The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of this
study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of University
Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computer
simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty to
sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using test and ANOVA. The test showed no
significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can be
made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as it
relates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so does
the reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexity
of Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as the
level of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured to
eliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack more
complicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding to
stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as ”two or
more different stimuli are presented in random order…the subject is instructed
to react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)
defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus to
the depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to
respond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of
this study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate
proper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase
age so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the
level of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to
26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair of
asterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the
screen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The
respondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the
screen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were
presented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there
study the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. This
also seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age
with reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction time
increased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomly
selected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedure
used for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baron
and Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with an
associated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,
back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and the
response involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriate
response is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures that
reaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subject
participated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject being
seated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.
The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for the
experiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subject
where they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. The
experiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the
12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that the
test trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask them
now, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answer
any questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subject
presses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulus
appears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads are
positioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject an
indication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, the
single arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowhead
will appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left or
right, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all four
alternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond to
the just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, the
circle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one to
three seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject should
react as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. The
response ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard should
record the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,
trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to the
nearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responses
included those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrong
direction. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their time
and offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36
trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trails
an equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed a
simple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so do
reaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =
5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =
461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p
= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for the
first 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for
2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trail
and the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were no
significant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. Discussion
Although t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can be
made that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36
trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference of
fatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.
Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentrated
attention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatigue
with repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been the
sample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample size
was 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. The
number of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8
trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedure
has a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determine
variance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of
144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexity
level increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli and
Bucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choice
reaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reaction
time suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The means
of the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed that
with increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. Abstract
The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of this
study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of University
Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computer
simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty to
sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showed
no significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can be
made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as it
relates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so does
the reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexity
of Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as the
level of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured to
eliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack more
complicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding to
stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as ”two or
more different stimuli are presented in random order…the subject is instructed
to react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)
defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus to
the depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to
respond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of
this study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate
proper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase
age so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the
level of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to
26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair of
asterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the
screen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The
respondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the
screen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were
presented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there
study the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. This
also seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age
with reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction time
increased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomly
selected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedure
used for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baron
and Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with an
associated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,
back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and the
response involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriate
response is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures that
reaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subject
participated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject being
seated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.
The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for the
experiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subject
where they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. The
experiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the
12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that the
test trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask them
now, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answer
any questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subject
presses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulus
appears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads are
positioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject an
indication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, the
single arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowhead
will appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left or
right, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all four
alternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond to
the just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, the
circle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one to
three seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject should
react as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. The
response ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard should
record the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,
trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to the
nearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responses
included those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrong
direction. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their time
and offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36
trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trails
an equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed a
simple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so do
reaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =
5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =
461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p
= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for the
first 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for
2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trail
and the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were no
significant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. Discussion
Although t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can be
made that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36
trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference of
fatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.
Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentrated
attention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatigue
with repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been the
sample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample size
was 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. The
number of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8
trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedure
has a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determine
variance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of
144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexity
level increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli and
Bucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choice
reaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reaction
time suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The means
of the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed that
with increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. Abstract
The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of this
study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of University
Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computer
simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty to
sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showed
no significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can be
made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as it
relates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so does
the reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexity
of Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as the
level of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured to
eliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack more
complicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding to
stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as ”two or
more different stimuli are presented in random order…the subject is instructed
to react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)
defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus to
the depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to
respond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of
this study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate
proper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase
age so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the
level of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to
26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair of
asterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the
screen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The
respondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the
screen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were
presented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there
study the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. This
also seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age
with reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction time
increased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomly
selected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedure
used for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baron
and Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with an
associated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,
back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and the
response involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriate
response is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures that
reaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subject
participated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject being
seated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.
The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for the
experiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subject
where they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. The
experiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the
12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that the
test trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask them
now, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answer
any questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subject
presses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulus
appears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads are
positioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject an
indication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, the
single arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowhead
will appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left or
right, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all four
alternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond to
the just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, the
circle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one to
three seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject should
react as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. The
response ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard should
record the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,
trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to the
nearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responses
included those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrong
direction. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their time
and offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36
trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trails
an equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed a
simple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so do
reaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =
5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =
461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p
= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for the
first 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for
2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trail
and the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were no
significant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. Discussion
Although t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can be
made that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36
trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference of
fatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.
Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentrated
attention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatigue
with repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been the
sample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample size
was 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. The
number of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8
trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedure
has a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determine
variance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of
144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexity
level increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli and
Bucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choice
reaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reaction
time suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The means
of the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed that
with increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. Abstract
The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of this
study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of University
Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computer
simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty to
sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showed
no significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can be
made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as it
relates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so does
the reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexity
of Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as the
level of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured to
eliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack more
complicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding to
stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as ”two or
more different stimuli are presented in random order…the subject is instructed
to react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)
defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus to
the depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to
respond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of
this study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate
proper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase
age so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the
level of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to
26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair of
asterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the
screen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The
respondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the
screen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were
presented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there
study the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. This
also seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age
with reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction time
increased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomly
selected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedure
used for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baron
and Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with an
associated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,
back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and the
response involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriate
response is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures that
reaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subject
participated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject being
seated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.
The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for the
experiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subject
where they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. The
experiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the
12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that the
test trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask them
now, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answer
any questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subject
presses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulus
appears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads are
positioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject an
indication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, the
single arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowhead
will appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left or
right, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all four
alternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond to
the just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, the
circle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one to
three seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject should
react as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. The
response ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard should
record the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,
trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to the
nearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responses
included those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrong
direction. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their time
and offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36
trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trails
an equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed a
simple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so do
reaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =
5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =
461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p
= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for the
first 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for
2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trail
and the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were no
significant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. Discussion
Although t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can be
made that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36
trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference of
fatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.
Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentrated
attention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatigue
with repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been the
sample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample size
was 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. The
number of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8
trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedure
has a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determine
variance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of
144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexity
level increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli and
Bucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choice
reaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reaction
time suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The means
of the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed that
with increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1.
vAbstract The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of
this study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of
University Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with
a computer simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which
lasted forty to sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA.
The t test showed no significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but
inferences can be made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with
reaction time as it relates to complexity. I found that as the level of
complexity increase so does the reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure
as it relates to Complexity of Task This study was conducted to prove that
reaction time increases as the level of complexity increases. Disjunctive
reaction time was measured to eliminate subject reacting too early to the
stimulus. Also make the tack more complicated and for subject to uses
discrimination before responding to stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines
disjunctive reaction time as ”two or more different stimuli are presented in
random order…the subject is instructed to react to one but not to the other
stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986) defined reaction time “as the
latency from the onset of the visual stimulus to the depression of the
microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to respond to the visual
stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of this study both
definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate proper measurement.
Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase age so did the
reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the level of
complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to 26 and
the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair of asterisks
presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the screen of
the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The respondent
used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the screen.
Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were presented,
there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there study the
found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. This also seems
to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age with
reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction time
increased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomly
selected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedure
used for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baron
and Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with an
associated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,
back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and the
response involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriate
response is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures that
reaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subject
participated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject being
seated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.
The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for the
experiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subject
where they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. The
experiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the
12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that the
test trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask them
now, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answer
any questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subject
presses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulus
appears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads are
positioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject an
indication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, the
single arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowhead
will appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left or
right, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all four
alternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond to
the just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, the
circle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one to
three seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject should
react as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. The
response ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard should
record the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,
trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to the
nearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responses
included those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrong
direction. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their time
and offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36
trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trails
an equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed a
simple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so do
reaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =
5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =
461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p
= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for the
first 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for
2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trail
and the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were no
significant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. Discussion
Although t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can be
made that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36
trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference of
fatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.
Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentrated
attention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatigue
with repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been the
sample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample size
was 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. The
number of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8
trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedure
has a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determine
variance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of
144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexity
level increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli and
Bucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choice
reaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reaction
time suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The means
of the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed that
with increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. Abstract
The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of this
study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of University
Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computer
simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty to
sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showed
no significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can be
made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as it
relates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so does
the reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexity
of Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as the
level of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured to
eliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack more
complicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding to
stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as ”two or
more different stimuli are presented in random order…the subject is instructed
to react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)
defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus to
the depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to
respond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of
this study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate
proper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase
age so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the
level of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to
26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair of
asterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the
screen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The
respondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the
screen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were
presented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there
study the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. This
also seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age
with reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction time
increased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomly
selected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedure
used for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baron
and Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with an
associated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,
back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and the
response involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriate
response is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures that
reaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subject
participated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject being
seated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.
The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for the
experiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subject
where they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. The
experiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the
12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that the
test trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask them
now, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answer
any questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subject
presses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulus
appears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads are
positioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject an
indication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, the
single arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowhead
will appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left or
right, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all four
alternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond to
the just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, the
circle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one to
three seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject should
react as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. The
response ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard should
record the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,
trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to the
nearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responses
included those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrong
direction. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their time
and offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36
trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trails
an equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed a
simple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so do
reaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =
5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =
461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p
= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for the
first 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for
2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trail
and the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were no
significant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. Discussion
Although t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can be
made that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36
trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference of
fatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.
Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentrated
attention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatigue
with repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been the
sample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample size
was 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. The
number of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8
trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedure
has a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determine
variance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of
144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexity
level increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli and
Bucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choice
reaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reaction
time suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The means
of the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed that
with increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. Abstract
The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of this
study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of University
Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computer
simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty to
sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showed
no significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can be
made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as it
relates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so does
the reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexity
of Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as the
level of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured to
eliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack more
complicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding to
stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as ”two or
more different stimuli are presented in random order…the subject is instructed
to react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)
defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus to
the depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to
respond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of
this study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate
proper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase
age so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the
level of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to
26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair of
asterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the
screen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The
respondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the
screen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were
presented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there
study the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. This
also seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age
with reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction time
increased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomly
selected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedure
used for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baron
and Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with an
associated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,
back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and the
response involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriate
response is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures that
reaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subject
participated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject being
seated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.
The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for the
experiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subject
where they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. The
experiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the
12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that the
test trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask them
now, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answer
any questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subject
presses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulus
appears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads are
positioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject an
indication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, the
single arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowhead
will appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left or
right, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all four
alternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond to
the just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, the
circle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one to
three seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject should
react as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. The
response ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard should
record the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,
trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to the
nearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responses
included those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrong
direction. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their time
and offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36
trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trails
an equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed a
simple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so do
reaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =
5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =
461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p
= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for the
first 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for
2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trail
and the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were no
significant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. Discussion
Although t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can be
made that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36
trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference of
fatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.
Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentrated
attention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatigue
with repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been the
sample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample size
was 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. The
number of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8
trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedure
has a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determine
variance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of
144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexity
level increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli and
Bucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choice
reaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reaction
time suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The means
of the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed that
with increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. Abstract
The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of this
study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of University
Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computer
simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty to
sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showed
no significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can be
made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as it
relates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so does
the reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexity
of Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as the
level of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured to
eliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack more
complicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding to
stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as ”two or
more different stimuli are presented in random order…the subject is instructed
to react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)
defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus to
the depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to
respond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of
this study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate
proper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase
age so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the
level of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to
26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair of
asterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the
screen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The
respondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the
screen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were
presented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there
study the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. This
also seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age
with reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction time
increased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomly
selected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedure
used for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baron
and Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with an
associated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,
back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and the
response involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriate
response is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures that
reaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subject
participated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject being
seated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.
The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for the
experiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subject
where they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. The
experiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the
12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that the
test trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask them
now, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answer
any questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subject
presses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulus
appears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads are
positioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject an
indication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, the
single arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowhead
will appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left or
right, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all four
alternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond to
the just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, the
circle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one to
three seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject should
react as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. The
response ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard should
record the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,
trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to the
nearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responses
included those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrong
direction. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their time
and offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36
trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trails
an equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed a
simple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so do
reaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =
5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =
461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p
= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for the
first 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for
2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trail
and the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were no
significant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. Discussion
Although t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can be
made that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36
trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference of
fatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.
Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentrated
attention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatigue
with repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been the
sample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample size
was 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. The
number of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8
trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedure
has a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determine
variance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of
144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexity
level increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli and
Bucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choice
reaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reaction
time suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The means
of the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed that
with increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. Abstract
The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of this
study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of University
Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computer
simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty to
sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showed
no significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can be
made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as it
relates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so does
the reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexity
of Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as the
level of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured to
eliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack more
complicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding to
stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as ”two or
more different stimuli are presented in random order…the subject is instructed
to react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)
defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus to
the depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to
respond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of
this study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate
proper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase
age so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the
level of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to
26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair of
asterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the
screen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The
respondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the
screen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were
presented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there
study the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. This
also seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age
with reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction time
increased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomly
selected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedure
used for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baron
and Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with an
associated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,
back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and the
response involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriate
response is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures that
reaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subject
participated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject being
seated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.
The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for the
experiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subject
where they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. The
experiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the
12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that the
test trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask them
now, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answer
any questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subject
presses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulus
appears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads are
positioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject an
indication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, the
single arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowhead
will appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left or
right, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all four
alternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond to
the just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, the
circle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one to
three seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject should
react as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. The
response ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard should
record the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,
trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to the
nearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responses
included those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrong
direction. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their time
and offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36
trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trails
an equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed a
simple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so do
reaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =
5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =
461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p
= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for the
first 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for
2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trail
and the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were no
significant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. Discussion
Although t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can be
made that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36
trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference of
fatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.
Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentrated
attention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatigue
with repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been the
sample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample size
was 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. The
number of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8
trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedure
has a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determine
variance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of
144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexity
level increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli and
Bucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choice
reaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reaction
time suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The means
of the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed that
with increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. Abstract
The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of this
study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of University
Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computer
simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty to
sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showed
no significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can be
made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as it
relates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so does
the reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexity
of Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as the
level of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured to
eliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack more
complicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding to
stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as ”two or
more different stimuli are presented in random order…the subject is instructed
to react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)
defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus to
the depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to
respond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of
this study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate
proper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase
age so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the
level of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to
26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair of
asterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the
screen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The
respondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the
screen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were
presented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there
study the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. This
also seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age
with reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction time
increased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomly
selected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedure
used for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baron
and Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with an
associated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,
back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and the
response involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriate
response is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures that
reaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subject
participated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject being
seated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.
The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for the
experiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subject
where they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. The
experiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the
12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that the
test trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask them
now, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answer
any questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subject
presses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulus
appears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads are
positioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject an
indication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, the
single arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowhead
will appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left or
right, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all four
alternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond to
the just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, the
circle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one to
three seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject should
react as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. The
response ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard should
record the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,
trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to the
nearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responses
included those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrong
direction. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their time
and offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36
trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trails
an equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed a
simple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so do
reaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =
5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =
461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p
= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for the
first 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for
2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trail
and the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were no
significant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. Discussion
Although t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can be
made that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36
trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference of
fatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.
Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentrated
attention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatigue
with repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been the
sample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample size
was 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. The
number of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8
trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedure
has a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determine
variance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of
144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexity
level increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli and
Bucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choice
reaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reaction
time suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The means
of the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed that
with increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. Abstract
The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of this
study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of University
Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computer
simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty to
sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showed
no significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can be
made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as it
relates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so does
the reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexity
of Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as the
level of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured to
eliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack more
complicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding to
stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as ”two or
more different stimuli are presented in random order…the subject is instructed
to react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)
defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus to
the depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to
respond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of
this study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate
proper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase
age so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the
level of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to
26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair of
asterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the
screen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The
respondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the
screen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were
presented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there
study the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. This
also seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age
with reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction time
increased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomly
selected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedure
used for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baron
and Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with an
associated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,
back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and the
response involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriate
response is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures that
reaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subject
participated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject being
seated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.
The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for the
experiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subject
where they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. The
experiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the
12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that the
test trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask them
now, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answer
any questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subject
presses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulus
appears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads are
positioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject an
indication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, the
single arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowhead
will appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left or
right, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all four
alternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond to
the just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, the
circle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one to
three seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject should
react as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. The
response ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard should
record the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,
trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to the
nearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responses
included those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrong
direction. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their time
and offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36
trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trails
an equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed a
simple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so do
reaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =
5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =
461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p
= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for the
first 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for
2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trail
and the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were no
significant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. Discussion
Although t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can be
made that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36
trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference of
fatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.
Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentrated
attention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatigue
with repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been the
sample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample size
was 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. The
number of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8
trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedure
has a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determine
variance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of
144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexity
level increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli and
Bucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choice
reaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reaction
time suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The means
of the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed that
with increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. Abstract
The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of this
study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of University
Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computer
simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty to
sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showed
no significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can be
made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as it
relates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so does
the reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexity
of Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as the
level of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured to
eliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack more
complicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding to
stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as ”two or
more different stimuli are presented in random order…the subject is instructed
to react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)
defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus to
the depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to
respond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of
this study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate
proper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase
age so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the
level of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to
26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair of
asterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the
screen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The
respondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the
screen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were
presented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there
study the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. This
also seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age
with reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction time
increased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomly
selected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedure
used for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baron
and Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with an
associated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,
back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and the
response involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriate
response is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures that
reaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subject
participated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject being
seated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.
The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for the
experiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subject
where they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. The
experiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the
12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that the
test trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask them
now, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answer
any questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subject
presses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulus
appears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads are
positioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject an
indication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, the
single arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowhead
will appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left or
right, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all four
alternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond to
the just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, the
circle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one to
three seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject should
react as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. The
response ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard should
record the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,
trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to the
nearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responses
included those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrong
direction. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their time
and offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36
trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trails
an equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed a
simple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so do
reaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =
5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =
461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p
= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for the
first 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for
2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trail
and the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were no
significant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. Discussion
Although t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can be
made that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36
trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference of
fatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.
Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentrated
attention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatigue
with repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been the
sample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample size
was 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. The
number of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8
trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedure
has a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determine
variance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of
144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexity
level increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli and
Bucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choice
reaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reaction
time suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The means
of the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed that
with increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1. Abstract
The reaction time for subject with increase complexity is the focus of this
study. The ten respondents were randomly selected on the campus of University
Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Ten subjects reaction time was evaluated with a computer
simulation program using one, two, or four choice trails, which lasted forty to
sixty minutes. The data were analyzed using t test and ANOVA. The t test showed
no significance as far as practice effects were concerned, but inferences can be
made. Also the ANOVA showed a significant difference with reaction time as it
relates to complexity. I found that as the level of complexity increase so does
the reaction time. Disjunctive Reaction Time Measure as it relates to Complexity
of Task This study was conducted to prove that reaction time increases as the
level of complexity increases. Disjunctive reaction time was measured to
eliminate subject reacting too early to the stimulus. Also make the tack more
complicated and for subject to uses discrimination before responding to
stimulus. Postman and Egan (1949) defines disjunctive reaction time as ”two or
more different stimuli are presented in random order…the subject is instructed
to react to one but not to the other stimuli”(p 240). Rikli and Busch (1986)
defined reaction time “as the latency from the onset of the visual stimulus to
the depression of the microswitch”(p 646). Although a joystick was used to
respond to the visual stimulus the same principle applies. For the purposes of
this study both definition of reaction time were incorporated to facilitate
proper measurement. Baron and Journey (1989) tried to prove that with increase
age so did the reaction time. Also within the study they also found that as the
level of complexity increased so did the reaction time for the young group 18 to
26 and the old group 62 to 75. For their study the stimulus was a pair of
asterisks presented in a square, where one the four symmetrical positions on the
screen of the monitor, center on the right left side or the top or bottom. The
respondent used a lever to indicate what direction the asterisk appeared on the
screen. Also in Baron and Journey (1989) study three level of complexity were
presented, there were one, two and four choice intervals. As a result of there
study the found that reaction time increase with increased alternatives. This
also seems to be the case with Rikil and Bush (1986), although they compared age
with reaction time; they also found that with increase complexity reaction time
increased. Method Participants Ten subjects, men and women, were randomly
selected at various locations on the campus of University of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee. Subjects were between the age of 18 to 35. Procedure The procedure
used for this used for this experiment is modeled after the one used by Baron
and Journey (1989). Using a microcomputer the reaction time is measured with an
associated response lever, a joystick. The joystick can be moved left, rift,
back and forward. The stimuli are presented on the computer monitor, and the
response involves appropriate operation of the lever. When the appropriate
response is given, by using different directions as responses this ensures that
reaction time can be measured as a function of complexity. Before each subject
participated in the study in formed consent was given. Prior to subject being
seated, the experimenter test equipment to make sure it is functioning properly.
