Simplest chronoscope. III: further comparisons between reaction times obtained by meterstick versus machine.
Abstract
The three classical Donders' reaction time (RT) tasks (simple, choice, and discriminative RTs) were employed to compare reaction time scores from college students obtained by use of Montare's simplest chronoscope (meterstick) methodology to scores obtained by use of a digital-readout multi-choice reaction timer (machine). Five hypotheses were tested. Simple RT, choice RT, and discriminative RT were faster when obtained by meterstick than by machine. The meterstick method showed higher reliability than the machine method and was less variable. The meterstick method of the simplest chronoscope may help to alleviate the longstanding problems of low reliability and high variability of reaction time performances; while at the same time producing faster performance on Donders' simple, choice and discriminative RT tasks than the machine method.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Delay-corrected SRT latencies were substantially shorter (213 and 220 ms in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively) than SRT latencies reported in other large-scale computer-based studies, but were similar to SRT latencies reported by Galton and contemporary researchers using non-computerized measures.
“Delay-corrected SRT latencies were substantially shorter (213 and 220 ms in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively) than the SRT latencies reported in other large-scale computer-based studies, but were similar to the SRT latencies reported both by Galton (Johnson et al., 1985) and contemporary researchers using non-computerized measures (Eckner et al., 2011; Montare, 2013).”
From Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time (2015) · cites this paper as Montare, 2013
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time
Woods, D. L., Wyma, J. M., Yund, E. W., Herron, T. J., & Reed, B. (2015) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131 · Cited by 336 · see citing works
“…in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively) than the SRT latencies reported in other large-scale computer-based studies, but were similar to the SRT latencies reported both by Galton (Johnson et al., 1985) and contemporary researchers using noncomputerized measures (Eckner et al., 2011; Montare, 2013).”
Result
- Authors
- Montare, A.
- Affiliations
- William Paterson University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Montare, Alberto
- Venue
- Perceptual and Motor Skills
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 796-805
- ISSN
- 0031-5125 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-688X
- OpenAlex
- W2121921660
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 0.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Perceptual and Motor Skills (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Keywords
- reaction time, simple reaction time, choice reaction time, measurement reliability, measurement variability, university students
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
