new to a reaction time task, their reaction times are less consistent than when
they've had an adequate amount of practice. Welford found that reaction time gets slower
when the subject is fatigued. Welford and Broadbent reviewed studies showing that
distractions increase reaction time. Brebner and Welford report that reaction times are
faster when the subject has been warned that a stimulus will arrive soon. Buchsbaum and
Calloway found that reaction time was faster when the stimulus occurred during
expiration than during inspiration. Brebner found that extroverted personality types had
faster reaction times, and Welford and Nettelbeck said that anxious personality types had
faster reaction times. Welford found that physically fit subjects had faster reaction times.
Shocking a subject when he reacts slowly does shorten reaction time. Lorist and Snel
found that moderate doses of caffeine decreased the time it took subjects to find a target
stimulus and to prepare a response for a complex reaction time task. Among people of
normal intelligence, there is a slight tendency for more intelligent people to have faster
reaction times, but there is much variation between people of similar intelligence. The
speed advantage of more intelligent people is greatest on tests requiring complex
responses.

3
Reaction time has been a favorite subject of experimental psychologists since the middle
of the nineteenth century. However, most studies ask questions about the organization of
the brain, so the authors spend a lot of time trying to determine if the results conform to
some mathematical model of brain activity.

Several investigators have looked at the effect of increasing the number of possible
stimuli in recognition and choice experiments. Hick found that in choice reaction time
experiments, response was proportional to log(N), where N is the number of different
possible stimuli. In other words, reaction time rises with N, but once N gets large,
reaction time no longer increases so much as when N was small. This relationship is
called "Hick's Law." Sternberg maintained that in recognition experiments, as the number
of items in the memory set increases, the reaction time rises proportionately (that is,
proportional to N, not to log N). Reaction times ranged from 420 msec for 1 valid
stimulus (such as one letter in symbol recognition) to 630 msec for 6 valid stimuli,
increasing by about 40 msec every time another item was added to the memory set.
Nickerson reviewed several recognition studies and agreed with these results.

Froeberg found that visual stimuli that are longer in duration elicit faster reaction times,
and Wells got the same result for auditory stimuli. Piéron and Luce reported that the
weaker the stimulus (such as a very faint light) is, the longer the reaction time is.
However, after the stimulus gets to a certain strength, reaction time becomes constant.

METHOD

This experiment aims to determine simple reaction time to touch. Handkerchief and
stopwatch are required as materials in the experiment. The subject was blindfolded. After
the experimenter said “ready”, he tapped the subject within half a second to 2 seconds
and simultaneously started the stopwatch. When the subject perceived the touch, he
tapped the table. The experimenter recorded the reaction time. Ten trials were made after
in different parts of the body. The subject was a female.

4
PROCEDURE

The students work in pairs. Blindfold the subject. The experimenter says “ready”, waits
from ½ to 2 seconds before tapping the subject, and simultaneously starts the stopwatch.
When the subject perceives the touch, he taps the table. The experimenter records the
time of reaction. Ten trials should be made.

RESULTS
.

.
time

trial
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

reaction time 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.19 0.12 0.19 0.15 0.24

Fig.1 Subject's Reaction Time

The chart is about the reaction time that was done by the subject through the random taps
that were executed in this experiment. The subject’s reaction time to each tap is indicated
in the table above. It is clearly seen that the reaction time of the subject is random.

DISCUSSION

In this chart, it could be interpreted that there is a random time range within the different
taps that were made. For the first taps, the subject is aware of the activity so there is a
high reaction time. Even if there is a random reaction time formation within the taps that
were executed, it cold be interpreted here that there is a consistency of the reaction time
formation since the subject is aware of the taps that were done in this activity.

5
CONCLUSION

In this experiment, the experimenter believed that there is a high correlation between the
reaction formation to the individual because this will determine the certain and various
reactions and emotions that a person will execute after something is done. For this
experiment, there is a rough estimation of up to 0.50 seconds for the reaction time
formation after an individual is tapped.

6
REFERENCES

http://biae.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm#Kinds

7
APPENDIXES