preview

Reaction Time Lab Report

Decent Essays
Open Document

In Exercise 1, the objective was to measure the reaction time of a subject to a visual cue when respondin witht the hand (1). Starting with subject 1, their mean reaction time for the visual-to-hand cue was 303 ms, subject 2’s was 359 ms, subject 3’s was 396 ms, and subject 4’s was 343 ms (Table 1). In Exercise 2, the objective was to measure the reacton time of each subject to an auditory cue when responding with the hand (1). For subject 1, their mean reacton time was 183 ms for the auditory-to-hand cue, which was much faster then their 303 ms visual-to-hand reaction time (Table 1). For subject 2, their mean reacton time was 210 ms for the auditory-to-hand cue which was also much faster then their 310 ms visual-to-hand reaction time (Table 1). Subject 3, had a much faster mean reacton time for …show more content…

Subject 1’s mean reaction time for the auditory-to-foot cue was 285 ms which was faster than their visual-to-foot reaction time at 418 ms (Table 1). For subject 2, their mean reaction time to the auditory-to-foot was 281 ms, which was also much faster than their 416 ms visual-to-foot reaction time (Table 1). Subject 3 had a mean reaction time of 308 ms for the auditory-to-foot cue, which was much faster than their mean reaction time of 469 ms for the visual-to-foot cue (Table 1). Lastly, subject 4’s reaction time for the auditory-to-foot cue was 311 ms, which was faster than their visual-to-foot response at 398 ms (Table 1). For all subjects of the class, the trend was that the auditory-to-foot reaction time was faster than the visual-to-foot reaction time. Conclusion: There were two major revelations made in this experiment. One, the auditory-to-reactor pathway results in a faster reaction time than the visual-to-reactor pathway. Two, when comparing the reaction times of the foot to that of the hand, the foot was always

Get Access
Related
Get Access