Dynavision Normative Data for Reaction Time

PURPOSE: The purpose of the Dynavision Normative Data for Reaction Time study was to collect normative data for visual reaction speed, physical response speed, and motor response time for the Dynavision D2 Visuomotor Training System (D2; Dynavision International, West Chester, OH). Given the lack of normative data for the D2, the authors’ clinic recognized the need to determine the normal ranges for this tool in order to better serve its patients. Having data on the reaction times of normal participants allows occupational therapy practitioners to better assess patients’ progress and ability to return to within the normal reaction times important for safe performance of daily activities. Applications of the study results include concussion management, stroke, traumatic brain injury, sports enhancement, and visual retraining.

METHOD: The study used a stratified, cross-sectional design to obtain normative data for visual reaction speed, physical response speed, and motor response time using the D2 for adults in three age categories: 18–40, 41–60, and 61–80. The study included 300 participants, 50 men and 50 women in each of the three age categories. A convenience sample was recruited throughout the health system and community. The inclusion criteria for the study included adults aged 18–80 with a valid driver’s license. Participants were excluded if they had previous neurological impairment, history of seizures, blindness, cognitive impairments, hand numbness, or inability to reach the entire range of the D2. The researchers used a standard screening form to assess inclusion and exclusion criteria. Participants took a short bilateral upper extremity range of motion test to ensure they could reach the entire D2 board and then completed a short demographic intake form.

The researchers used a written protocol to instruct participants on how to complete the reaction tests using the D2. The participants initially completed a practice test. They then completed six different portions of the test, three for the right hand and three for the left hand. Each subtest lasted for five repetitions. The outcomes of the tests were printed from the D2.

Data analysis focused on the total reaction times across the six portions of the test. The study used the reciprocal normal parametric distribution to establish normal limits for the data by sex and three age groups. The inverse of the reciprocal was used to estimate the normal limits of the 2.5th percentile (1/[M + 1.96 × SD) and the 97.5th percentile (1/[M – 1.96 × SD).

RESULTS: The estimated mean time normal limits in minutes across the 30 components of the Dynavision reaction test are as follows: for women, ages 18–40, 0.64, 1.39; ages 41–60, 0.58, 1.28; and ages 61–80, 0.64, 1.45; and for men, ages 18–40, 0.57, 1.39; ages 41–60, 0.60, 1.08; and ages 61–80, 0.63, 1.59.

CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide a range of normal reaction time limits for three age groups for the D2. These results provide occupational therapy practitioners with a means to evaluate visual perception and cognitive deficits after brain injury, stroke, and other neurological pathology. Practitioners can provide an objective baseline for comparison to manage patient care instead of relying on clinical judgment. Future research is recommended for pediatrics.

IMPACT STATEMENT: Having normative data for the Dynavision reaction test mode is beneficial for occupational therapy practitioners as an assessment tool. The testing results can be added to the battery of other common evaluation measures practitioners use to evaluate visual and cognitive deficits after brain injury, stroke, and other neurological pathology. Applications can be extended to concussion treatment and sports enhancement.

References

Klavora, P., Gaskovski, P., & Forsyth, R. D., Heslegrave, R. J., Young, M., & Quinn, R. P. (1995). The effects of Dynavision rehabilitation on behind-the-wheel driving ability and selected psychomotor abilities of persons after stroke. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49, 534–542. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.49.6.534

Klavora, P., Gaskovski, P., & Forsyth, R. D. (1995). Test–retest reliability of three Dynavision tasks. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 607–610. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1995.80.2.607

Klavora, P., Gaskovski, P., & Forsyth, R. D. (1994). Test–retest reliability of the Dynavision apparatus. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 448–450. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.448

Vesia, M., Esposito, J., Prime, S., & Klavora, P. (2008). Correlations of selected psychomotor and visuomotor tests with initial Dynavision performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 107, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.107.1.14-20