Gerontology Essay

Published: 2021-07-15 13:35:07
essay essay

Category: Essays

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

GET MY ESSAY
The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of thisstudy. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of UniversityWisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computersimulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty tosixty minutes. The data were analyzed using test and ANOVA. The test showed nosignificance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can bemade. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as itrelates to complexity.
I found that as the level of complexity increase so doesthe reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexityof Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as thelevel of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured toeliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack morecomplicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding tostimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as “two ormore different stimuli are presented in random order. .
. the subject is instructedto react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus tothe depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used torespond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies.
For the purposes ofthis study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitateproper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increaseage so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as thelevel of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair ofasterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on thescreen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. Therespondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on thescreen.
Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity werepresented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of therestudy the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. Thisalso seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared agewith reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction timeincreased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomlyselected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin atMilwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35.
Procedure The procedureused for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baronand Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with anassociated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and theresponse involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriateresponse is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures thatreaction time can be measured as a function of complexity.
Before each subjectparticipated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject beingseated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly. The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for theexperiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subjectwhere they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. Theexperiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that thetest trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask themnow, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answerany questions.
The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subjectpresses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulusappears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads arepositioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject anindication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, thesingle arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowheadwill appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left orright, or back or forward.
Finally, with four choice trails, all fouralternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond tothe just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, thecircle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one tothree seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject shouldreact as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. Theresponse ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard shouldrecord the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to thenearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responsesincluded those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrongdirection. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their timeand offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trailsan equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed asimple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so doreaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =5. 98, p * . 014 as seen in Figure 1.
An analysis using t test revealed (M =461. 50) for the first 36 and the (M=408. 89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0. 718 p= . 497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different.
The (M=569. 59) for thefirst 36 trails and the (M = 554. 84) for last 36 trails, t (9) . 560 p = 594 for2 choice, was not significantly different.
The (M=597. 366) for first 36 trailand the (M =554. 84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1. 092 p =.
304 there were nosignificant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. DiscussionAlthough t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can bemade that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference offatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant. Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentratedattention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatiguewith repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur. Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been thesample size and number of trials.
With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample sizewas 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. Thenumber of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedurehas a reliability of . 87. This study also used the last trials to determinevariance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of144 trails.
However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexitylevel increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli andBucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choicereaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reactiontime suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The meansof the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed thatwith increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. AbstractThe reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of thisstudy. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of UniversityWisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computersimulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty tosixty minutes.
The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showedno significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can bemade. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as itrelates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so doesthe reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexityof Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as thelevel of complexity increases.
Disjunctive reaction time was measured toeliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack morecomplicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding tostimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as “two ormore different stimuli are presented in random order. .
. the subject is instructedto react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus tothe depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used torespond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes ofthis study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitateproper measurement.
Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increaseage so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as thelevel of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair ofasterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on thescreen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. Therespondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on thescreen.
Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity werepresented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of therestudy the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. Thisalso seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared agewith reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction timeincreased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomlyselected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin atMilwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedureused for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baronand Journey (1989).
Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with anassociated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and theresponse involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriateresponse is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures thatreaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subjectparticipated in the study in formed consent was given.
Prior to subject beingseated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly. The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for theexperiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subjectwhere they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. Theexperiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails.
When the12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that thetest trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask themnow, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answerany questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subjectpresses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulusappears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads arepositioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject anindication where the arrowhead may appear again.
With one choice trails, thesingle arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowheadwill appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left orright, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all fouralternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond tothe just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, thecircle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one tothree seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject shouldreact as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction.
Theresponse ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen. The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard shouldrecord the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to thenearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses.
Failed responsesincluded those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrongdirection. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their timeand offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trailsan equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied. An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed asimple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so doreaction time.
An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =5. 98, p * . 014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =461. 50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.
89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0. 718 p= . 497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569. 59) for thefirst 36 trails and the (M = 554.
84) for last 36 trails, t (9) . 560 p = 594 for2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597. 366) for first 36 trailand the (M =554. 84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.
092 p =. 304 there were nosignificant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. DiscussionAlthough t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can bemade that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference offatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant. Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentratedattention on the stimulus,”(p.
255) if the subject becomes bored or fatiguewith repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur. Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been thesample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample sizewas 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. Thenumber of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedurehas a reliability of .
87. This study also used the last trials to determinevariance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexitylevel increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli andBucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choicereaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reactiontime suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The meansof the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed thatwith increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1.
