Gerontology Essay, Research Paper

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 an

Baron, 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