Associations between resting respiratory sinus arrhythmia, intraindividual reaction time variability, and trait positive affect.

Emotion ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 834-841 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Lü ◽  
Zhenhong Wang
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Positive Affect ◽  
Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
Sinus Arrhythmia

Neuroticism and Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff in Self-Paced Speeded Mental Addition and Comparison

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hagen C. Flehmig ◽  
Michael B. Steinborn ◽  
Karl Westhoff ◽  
Robert Langner
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Response Speed ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
Comparison Task ◽  
Processing Efficiency ◽  
Mental Addition ◽  
Speed Accuracy ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Accuracy Tradeoff

Previous research suggests a relationship between neuroticism (N) and the speed-accuracy tradeoff in speeded performance: High-N individuals were observed performing less efficiently than low-N individuals and compensatorily overemphasizing response speed at the expense of accuracy. This study examined N-related performance differences in the serial mental addition and comparison task (SMACT) in 99 individuals, comparing several performance measures (i.e., response speed, accuracy, and variability), retest reliability, and practice effects. N was negatively correlated with mean reaction time but positively correlated with error percentage, indicating that high-N individuals tended to be faster but less accurate in their performance than low-N individuals. The strengthening of the relationship after practice demonstrated the reliability of the findings. There was, however, no relationship between N and distractibility (assessed via measures of reaction time variability). Our main findings are in line with the processing efficiency theory, extending the relationship between N and working style to sustained self-paced speeded mental addition.

scholarly journals Lateralization of attention in adults with ADHD: Evidence of pseudoneglect

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bartosz Helfer ◽  
Stefanos Maltezos ◽  
Elizabeth Liddle ◽  
Jonna Kuntsi ◽  
Philip Asherson
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Study Participant ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Incentive Condition ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
The Right

Abstract Background. We investigated whether adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) show pseudoneglect—preferential allocation of attention to the left visual field (LVF) and a resulting slowing of mean reaction times (MRTs) in the right visual field (RVF), characteristic of neurotypical (NT) individuals —and whether lateralization of attention is modulated by presentation speed and incentives. Method. Fast Task, a four-choice reaction-time task where stimuli were presented in LVF or RVF, was used to investigate differences in MRT and reaction time variability (RTV) in adults with ADHD (n = 43) and NT adults (n = 46) between a slow/no-incentive and fast/incentive condition. In the lateralization analyses, pseudoneglect was assessed based on MRT, which was calculated separately for the LVF and RVF for each condition and each study participant. Results. Adults with ADHD had overall slower MRT and increased RTV relative to NT. MRT and RTV improved under the fast/incentive condition. Both groups showed RVF-slowing with no between-group or between-conditions differences in RVF-slowing. Conclusion. Adults with ADHD exhibited pseudoneglect, a NT pattern of lateralization of attention, which was not attenuated by presentation speed and incentives.

scholarly journals Modality differences in ERP components between somatosensory and auditory Go/No-go paradigms in prepubescent children

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0259653
Author(s):  
Hiroki Nakata ◽  
Miho Takezawa ◽  
Keita Kamijo ◽  
Manabu Shibasaki
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Peak Latency ◽  
Peak Amplitude ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Commission Error ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
Related Potentials

We investigated modality differences in the N2 and P3 components of event-related potentials (ERPs) between somatosensory and auditory Go/No-go paradigms in eighteen healthy prepubescent children (mean age: 125.9±4.2 months). We also evaluated the relationship between behavioral responses (reaction time, reaction time variability, and omission and commission error rates) and amplitudes and latencies of N2 and P3 during somatosensory and auditory Go/No-go paradigms. The peak latency of No-go-N2 was significantly shorter than that of Go-N2 during somatosensory paradigms, but not during auditory paradigms. The peak amplitude of P3 was significantly larger during somatosensory than auditory paradigms, and the peak latency of P3 was significantly shorter during somatosensory than auditory paradigms. Correlations between behavioral responses and the P3 component were not found during somatosensory paradigms. On the other hand, in auditory paradigms, correlations were detected between the reaction time and peak amplitude of No-go-P3, and between the reaction time variability and peak latency of No-go-P3. A correlation was noted between commission error and the peak latency of No-go-N2 during somatosensory paradigms. Compared with previous adult studies using both somatosensory and auditory Go/No-go paradigms, the relationships between behavioral responses and ERP components would be weak in prepubescent children. Our data provide findings to advance understanding of the neural development of motor execution and inhibition processing, that is dependent on or independent of the stimulus modality.

