Tradeoffs of estimating reaction time with absolute and relative thresholds.

IF 4.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Behavior Research Methods Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-25 DOI:10.3758/s13428-023-02211-4
Jarrod Blinch, Coby Trovinger, Callie R DeWinne, Guilherme de Cellio Martins, Chelsea N Ifediora, Maryam Nourollahimoghadam, John R Harry, Ty B Palmer
{"title":"Tradeoffs of estimating reaction time with absolute and relative thresholds.","authors":"Jarrod Blinch, Coby Trovinger, Callie R DeWinne, Guilherme de Cellio Martins, Chelsea N Ifediora, Maryam Nourollahimoghadam, John R Harry, Ty B Palmer","doi":"10.3758/s13428-023-02211-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Measuring the duration of cognitive processing with reaction time is fundamental to several subfields of psychology. Many methods exist for estimating movement initiation when measuring reaction time, but there is an incomplete understanding of their relative performance. The purpose of the present study was to identify and compare the tradeoffs of 19 estimates of movement initiation across two experiments. We focused our investigation on estimating movement initiation on each trial with filtered kinematic and kinetic data. Nine of the estimates involved absolute thresholds (e.g., acceleration 1000 back to 200 mm/s<sup>2</sup>, micro push-button switch), and the remaining ten estimates used relative thresholds (e.g., force extrapolation, 5% of maximum velocity). The criteria were the duration of reaction time, immunity to the movement amplitude, responsiveness to visual feedback during movement execution, reliability, and the number of manually corrected trials (efficacy). The three best overall estimates, in descending order, were yank extrapolation, force extrapolation, and acceleration 1000 to 200 mm/s<sup>2</sup>. The sensitive micro push-button switch, which was the simplest estimate, had a decent overall score, but it was a late estimate of movement initiation. The relative thresholds based on kinematics had the six worst overall scores. An issue with the relative kinematic thresholds was that they were biased by the movement amplitude. In summary, we recommend measuring reaction time on each trial with one of the three best overall estimates of movement initiation. Future research should continue to refine existing estimates while also exploring new ones.</p>","PeriodicalId":8717,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Research Methods","volume":" ","pages":"4695-4715"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02211-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Measuring the duration of cognitive processing with reaction time is fundamental to several subfields of psychology. Many methods exist for estimating movement initiation when measuring reaction time, but there is an incomplete understanding of their relative performance. The purpose of the present study was to identify and compare the tradeoffs of 19 estimates of movement initiation across two experiments. We focused our investigation on estimating movement initiation on each trial with filtered kinematic and kinetic data. Nine of the estimates involved absolute thresholds (e.g., acceleration 1000 back to 200 mm/s2, micro push-button switch), and the remaining ten estimates used relative thresholds (e.g., force extrapolation, 5% of maximum velocity). The criteria were the duration of reaction time, immunity to the movement amplitude, responsiveness to visual feedback during movement execution, reliability, and the number of manually corrected trials (efficacy). The three best overall estimates, in descending order, were yank extrapolation, force extrapolation, and acceleration 1000 to 200 mm/s2. The sensitive micro push-button switch, which was the simplest estimate, had a decent overall score, but it was a late estimate of movement initiation. The relative thresholds based on kinematics had the six worst overall scores. An issue with the relative kinematic thresholds was that they were biased by the movement amplitude. In summary, we recommend measuring reaction time on each trial with one of the three best overall estimates of movement initiation. Future research should continue to refine existing estimates while also exploring new ones.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用绝对阈值和相对阈值估算反应时间的权衡。
用反应时间测量认知处理的持续时间是心理学多个子领域的基础。在测量反应时间时,有许多方法可用于估算动作启动时间,但人们对这些方法的相对性能了解并不全面。本研究的目的是在两个实验中识别和比较 19 种运动起始估计方法的优劣。我们的研究重点是利用过滤后的运动学和动力学数据对每次试验的运动启动进行估计。其中 9 个估计值涉及绝对阈值(例如,加速度 1000 回 200 mm/s2、微型按钮开关),其余 10 个估计值使用相对阈值(例如,力外推法、最大速度的 5%)。标准是反应时间的持续时间、对动作幅度的免疫力、动作执行过程中对视觉反馈的反应能力、可靠性和人工校正试验的次数(功效)。三个最佳总体估计值从高到低依次是拉力外推法、力外推法和加速度 1000 至 200 mm/s2。灵敏的微型按钮开关是最简单的估计方法,其总分也不错,但对运动开始的估计较晚。以运动学为基础的相对阈值有六个总分最差。运动学相对阈值的一个问题是它们受到运动幅度的影响。总之,我们建议在每次试验中使用对运动起始的三个最佳总体估计中的一个来测量反应时间。未来的研究应继续完善现有的估计值,同时探索新的估计值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
9.30%
发文量
266
期刊介绍: Behavior Research Methods publishes articles concerned with the methods, techniques, and instrumentation of research in experimental psychology. The journal focuses particularly on the use of computer technology in psychological research. An annual special issue is devoted to this field.
期刊最新文献
Dissecting the components of error in analogue report tasks. A template and tutorial for preregistering studies using passive smartphone measures. Scoring story recall for individual differences research: Central details, peripheral details, and automated scoring. A tutorial: Analyzing eye and head movements in virtual reality. Behavioral science labs: How to solve the multi-user problem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1