Report

Lesson Re exes and Reaction Times – Lab

Knee-jerk re ex – Challenge

All re ex actions occur via a re ex arc. The diagram below illustrates a simple monosynaptic re ex arc. Label
the components of the knee-jerk re ex arc in the diagram.

Dorsal root Motor neuron Dorsal root ganglion

ganglion

Motor neuron Sensory neuron

Muscle spindle

Patellar tendon Ventral horn

Quadriceps muscle
Quadriceps muscle
Sensory neuron

Stimulus

Ventral horn
Stimulus

Muscle spindle
Patellar tendon

Knee-jerk re ex – Activity
 1 Tendon Tap

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.3 EMG (mV)
0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.

Record 2 4 5 6 7

Knee-jerk re ex – Analysis

Latency – Normal Amplitude – Normal Latency – Jendrassik Amplitude – Jendrassik

(ms) (mV) (ms) (mV)

Record 1 21.7 0 13.7 0.12

Record 2 22.5 0 14.5 0.24

Record 3 22.5 0 14.5 0.20

Record 4 21.7 -0.01 17.5 0.13

Record 5 21.7 0 17.5 0.17

Mean 22.02 -0.00 15.54 0.17

SD 0.44 0.00 1.82 0.05

Observe your data. When the volunteer performed the Jendrassik maneuver how did the knee-jerk re ex
change?

When the subject performed the Jendrassik Maneuver, it was evident that the knee-jerk reflex latency measured
in time (ms) decreased relative to the normal latency. Additionally, the response, which was determined by the
amplitude (measured in mV) also increased in the Jendrassik Maneuver upon comparison with the normal
amplitude.
What does the e ect of the Jendrassik maneuver indicate about the neural pathways involved in simple
re exes?

The Jendrassik Maneuver, involving clasping and pulling apart the hands during testing, enhances reflex responses and decreases
latency. Particularly, the maneuver affects the neural pathways of simple reflexes by means of exaggerating the lower limb tendon
reflexes by countering some of the normal descending inhibition the brain sends to the reflex arc. In other words, the central nervous
system excitability is increased, the inhibitory signals are reduced—leading to an enhancement in the sensory input. Furthermore, the
decreased latency observed during the Jendrassik Maneuver demonstrates that simple reflexes are modulated by the CNS activity,
making the neural pathway more responsive.

Withdrawal re ex – Challenge

This image shows the neurons and projections within a withdrawal re ex for a lower limb. Use the labels to
correctly identify these components.

Dorsal root Stimulatory

Dorsal root ganglion interneuron Inhibitory interneuron
ganglion

Inhibitory
interneuron

Motor axon

Sensory axon

Stimulatory
interneuron
Sensory axon Motor axon
This image shows the projections of sensory and motor axons from the spinal column involved in the
withdrawal re ex. Use the labels to correctly identify the following actions:

Extension of knee Flexor activation Motor neuron

Extensor activation
Flexion of knee
Flexion of knee
Extensor activation
Flexor activation

Motor neuron

Sensory neuron
Extension of knee
Sensory neuron

Withdrawal re ex – Activity

Brie y describe the evolutionary advantage of a withdrawal re ex.

The withdrawal reflex protects humans against tissue necrosis from contact with noxious stimuli
such as extreme heat or pain due to puncture. It is evolutionary important for the prevention of
extensive injuries, conservation of energy, and initiation of faster recovery from injuries.

The pupillary light re ex – Challenge

The consensual light re ex involves a complex neural pathway. It is triggered when bright light enters the
other eye. Use this image of the eye to help you label the image below.

Ciliary muscles Optic disc

Ciliary muscles Sensory signal

Motor signal
Pons
Optic disc

Optic nerve

Pons

Response

Sensory signal
Optic nerve

Response Motor signal

The pupillary light re ex – Activity

1. Shade the volunteer's eyes for ~15 seconds. Shine a light into one eye.

Describe the response of the pupil when light was shone on it.

The subject’s pupil constricted in response to the light stimulus (direct response).
2. Shade the volunteer's eyes again for ~15 seconds. Shine a light into one eye.

Describe the response of the pupil in the other eye (the one that did not have light shone on it).

The pupil in the other eye also constricted (consensual response).

Review your observations. What is the main stimulus for this re ex?

The pupils are generally equal in size. They constrict to direct illumination (direct response)
and to illumination of the opposite eye (consensual response). The main stimulus for the
reflex is light.

What can you infer from your observations about the neural connections behind this re ex?

