The effect of number of simulation-response and stimulus interval in of dual reaction time on psychological refractory period in athletes

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

2 Motor Behavior, Sport Sciences Faculty, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Iran

3 Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz. Iran

10.22080/jsmb.2021.15642.3049

Abstract

Introduction: One of the factors that affects reaction time is the Psychological refractory period, which refers to the condition in which two stimuli are presented with a short time interval. Because of the decreased period of time between the two stimuli, the response time to second stimulus is increased. The aim of this research is to investigate the effect of the number of stimulus-response and the time interval between each stimulus on the Psychological refractory period in athletes and non-athletes.
Method: This research followed an intergroup semi-experimental design, and can be placed in the field of fundamental-applied research. For this purpose, 15 male athletes from Shahid Chamran University of Ahwaz, between 20 to 25 years of age, were selected by convenience targeted sampling. The Dual task test, which tests the number of stimulus-response, was administered using a Psychological refractory period device. This test included a number of different stimulus-responses (one, two, four, and eight) for the first and second stimuli, and four time intervals (100, 200, 400, and 600 milliseconds) between the two stimuli. Moreover, 4x4 one way repeated measures analysis of variance tests (the number of stimulus-response × intervals time) were used in which the Bonferroni test was used.
Results: The results showed that the number of stimulus-response (F42.3= 9/212, P= 0/0001), the time interval between the two stimuli (F42.3= 22/016, P= 0/0001), and the interactive effect of the number of stimulus-response at different intervals (F126.9= 3/486, P= 0/001) are significant.