Reaction time variability in ADHD: A meta-analytic review of 319 studies

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 795-811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Kofler ◽  
Mark D. Rapport ◽  
Dustin E. Sarver ◽  
Joseph S. Raiker ◽  
Sarah A. Orban ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
Analytic Review

Intra-Individual Reaction Time Variability in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Precursor to Dementia?

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 457-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Tales ◽  
Ute Leonards ◽  
Aline Bompas ◽  
Robert J. Snowden ◽  
Michelle Philips ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Mild Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
Individual Reaction

The Impact of Caffeine on Memory

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Emily Chappelear ◽  
Cassa Drury
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Caffeine Intake ◽  
Daily Routine ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
Caffeine Consumption ◽  
Memory And Attention ◽  
Brain Functions ◽  
Time Test ◽  
The Impact

Many people rely on caffeine as part of their daily routine to induce the feeling of wakefulness. However, the effects of caffeine on various brain functions, such as memory, remains unclear. To study the impact of caffeine on memory and attention, we conducted a pilot study on individuals with varying levels of caffeine consumption. Each individual completed a survey, memory test, and reaction time test. The results did not elucidate clear trends or significant differences between those who consumed caffeine and those who did not. This study suggests that caffeine intake does not have a direct impact on memory, but a correlation between reaction time variability and memory suggested that more research could provide deeper insights into the effects of various levels of caffeine consumption.

Accurate reaction time methods demonstrate similar results from different sensory modalities

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Drew McRacken ◽  
Maddie Dyson ◽  
Kevin Hu
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Sensory Modality ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Reaction Time Methods ◽  
Test Reaction ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
Sensory Modalities ◽  
Visual Reaction ◽  
The Impact

Over the past few decades, there has been a significant number of reports that suggested that reaction times for different sensory modalities were different – e.g., that visual reaction time was slower than tactile reaction time. A recent report by Holden and colleagues stated that (1) there has been a significant historic upward drift in reaction times reported in the literature, (2) that this drift or degradation in reaction times could be accounted for by inaccuracies in the methods used and (3) that these inaccurate methods led to inaccurate reporting of differences between visual and tactile based reaction time testing.  The Holden study utilized robotics (i.e., no human factors) to test visual and tactile reaction time methods but did not assess how individuals would perform on different sensory modalities.  This study utilized three different sensory modalities: visual, auditory, and tactile, to test reaction time. By changing the way in which the subjects were prompted and measuring subsequent reaction time, the impact of sensory modality could be analyzed. Reaction time testing for two sensory modalities, auditory and visual, were administered through an Arduino Uno microcontroller device, while tactile-based reaction time testing was administered with the Brain Gauge. A range of stimulus intensities was delivered for the reaction times delivered by each sensory modality. The average reaction time and reaction time variability was assessed and a trend could be identified for the reaction time measurements of each of the sensory modalities. Switching the sensory modality did not result in a difference in reaction time and it was concluded that this was due to the implementation of accurate circuitry used to deliver each test. Increasing stimulus intensity for each sensory modality resulted in faster reaction times. The results of this study confirm the findings of Holden and colleagues and contradict the results reported in countless studies that conclude that (1) reaction times are historically slower now than they were 50 years ago and (2) that there are differences in reaction times for different sensory modalities (vision, hearing, tactile). The implications of this are that utilization of accurate reaction time methods could have a significant impact on clinical outcomes and that many methods in current clinical use are basically perpetuating poor methods and wasting time and money of countless subjects or patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document