AbstractThe reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of thisstudy. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of UniversityWisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computersimulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty tosixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showedno significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can bemade.
Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as itrelates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so doesthe reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexityof Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as thelevel of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured toeliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack morecomplicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding tostimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as “two ormore different stimuli are presented in random order.
. . the subject is instructedto react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus tothe depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used torespond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes ofthis study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitateproper measurement.
Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increaseage so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as thelevel of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair ofasterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on thescreen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. Therespondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on thescreen.
Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity werepresented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of therestudy the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. Thisalso seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared agewith reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction timeincreased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomlyselected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin atMilwaukee.
Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedureused for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baronand Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with anassociated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and theresponse involves appropriate operation of the lever.
When the appropriateresponse is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures thatreaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subjectparticipated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject beingseated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly. The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for theexperiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subjectwhere they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. Theexperiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails.
When the12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that thetest trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask themnow, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answerany questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subjectpresses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulusappears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads arepositioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject anindication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, thesingle arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowheadwill appear again.
With the two choice trails, the information either left orright, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all fouralternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond tothe just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, thecircle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one tothree seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject shouldreact as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. Theresponse ends the trail.
At this time the results are displayed on the screen. The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard shouldrecord the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to thenearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responsesincluded those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrongdirection. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their timeand offer answer any question the may have.
Results The means of the first 36trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trailsan equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied. An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed asimple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so doreaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =5. 98, p * .
014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =461. 50) for the first 36 and the (M=408. 89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0. 718 p= .
497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569. 59) for thefirst 36 trails and the (M = 554. 84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .
560 p = 594 for2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597. 366) for first 36 trailand the (M =554. 84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1. 092 p =.
304 there were nosignificant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. DiscussionAlthough t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can bemade that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference offatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant. Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentratedattention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatiguewith repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been thesample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample sizewas 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. Thenumber of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedurehas a reliability of . 87. This study also used the last trials to determinevariance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of144 trails.
However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexitylevel increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli andBucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choicereaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reactiontime suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The meansof the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed thatwith increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. AbstractThe reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of thisstudy.
The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of UniversityWisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computersimulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty tosixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showedno significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can bemade. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as itrelates to complexity.
I found that as the level of complexity increase so doesthe reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexityof Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as thelevel of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured toeliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack morecomplicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding tostimulus.
Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as “two ormore different stimuli are presented in random order. . . the subject is instructedto react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240).
Rikli and Busch (1986)defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus tothe depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used torespond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes ofthis study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitateproper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increaseage so did the reaction time.
Also within the study they also found that as thelevel of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair ofasterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on thescreen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. Therespondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on thescreen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity werepresented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of therestudy the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives.
Thisalso seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared agewith reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction timeincreased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomlyselected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin atMilwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedureused for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baronand Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with anassociated response lever, a joystick.
The joystick can be moved left, rift,back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and theresponse involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriateresponse is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures thatreaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subjectparticipated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject beingseated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly. The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for theexperiment appears on the screen.
The experimenter is seated next to the subjectwhere they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. Theexperiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that thetest trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask themnow, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answerany questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subjectpresses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulusappears on the screen.
It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads arepositioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject anindication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, thesingle arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowheadwill appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left orright, or back or forward.
Finally, with four choice trails, all fouralternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond tothe just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, thecircle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one tothree seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject shouldreact as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. Theresponse ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard shouldrecord the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to thenearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responsesincluded those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrongdirection. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their timeand offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed.
Within the first and last36 trailsan equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied. An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed asimple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so doreaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =5. 98, p * .
014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =461. 50) for the first 36 and the (M=408. 89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0. 718 p= .
497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569. 59) for thefirst 36 trails and the (M = 554. 84) for last 36 trails, t (9) . 560 p = 594 for2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.
366) for first 36 trailand the (M =554. 84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1. 092 p =. 304 there were nosignificant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1.
DiscussionAlthough t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can bemade that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference offatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant. Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentratedattention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatiguewith repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been thesample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample sizewas 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. Thenumber of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedurehas a reliability of . 87.