Keywords

References

  1. Ward, P. & Williams, A. M. (2003). Perceptual and cognitive skill development in soccer: The multidimensional nature of expert performance. Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 25(1), 93-111.
  2. Schmidt, R.A. (1991). Motor Learning and Performance: From Principles to practice. Translated by: Namazizadeh, M. Vaezmousavi, M.K. (1388). Tehran: Organization for the Study and Compilation of Human Sciences Books of Universities (samt) Department of Humanities Research and Development.
  3. Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11–26.
  4. Fischer, R. & Plessow, F. (2015). Efficient multitasking: parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks. Frontiers in psychology, 6.
  5. Gutiérrez-Davila, M. Rojas, F. J. Gutiérrez-Cruz, C. & Navarro, E. (2017). Effect of dual-attention task on attack and defensive actions in fencing. European Journal of Sport Science, 1-9.
  6. Rudisill, M. E. & Toole, T. (1992). The effects of a physical-activity. program on reaction-time and movement time for the older adult. journal of human movement studies, 22(6), 205-212.
  7. Kosinski, R. J. (2008). "A literature review on reaction time". Clemson University, 10.
  8. Collardeau, M. Brisswalter, J. & Audiffren, M. (2001). Effects of a prolonged run on simple reaction time of well trained runners. Perceptual and motor skills, 93(3), 679-689.
  9. Williams, L. R. T. (1974). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractoriness of an extended movement. Journal of motor behavior, 6(4), 227-234.
  10. Kavyani, M., Farsi, A.R., and Abdoli, B. (2016). The effect of the visual-spatial orienting on the psychology refractory period in various difficulty levels of perceptual-motor tasks. Journal of Sport Psychology Studies, 17; 13-26. [In Persian]
  11. Pashler, H. & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(1), 19-45.
  12. Zylberberg, A., Ouellette, B., Sigman, M., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2012). Decision making during the psychological refractory period. Current biology, 22(19), 1795-1799.
  13. Logan, G. D. & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological review, 108(2), 393.
  14. Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(1), 1
  15. Schmidt, R.A., & Lee, T.D. (2014). Motor Learning and Performance: From Principles to Application. Translated by R, Hemayattalab and K, Salehi. Elm VA harkat, Tehran. 5th Ed.
  16. Pashler, H. E. & Sutherland, S. (1998). The psychology of attention (Vol. 15): MIT press Cambridge, MA.
  17. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological bulletin, 116(2), 220.
  18. M, Farsi. A, Abdoli. B. The Effect of the Second Task Complexityin Difference Time Interval on the First Task Reaction TimeBased on Psychology Refractory Period Paradigm. Motor Behavior. Fall2016; 8 (25): 103-20. [Persian]
  19. S, Shetab boushehri. N, Danshfar. A, Abedanzadeh. R. (2017). Assiament Facilitate and Significant Interference of stroop effect on psychological refractory period. Neuropsuchology: Vol. 2, No.2, (Series 7), Winter 2017
  20. Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of experimental psychology, 45(3), 188.
  21. Baurès, R., DeLucia, P. R., Olson, M., & Oberfeld, D. (2017). Asymmetric interference in concurrent time-to-contact estimation: Cousin or twin of the psychological refractory period effect? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(2), 698-711.
  22. Schmidt R.A., Resberg, G.A. (2008). Learning and Motor performance. Translated by HA Naseri; R, Hemayattalab. Elm va harkat, Tehran. pp: 30-32.
  23. A, Farokhi. A, Namazizadeh. M, Sheikh. M. (2014). Effect of foreperiod duration on simple and choice reaction time in simple and complex task. Motor Behavior, No 16, 2014. [Persian]
  24. Steinborn, M.B.; Rolke, B.; Bratzke, D. & Ulrich, R. (2008). "Sequential effects within a short foreperiod context: Evidence for the conditioning account of temporal preparation". Acta psychologica, 129(2), 297-307.
  25. Rezayimanesh, S. Shetab boushehri, N. Shafinia, P. & Doostan, M. (2016). The Effects of Temporal Preparation and Handedness on Neuropsychological Function. Neuropsychology: Vol. 2, No.3, (Series 6), Autumn 2016. [Persian]
  26. Mowbray, G. H., & Rhoades, M. V. (1959). On the reduction of choice reaction times with practice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 16–23.
  27. Welford, A. T. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high‐speed performance—a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 43(1), 2-19.
  28. Klapp, S. T., Maslovat, D., & Jagacinski, R. J. (2018). The bottleneck of the psychological refractory period effect involves timing of response initiation rather than response selection. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 1-19.
  29. Karlin, L., & Kestenbaum, R. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(2), 167-178.
  30. Klapp ST, Maslovat D, Jagacinski RJ (2019). The bottleneck of the psychological refractory period effect involves timing of response initiation rather than response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(1):29-47.
  31. Ninio A. (1975). The effect of first response complexity on the psychological refractory period: A reanalysis. Memory & Cognition, 3 (2), 160-166.
  32. . Pei-Luen, Patric Rau & Jian Zheng (2020). Cross-modal psychological refractory period in vision, audition, and haptics. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics volume 82, pages1573–1585.
  33. Ulrich R, Miller J. (2008). Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects. Cognitive Psychology. 57(2): 75-121.
  34. Van Maanen, L. van Rijn, H. & Borst, P. (2009). Stroop and picture— word interference are two sides of the same coin. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(6), 987-999.
  35. Tombu M, Jolicoeur P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 29(1):
  36. Tombu, M. N. Asplund, C. L. Dux, P. E. Godwin, D. Martin, J. W. & Marois, R. (2011). A unified attentional bottleneck in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(33), 13426-13431.
  37. Pashler, H. (1993). Doing two things at the same Am. Sci. 81, 48–55
  38. Schubert, T. (1999). Processing differences between simple and choice reactions affect bottleneck localization in overlapping tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(2), 408.
  39. Szameitat, A. J. Vanloo, A. & Müller, H. J. (2016). Central as well as peripheral attentional bottlenecks in dual-task performance activate lateral prefrontal cortices. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 10, 119.
  40. Stelzel, C. Kraft, A. Brandt, S. A. & Schubert, T. (2008). Dissociable neural effects of task order control and task set maintenance during dual-task processing. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20(4), 613-628.
  41. Luria, R. & Meiran, N. (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(3), 556.
  42. Marois, R. & Ivanoff, J. (2005). Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Trends in cognitive sciences, 9(6), 296-305.

 

Journal of Sport Management and Motor Behavior
Volume 19, Issue 37
April 2023
Pages 197-177

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics