I've been practising with the reflex tester, and have managed to get my time down to 0.219 seconds. I'm unsure whether this is impressive or not, so I've started doing som research. I discovered a couple of chaps by the names of Henry and Rogers (sounds like a country and western group) who ran some experiments on human reaction time.
According to the graph on that page I am superhuman, so I'm not sure of the veracity of their results, nor am I sure of the accuracy of my little reflex tester.
Anyway, must dasharoonie, as I'm due to start in a minute or two. More soon.
According to the graph on that page I am superhuman, so I'm not sure of the veracity of their results, nor am I sure of the accuracy of my little reflex tester.
Anyway, must dasharoonie, as I'm due to start in a minute or two. More soon.
4 comments:
The researchers have used a different type of test to the computer one you have linked to your blog. It's not valid to compare your time on the computer test to the times recorded in their study...you have to find normative data based on the same test that you have used.
:)
That's why I mentioned the accuracy of the reflex tester I'm using. I think...
It might not be an issue with accuracy of the computer test, as such. Rather, it's inaccurate to compare results on two different types of tests.
:)
I know the tests are different, but they're not that different. They both involve hitting a switch. I guess the major difference, other than the meachnism being mechanical as opposed to electronic, is the type of motor function - fine versus gross? Does this sound sensible or foolishly unconsidered?
Post a Comment