Date Presented 03/28/20
The study examined upper-extremity reaction times analyzed by five-year age cohorts to establish normative data for participants responding to stimuli on a touch screen and help delineate appropriate therapeutic intervention. Average reaction times ranged from 0.81 seconds to 1.09 seconds for the 200 participants. Reaction times increased with age, indicating potential correlations with functional outcomes.
Primary Author and Speaker: Jeremy Palmiscno
Additional Authors and Speakers: Trent Maruyama, Melissa Fiduccia
ABSTRACT: Visual Reaction Time in Healthy Adults
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine quantitative, normative data to be used in neurological rehabilitation clinical practice, particularly for use in future research assessing return to driving.
DESIGN: Descriptive study.
METHOD: Healthy professionals from St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center and Barrow Neurological Institute participated in the study. Participants completed two protocols on the Bioness Integrative Therapy System 2.0 interactive touchscreen display to record motor, visual, and cognitive data sets consisting of upper extremity reaction time, accuracy, and divided attention for participants responding to various stimuli, including circles and letters by touch. The data were grouped by 5–year age cohorts and analyzed to determine the norms for each group.
RESULTS: Of the 200 employees who participated in the study, 50 (25%) were men, and 150 (75%) were women. The total time to complete the test ranged from an 48-55 seconds, with older participants requiring more time. Mean reaction times ranged from 0.81-1.08 seconds, with the fastest reaction times in the 20-24 and 25-29–year age group (0.81 seconds) and the slowest times in the 60-plus–year age group (1.08 seconds). Accuracy was 90% or more in all cohorts, with the lowest in the 30-34–year age group (93.78%) and the highest in the 35-39–age group (95.99%).
CONCLUSION: Upper extremity reaction times to touch the stimuli on the screen progressively increased with age in the study population, which could have potential correlations with functional outcomes. Future research should emphasize the effects of reaction time on functional tasks and instrumental activities of daily living such as driving (e.g., brake reaction time, and divided attention), and sports-related and recreational reactions.
References
Dickerson, A. E., Reistetter, T., Parnell, M., Robinson, S., Stone, K., & Whitley, K. (2008). Standardizing the RT-2S Brake Reaction Time Tester. Physical & Occupational Therapy In Geriatrics, 27(2), 96-106. doi:10.1080/02703180802306932
Klavora, P., Gaskovski, P., Martin, K., 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(6), 534-542. doi:10.5014/ajot.49.6.534
