Talk:Reaction time
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] WikiProject Time assessment rating comment
Barely a Start class.
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cat:Biology?
This is bizar! Since when are reaction times a typical subject of biology?? the more appropriate classification would be psychology; experimental psychology is almost all about reaction times!
I concur, the correct heading would be psychology or sub-heading neuropsychology user: neotrantor
Actually, I disagree. The reason that I have come across this page in the first place is because I am a Biology student, gathering background information for our study of the human body and its systems. One of these is the nervous system, which you can't argue isn't a subject of Biology. Reflexes, in their perfect implementation of the sensory input / central nervous system integration / ordered motor output cycle fit in perfectly with the nervous system, and therefore deal completely with biology. 71.71.198.236 00:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with the first poster, as a PhD student in experimental psychology/cognitive neuroscience my research and dissertation deals with the analysis of saccade (eye-movement) reaction-times (RTs) and RT-distributions and links these to other psychophysiological measures (e.g. EEG). The expertise on RTs (including their biological underpinnings) lies with psychologists, especially those in cognitive neuroscience and not with biologists. 146.50.209.116 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why Chicken Pox?
Is there any reason that the article mentions chicken pox specifically when talking about reaciton times? is there a referance showing evidence of this? It just sounds kind of random... Is there some other desiese that affects reaction time more obviously?it itches very badly causing you to focus on the itch not the falling object, causing you not to react as fast!
[edit] Reaction Time
So if you have a higher reaction time are you smarter or something..?Expo377 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio
I removed much of the article, which was directly copied from [1]. Twinxor t 05:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Since Nuerology and Psychology are really biological studies, it makes sense. But I agree, being specific never hurts. (as far as I know.)
This page could use a lot of work. Reaction times are something about which there is (quite literally) a ton of research.
Sub-topics might include:
- Saccadic reaction times (SRTs -- time it takes for you to looks at something that appears in the periphery). Incidentally, in humans these tend to be between 110 and 150 ms (depending on what you're looking at when the stimulus is presented), but can drop as low as 70 ms in some circumstances.
- Delays in neural pathways
- Differential reaction times (RTs) for different sensory modalities (e.g. audition vs. vision)
- Its major role throughout nearly all of psychology
- Its history
- Inter-species differences
- Age-related differences
- (any other ideas?)
LeoTrottier 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is sorely lacking in actual experimentally derived numbers for human and other reaction times. There needs to be reference to some recent version of Experimental Psychology by Woodworth with cites for such as 100 msec simple reaction time, 300 msec for choice reaction time, the effect of preparation (get ready) versus RT to an unexpected event, the longer RT of people who are elderly or intoxicated, how this relates to "fastdraw" or stopping distance for cars, how psychologists have gotten thousands of research publications since the 1960's out of chronometric analysis of mental processes based on the work of Donders in the 19th century. RT measures such as pressing a button for simple RT, moving a lever or pressing more than one button for choice RT, and voice RT could be mentioned. Add in the effect of nerve transmission time: a little animal has shorted nerve pathways, so can react quicker so far as nerve transmission goes.Edison 19:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This page is copied from this source:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Reaction_time
i think the fuy who created this should notice and change the text.
[edit] Nudity?
What does nudity have to do with reaction time? Is this vandalism?--65.190.103.147 03:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it turned out to be vandalism. User 220.233.173.218 has vandalized 3 other pages besides this one. Two were fixed by others, and I fixed the other one and this one.--65.190.103.147 03:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cleaned up
Just a note to explain that I removed the "factors" that were listed because they were generally too vague to be useful, and because few of them contained supporting citations or links. This is a method, and this is not the appropriate place to talk about the psychological issues that have been addressed with this method (there are way too many to list). It would be appropriate to include information about how the method should be used effectively. I would note that there is a more detailed treatment in mental chronometry.--Cooper24 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