The subject is seated in front of the monitor, where instruction for the
experiment appears on the screen. The experimenter is seated next to the subject
where they are able to access the keyboard to press enter after every trail. The
experiment starts with 12 practice trails, with 144 total test trails. When the
12 practice trails are finished the experimenter informs the subject that the
test trails are about to begin, and if the subject has any questions ask them
now, because during the test trails the experimenter is not allowed to answer
any questions. The subject starts the beginning of test trails, when the subject
presses a key at the base of the joystick. When key is pressed a stimulus
appears on the screen. It is a circle where one, two, or four arrowheads are
positioned inside. The pace where the arrowhead appears gives the subject an
indication where the arrowhead may appear again. With one choice trails, the
single arrowhead provides information about the direction, where the arrowhead
will appear again. With the two choice trails, the information either left or
right, or back or forward. Finally, with four choice trails, all four
alternatives are possible. At this juncture the subject should not respond to
the just observed display. When the arrowheads disappear from the screen, the
circle remaining, the subject must wait for a variable fore period of one to
three seconds. A single arrowhead is displayed at this point the subject should
react as quickly as possible to the stimulus in the appropriate direction. The
response ends the trail. At this time the results are displayed on the screen.
The experimenter who is not depressing the ENTER key on the keyboard should
record the result on a data sheet. The data sheet should include trail number,
trail type, required response, subject response, and latency rounded to the
nearest millisecond, and a column for failed responses. Failed responses
included those responses in the foreperiod and those responses to the wrong
direction. After all 144 trail are complete, thank the subject for their time
and offer answer any question the may have. Results The means of the first 36
trails and the last 36 trails were analyzed. Within the first and last36 trails
an equal number of one choice, two choice and four choice stimuli were supplied.
An examination of reaction time as it compares to complexity of task revealed a
simple main effect, suggesting that as the level of complexity increase so do
reaction time. An analysis using ANOVA supported this observation, F (2,18) =
5.98, p * .014 as seen in Figure 1. An analysis using t test revealed (M =
461.50) for the first 36 and the (M=408.89) for last 36 trails, t (9) = 0.718 p
= .497 for 1 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=569.59) for the
first 36 trails and the (M = 554.84) for last 36 trails, t (9) .560 p = 594 for
2 choice, was not significantly different. The (M=597.366) for first 36 trail
and the (M =554.84) the last 36 trails, t (9) 1.092 p =. 304 there were no
significant findings, suggesting no practice effects seen in table 1. Discussion
Although t test did not provide any significant results, the inference can be
made that practice effects may have occurred because the means of the first 36
trails were shorter than those of the last 36 trials. Also the inference of
fatigue or boredom may be a reasons that the t test were not significant.
Postaman and Eagan (1949) propose that the subjects has an “concentrated
attention on the stimulus,”(p. 255) if the subject becomes bored or fatigue
with repeatedly doing the same task practice effect result may not occur.
Another reason that practice effects result did not occur may have been the
sample size and number of trials. With Rikli and Busch (1989) the sample size
was 60 adult females, compared to 10 randomly chosen adults for this study. The
number of trails for the Rikli and Busch (1989) study was 10, where that last 8
trails were used to determine the mean scores for the analysis, this procedure
has a reliability of .87. This study also used the last trials to determine
variance however, fatigue or boredom may have set in by the last 36 trails of
144 trails. However, there were increases in reaction time when the complexity
level increase, similar to the results in Baron and Journey (1989). Rikli and
Bucsh (1986) comapred the means of the simple reaction time versus choice
reaction time, the choice reaction time was twice that of the simple reaction
time suggesting with increase complexity the reaction time increases. The means
of the one choice, two choice and four choice, for last 36 trails showed that
with increased complexity reaction time increased, as seen in figure 1.

BibliographyBaron, A. & Journey, J.W. (1989). Age differences in manual versus vocal
reaction time: Further evidence. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences,
44, P157- P159. Postman, L. & Egan, J.P. (1949). Experimental psychology: An
introduction (Chapter 12). New York: Harper. Rikli, R., & Busch, S (1986).
Motor performances of women as a function of age and physical activity. Journal
of Gerontology, 41 645-649