The size of the pupil is controlled by the activities of two muscles: the circumferential sphincter muscle found in the margin of the iris,
innervated by the parasympathetic nervous system; and the iris dilator muscle, running radially from the iris root to the peripheral border
of the sphincter (Spector, 1990). The pupillary light reflex functions to allow the size of the pupil to dilate or constrict upon exposure to a
certain light stimulus. The reflex particularly requires CN II, CN III, and the central brain stem connections. When the light shines in one
eye, the retinal photoreceptors and ganglion cells are stimulated, whose axons travel through the optic nerve, chiasm, and tract to
terminate the pretectal nucleus.

Based on your observations, what is the apparent biological advantage of the pupillary light re ex?

The pupillary light reflex allows the eye to adjust the amount of light reaching the retina and
protects the protoreceptors from lights of different wavelengths.

Reaction time: Visual cues – Activity

 Response (V)
1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1.2
Stimulus
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
02
0.2 0.4 0.6

Record 1 2 3 4 5

Reaction time: Visual cues – Analysis

Visual Cues – Control (ms)

Record 1 121

Record 2 177

Record 3 133

Record 4 122

Record 5 138

Mean 138.20

SD 22.86

Reaction time: Prewarning – Activity

 1 Response (V)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.2
Stimulus
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
02
0.2 0.4 0.6

Record 1 2 3 4 5

Reaction time: Prewarning – Analysis

Volunteer reaction times

Visual Cues – Control Visual Cues – Prewarning

(ms) (ms)

Record 1 121.00 173

Record 2 177.00 93

Record 3 133.00 45

Record 4 122.00 74

Record 5 138.00 78

Mean 138.20 92.60

SD 22.86 48.19

Reaction time: Predictable cues – Activity

 1 Response (V)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.2
Stimulus
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
02
0.2 0.4 0.6

Record 1 2 3 4 5

Reaction time: Predictable cues – Analysis

Volunteer reaction times

Visual Cues – Control Visual Cues – Prewarning Visual Cues – Predictable (ms)
(ms) (ms)

Record 1 121.00 173.00 262

Record 2 177.00 93.00 111

Record 3 133.00 45.00 125

Record 4 122.00 74.00 28

Record 5 138.00 78.00 43

Mean 138.20 92.60 113.80

SD 22.86 48.19 92.83

Reaction time: Distraction – Activity

 Response (V)
1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1.2
Stimulus
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
02
0.2 0.4 0.6

Record 1 2 3 4 5

Reaction time: Distraction – Analysis

Volunteer reaction times

Visual Cues – Visual Cues – Visual Cues – Visual Cues –

Control (ms) Prewarning (ms) Predictable (ms) Distraction (ms)

Record 1 121.00 173.00 262.00 290

Record 2 177.00 93.00 111.00 331

Record 3 133.00 45.00 125.00 262

Record 4 122.00 74.00 28.00 229

Record 5 138.00 78.00 43.00 219

Mean 138.20 92.60 113.80 266.20

SD 22.86 48.19 92.83 45.81

Mental arithmetic is an excellent distraction compared to other tasks. How did it change the latency of the
volunteer's reaction?

The latency (measured in ms) increased relative to the normal latency when the subject
was distracted with mental arithmetic.

Reaction time: Auditory cues – Activity

1 Response (V)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.2
Stimulus
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
02
0.2 0.4 0.6

Record 6 7 8 9 10

Reaction time: Auditory cues – Analysis

Volunteer reaction times

Visual Cues – Control Auditory Cues (ms)

(ms)

Record 1 121.00 267

Record 2 177.00 188

Record 3 133.00 160

Record 4 122.00 189

Record 5 138.00 138

Visual Cues (ms) Auditory Cues (ms)

Mean 138.20 188.40

SD 22.86 48.80

Did you observe a di erence between auditory and visual cues? Could this di erence really be due to
di erent processing times in the brain?

There is a observable difference between the latency measured in the visual and auditory cues as indicated by their respective mean and
standard deviation values. It can be inferred that the latency in the auditory cues is greater than the latency of the visual cues. The observed
difference in latency between the visual and auditory cues indicates the distinct neural pathways and processing mechanisms involved in
perceiving the senses. Additionally, it is also important to consider that the latency can vary among individuals. Deviations can occur based on
task demands and experimental conditions. Furthermore, factors such as attention, cognitive load, and sensory cues can influence the reflex of
an individual to a certain stimulus.

If your results are di erent than expected, what do you think caused this disparity?

Based on different studies on visual and auditory cues, auditory latency should be shorter than visual latency because the
auditory stimulus reaches the cortex faster than the visual stimulus. In the experiment conducted, it was found that the visual
latency is shorter than the auditory latency. This disparity can be explained by several factors such as the arrival of the stimulus
at the sensory organ, conversion of the stimulus by the sensory organ to a neural signal, neural transmissions and processing,
muscular activation, soft tissue compliance, and individual differences.