This study also used the last trials to determinevariance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexitylevel increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli andBucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choicereaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reactiontime suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The meansof the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed thatwith increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. vAbstract The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus ofthis study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus ofUniversity Wisconsin at Milwaukee.
Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated witha computer simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, whichlasted forty to sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showed no significance as far as practice effects were concerned, butinferences can be made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference withreaction time as it relates to complexity. I found that as the level ofcomplexity increase so does the reaction time.
Disjunctive Reaction Time Measureas it relates to Complexity of Task This study was conducted to prove thatreaction time increases as the level of complexity increases. Disjunctivereaction time was measured to eliminate subject reacting too early to thestimulus. Also make the tack more complicated and for subject to usesdiscrimination before responding to stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) definesdisjunctive reaction time as “two or more different stimuli are presented inrandom order. . .
the subject is instructed to react to one but not to the otherstimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986) defined reaction time “as thelatency from the onset of the visual stimulus to the depression of themicroswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to respond to the visualstimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of this study bothdefinition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate proper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase age so did thereaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the level ofcomplexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to 26 andthe old group 62 to 75.
For their study the stimulus was a pair of asteriskspresented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the screen ofthe monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The respondentused a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the screen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were presented,there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there study thefound that reaction time increase with increased alternatives.
This also seemsto be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age withreaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction timeincreased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomlyselected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin atMilwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedureused for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baronand Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with anassociated response lever, a joystick.
The joystick can be moved left, rift,back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and theresponse involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriateresponse is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures thatreaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subjectparticipated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject beingseated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly. The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for theexperiment appears on the screen.
The experimenter is seated next to the subjectwhere they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. Theexperiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that thetest trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask themnow, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answerany questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subjectpresses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulusappears on the screen.
It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads arepositioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject anindication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, thesingle arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowheadwill appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left orright, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all fouralternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond tothe just observed display.
When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, thecircle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one tothree seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject shouldreact as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. Theresponse ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard shouldrecord the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to thenearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responsesincluded those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrongdirection. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their timeand offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed.
Within the first and last36 trailsan equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied. An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed asimple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so doreaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =5. 98, p * .
014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =461. 50) for the first 36 and the (M=408. 89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.
718 p= . 497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569. 59) for thefirst 36 trails and the (M = 554. 84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .
560 p = 594 for2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597. 366) for first 36 trailand the (M =554. 84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.
092 p =. 304 there were nosignificant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. DiscussionAlthough t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can bemade that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference offatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant. Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentratedattention on the stimulus,”(p.
255) if the subject becomes bored or fatiguewith repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur. Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been thesample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample sizewas 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. Thenumber of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedurehas a reliability of . 87. This study also used the last trials to determinevariance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of144 trails.
However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexitylevel increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli andBucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choicereaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reactiontime suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The meansof the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed thatwith increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. AbstractThe reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of thisstudy. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of UniversityWisconsin at Milwaukee.
Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computersimulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty tosixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showedno significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can bemade. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as itrelates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so doesthe reaction time.
Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexityof Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as thelevel of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured toeliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack morecomplicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding tostimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as “two ormore different stimuli are presented in random order. .
. the subject is instructedto react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus tothe depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used torespond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes ofthis study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitateproper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increaseage so did the reaction time.
Also within the study they also found that as thelevel of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair ofasterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on thescreen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. Therespondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on thescreen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity werepresented, there were one, two and four choice intervals.
As a result of therestudy the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. Thisalso seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared agewith reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction timeincreased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomlyselected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin atMilwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedureused for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baronand Journey (1989).
Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with anassociated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and theresponse involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriateresponse is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures thatreaction time can be measured as a function of complexity.
Before each subjectparticipated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject beingseated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly. The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for theexperiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subjectwhere they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail.
Theexperiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that thetest trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask themnow, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answerany questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subjectpresses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulusappears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads arepositioned inside.
The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject anindication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, thesingle arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowheadwill appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left orright, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all fouralternatives are possible.
At this juncture the subject should not respond tothe just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, thecircle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one tothree seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject shouldreact as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. Theresponse ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard shouldrecord the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to thenearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responsesincluded those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrongdirection. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their timeand offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trailsan equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed asimple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so doreaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =5. 98, p * . 014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =461.
50) for the first 36 and the (M=408. 89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0. 718 p= . 497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.
59) for thefirst 36 trails and the (M = 554. 84) for last 36 trails, t (9) . 560 p = 594 for2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597. 366) for first 36 trailand the (M =554. 84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.
092 p =. 304 there were nosignificant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. DiscussionAlthough t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can bemade that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference offatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant. Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentratedattention on the stimulus,”(p.
255) if the subject becomes bored or fatiguewith repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur. Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been thesample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample sizewas 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. Thenumber of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedurehas a reliability of .
