ABSTRACT

Reaction time is one of the important methods to study a person’s central information processing speed and coordinated peripheral movement response. Simple reaction time is usually defined as the time required for an observer to detect the presence of a stimulus. The main purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a significant relationship between distance and the reaction time of an individual to light whereas distance is the independent variable and RT is the dependent variable. There were two participants involved in this study; the subject and the experimenter. The students were instructed to pick a laboratory partner and test how fast the participant will tap the table or chair as soon as he/she sees the light flashes while the experimenter holds it and the stopwatch to record the reaction time within the distance of 20 and 30 feet with 10 trials each. Based on the results made by an 18 year old female subject, there were minimal differences on 20 ft and 30 ft but it was not enough to conclude that there is a relationship between distance and reaction time. Therefore, the hypothesis was proven to be precise by the data that was collected. However, there are some indications that affect the delay in reaction time of an individual such as: age, gender, predictability, preparation, and other external factors.
INTRODUCTION
Reaction is a purposeful voluntary response to an external stimulus. From the start of the experiment, the experimenter hypothesized that there is no significant relationship between distance and the simple reaction time to light and also intended to know the factors affecting the delay in response time. There is certain time period between

application of external stimulus and appropriate motor response to the stimulus called the reaction time. It is defined as interval of time between presentation of stimulus and appearance of appropriate voluntary response in a subject which is usually expressed in milliseconds. It reflects the speed of the flow of neurophysiological, cognitive, and information processes which are created by the action of stimulus on the person’s sensory system. The receipt of information (visual or auditory), its processing, decision making, and giving the response or execution of the motor act are the processes which follow one another and make what we call the reaction time. Many factors have been shown to affect reaction time including gender, age, physical fitness, level of fatigue, distraction, alcohol, personality type, limb used for test, biological rhythm, and health and whether the stimulus is auditory or visual. Reaction time is independent of social-cultural influences. Prolonged reaction time denotes decreased performance.
There are some studies that varied audiovisual distance in a natural way, Lewald and Guski (2004) and Arnold et al. (2005) found no compensation for distance. In this study, the distance of the stimuli was varied on trial-by-trial basis as they used a setup of five different speakers/LEDs. This line of reasoning corresponds with a recent study by Heron et al. (2007). In their study, participants performed a TOJ (temporal order judgement) task in which audiovisual stimuli were presented at varying distances (0, 5, 10, 20, 30 and 40 m). No perceptual compensation for distance-induced auditory delays could be demonstrated whenever there was no adaptation period.

METHODOLOGY
Participants
This study involves two participants namely; the subject and the experimenter.
Subject: 18 year-old female BS Psychology student
Materials
* LED Flashlight * Stopwatch * Table or chair

Procedure
The students were told to select a partner to evaluate each other. The experimenter will hold the flashlight and stopwatch at a distance of 20 and 30 ft. The subject was instructed to tap the table or chair as soon as he/she sees the light flashes while the experimenter records the response time for 10 trials each.
Experimental Design
The subject of this chapter is one-way independent samples designs. The term one-way, means that there is one independent variable (IV). In our experiment, the IV is the distance of the flashlight to the subject which has two levels. One level is at a distance of 20 feet, and the other level is at 30 feet. Thus, we have one dependent variable and one independent variable with two levels.

RESULTS Trial no. | 20 Ft. | 30 Ft. | 1 | .40s | .43s | 2 | .43s | .38s | 3 | .35s | .47s | 4 | .45s | .30s | 5 | .41s | .34s | 6 | .37s | .38s | 7 | .33s | .51s | 8 | .38s | .34s | 9 | .39s | .37 | 10 | .35s | .36 |

Mean:

20 feet: 30 feet: x = 3.8610 x = 3.8810 x = .39 x = .39 Range: Largest Value – Smallest Value = Range
20 feet: 30 feet:
45 – 33 = 12 51 – 30 = 21

T- test

Where: x1¯ = Mean of first set of values x2¯ = Mean of second set of values
S1 = Standard deviation of first set of values
S2 = Standard deviation of second set of values n1 = Total number of values in first set n2 = Total number of values in second set.
Solution:
t = 0.39-0.390.0387²10+ 0.0640²10 t = 00.0237 t = 0

DISCUSSION
Simple Reaction Time is a test at which it measures simple reaction time through delivery of a known location to elicit a known response. The graph above clearly shows that there is no significant relationship between the independent variable (distance) and dependent variable (simple reaction time) to sound. Although they have minimal differences in the middle of the trial between 5 and 10 feet, there was a noticeable consistency at the end of trial which both landed at .74 seconds.

In contrast to the arrival time of lights and sounds, according to Sugita and Suzuki (2003) there is a relatively slow transduction in time of sounds through air that causes natural differences. It implies that the farther away an audiovisual event, the more the sound will lag the visual stimulus; although such lag might be compensated for by the brain if distance were known. On the other hand, distance and simple reaction time to sound alone does not show any relationship at all.

From the moment the test subject was signaled that the event was about to take place, the previously minimal degree of expectation rose continually, remained at its maximum, but eventually resulted in convulsive oscillation. If the interval between signal and primary stimulus (i.e., that which is to be reacted to) is deliberately set long, then the latter took place at various high degrees of anticipation. The only uncertainty is with regard to when

the stimulus will occur, by having a variable interval between the trial response and the onset of the stimulus for the next trial at which the individual could not bring himself to react consistently through an entire test run notwithstanding repeated practice and concerted effort. It may be because the individual is too nervous and unable to concentrate and do not even have the presence of mind due to mental excitation which causes the subject to fail to recognize his own errors.

Another factor that causes the delay in reaction time is annoying stimulus of any other sense (e.g., sound reactions or optical stimulus) generates an urgent response – often surprising the test subject – whereas in sensory reaction testing it remains unerringly even. Most of the time, the subject anticipates the dropping of the coin so much that they tend to tap first and react to the act of dropping than the sound itself which affects the reaction time to the preceding trials.

The reaction time of the experimenter itself to the response of the subject may also be a factor to cause the delay. It varies on how the experimenter was able to drop the coin, wait for the participant’s response and record the reaction time accurately. Henry and Rogers (1960) showed that reaction time increased when there is a need to make a series of movements rather than complete one single action.

REFERENCES

Wallece, Mark T. The Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes. New York: Taylor and Francis Group, 2012. https://backyardbrains.com/experiments/reactiontime http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6926/abs/421911a.html http://www.academia.edu/2423532/The_effect_of_distance_on_reaction_time_in_aiming_movements http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/LangeL/NewExperiments.pdf