Reaction times – Interpretation

 Latency for Ankle-jerk Latency for Ankle-jerk Latency for Voluntary Ankle-jerk
Re ex – Normal (ms) Re ex – Jendrassik (ms) Contraction (ms)

Record 1 24 27.7 126

Record 2 24 26.2 111

Record 3 24 29 118

Record 4 22.8 27.7 185

Record 5 25.5 29 273

Mean 24.06 27.92 162.60

Standard 0.96 1.16 68.34

deviation

Consider two volunteers: Liam is 1.8 m (5.9 ft) tall and Jacqui is 1.4 m (4.6 ft) tall. Which volunteer will have
the faster ankle-jerk re ex? Can you explain why?

Ankle-jerk reflex or Achilles reflex involves a sensory neuron sending a signal from the Achilles tendon to the spinal cord and a
motor neuron sending a response signal back to the muscle to produce the reflexive jerk. The distance the signal needs to
travel is related to the length of the person’s leg, which can also be related to their height. Given that Liam is taller than
Jacqui, it can be deduced that Jacqui will have a faster ankle-jerk reflex compared to Liam. This aligns with the general
principle that taller people have delayed ankle-jerk reflex because longer legs means that the impulse must travel a greater
distance.

Examine the di erence in latency between a re ex and voluntary contraction. What do you think can
in uence the variability seen between these two conditions? What di erences in these two conditions do
you think there will be between a single volunteer, and between multiple volunteers?

Based on the mean latency values in the ankle-jerk reflexes and voluntary contractions, the differences could be related to the
complexity of the neural pathways involved. Normal ankle-jerk, with a mean latency of 24.06 ms utilizes a simple spinal
pathway that results in shorter and more consistent response times. On the other hand, voluntary contractions, having a mean
latency of 162.20 ms, involve a higher brain functions that add complexity and variability to the response. For a single
volunteer, the variability could be affected by their physiological state, familiarity with the task, and consistency of the stimulus.
Meanwhile, for multiple volunteers, the variability can be attributed to the individual neurophysiological differences, motor
control skills, and cognitive processing speeds.
Your volunteer's reaction times

Visual Cues – Visual Cues – Visual Cues – Visual Cues – Auditory Cues
Control (ms) Prewarning (ms) Predictable (ms) Distraction (ms) (ms)

Record 1 121.00 173.00 262.00 290.00 267.00

Record 2 177.00 93.00 111.00 331.00 188.00

Record 3 133.00 45.00 125.00 262.00 160.00

Record 4 122.00 74.00 28.00 229.00 189.00

Record 5 138.00 78.00 43.00 219.00 138.00

Mean 138.20 92.60 113.80 266.20 188.40

Standard 22.86 48.19 92.83 45.81 48.80

deviation

Describe how the mean reaction times changed across the conditions. Which conditions caused the greatest
increase and decrease in the mean reaction times of your volunteer?

Visual cues with prewarning induced the highest improvements in mean reaction times, with a decrease
(improvement) of 45.6 ms relative to the control. On the other hand, visual signals with distraction resulted in the
greatest spike (impairment) in reaction time, increasing it by 128 ms compared to the control. This suggests that
prewarning considerably enhances reaction time, but distractions significantly reduce it.

Having carried out the activities under di erent conditions to test reaction times in this lab, what do you
think can in uence the variability as seen in the experimental method used today?

The variability in reaction times observed within the experiment can be attributed to a number of factors, including the type of
cue used (visual vs. aural), with visual signals often producing faster reactions. Prewarning and predictability improve reaction
times by increasing preparation and anticipation, but distractions considerably increase reaction times by diverting attention.
Individual variances in age, cognitive capacity, and physiological factors such as fatigue and stress all contribute to variability.
Furthermore, the experimental design, which includes stimulus timing and clear instructions, is critical to the consistency of the
results.

Popup - Notebook
 Re ection notebook

Investigating different reflex activities and reaction time tests offers important insights
into the complex mechanisms controlling human behavior. The pupillary light reflex,
withdrawal reflex, and knee-jerk response are a few examples of how neuronal
pathways are flexible and efficient in various situations. Studies on reaction times
reveal the complex nature of cognitive processing and attentional mechanisms,
regardless of whether they involve predictable visual signals, prewarnings, distractions,
or aural cues. The variation seen in these trials emphasizes how different sensory
modalities, mental states, and environmental influences affect reaction times. The
collective analysis of these trials demonstrates the intricacy of human neurophysiology
and emphasizes the need for careful experimental design in order to further clarify
these complicated mechanisms.