87. This study also used the last trials to determinevariance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexitylevel increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli andBucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choicereaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reactiontime suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases.
The meansof the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed thatwith increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. AbstractThe reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of thisstudy. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of UniversityWisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computersimulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty tosixty minutes.
The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showedno significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can bemade. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as itrelates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so doesthe reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexityof Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as thelevel of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured toeliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus.
Also make the tack morecomplicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding tostimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as “two ormore different stimuli are presented in random order. . .
the subject is instructedto react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus tothe depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used torespond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes ofthis study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitateproper measurement.
Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increaseage so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as thelevel of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair ofasterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on thescreen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. Therespondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on thescreen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity werepresented, there were one, two and four choice intervals.
As a result of therestudy the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. Thisalso seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared agewith reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction timeincreased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomlyselected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin atMilwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedureused for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baronand Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with anassociated response lever, a joystick.
The joystick can be moved left, rift,back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and theresponse involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriateresponse is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures thatreaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subjectparticipated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject beingseated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly. The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for theexperiment appears on the screen.
The experimenter is seated next to the subjectwhere they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. Theexperiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that thetest trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask themnow, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answerany questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subjectpresses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulusappears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads arepositioned inside.
The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject anindication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, thesingle arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowheadwill appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left orright, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all fouralternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond tothe just observed display.
When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, thecircle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one tothree seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject shouldreact as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. Theresponse ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard shouldrecord the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to thenearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responsesincluded those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrongdirection. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their timeand offer answer any question the may have.
Results The means of the first 36trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trailsan equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied. An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed asimple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so doreaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =5. 98, p * . 014 as seen in Figure 1.
An analysis using t test revealed (M =461. 50) for the first 36 and the (M=408. 89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0. 718 p= . 497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different.
The (M=569. 59) for thefirst 36 trails and the (M = 554. 84) for last 36 trails, t (9) . 560 p = 594 for2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.
366) for first 36 trailand the (M =554. 84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1. 092 p =. 304 there were nosignificant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. DiscussionAlthough t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can bemade that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials.
Also the inference offatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant. Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentratedattention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatiguewith repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur. Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been thesample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample sizewas 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. Thenumber of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedurehas a reliability of .
87. This study also used the last trials to determinevariance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexitylevel increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli andBucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choicereaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reactiontime suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The meansof the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed thatwith increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. AbstractThe reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of thisstudy.
The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of UniversityWisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computersimulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty tosixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showedno significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can bemade. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as itrelates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so doesthe reaction time.
Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexityof Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as thelevel of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured toeliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack morecomplicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding tostimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as “two ormore different stimuli are presented in random order. . .
the subject is instructedto react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus tothe depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used torespond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes ofthis study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitateproper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increaseage so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as thelevel of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair ofasterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on thescreen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. Therespondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on thescreen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity werepresented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of therestudy the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. Thisalso seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared agewith reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction timeincreased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomlyselected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin atMilwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedureused for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baronand Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with anassociated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and theresponse involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriateresponse is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures thatreaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subjectparticipated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject beingseated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for theexperiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subjectwhere they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. Theexperiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that thetest trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask themnow, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answerany questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subjectpresses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulusappears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads arepositioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject anindication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, thesingle arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowheadwill appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left orright, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all fouralternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond tothe just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, thecircle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one tothree seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject shouldreact as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. Theresponse ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard shouldrecord the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to thenearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responsesincluded those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrongdirection. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their timeand offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trailsan equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed asimple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so doreaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for thefirst 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trailand the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were nosignificant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. DiscussionAlthough t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can bemade that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference offatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentratedattention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatiguewith repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been thesample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample sizewas 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. Thenumber of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedurehas a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determinevariance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexitylevel increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli andBucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choicereaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reactiontime suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The meansof the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed thatwith increased complexity reaction ti

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!

GET UNIQUE ESSAY

We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read