Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

reaction times

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: reaction times

    I see your lips moving but I don't hear anything new. Why don't you go and actually work on whatever changes you think are needed instead of reitterating a million times that you're right, the world is against you, and they're wrong.

    Comment


    • Re: reaction times

      This I've seen before. Yes, it does show that there is very little correlation between reaction time and finishing time.

      However, I'm not sure you can conclude that reaction time is not trainable. JRM is likely correct on this issue. There is still the question of what does determine a person's reaction time.

      Clearly, each person reacts differently to the gun. Some are going to naturally react faster than others. Under the assumption that no one is anticipating and reaction time is untrainable, then wouldn't you say this difference is due to genetics (this may not be the correct term, sorry)?

      If so, then measuring "anticipation" by the 0.100 rule is inadequate. Two runners, both of whom are going to anticipate the gun decide, at the same time, to commence their start before the gun. Because one runner's naturally slower out of the blocks than the other, there is going to be a difference in reaction times. However, both runner's are equally guilty of anticipating the gun.

      I agree that a reaction time under 0.100 is an indicator of "anticiaption" This holds true for nearly all athletes. Unfortunately, though, it does allow many "slower reacting" athletes to get away with anticipation simply because they naturally react more slowly to all stimuli (the sound of the gun and their own thoughts).

      If you want to say "anticipating" the gun is against the rules, then that's fine. But, you have to come up with a way that catches everyone -- not just the quickest. If you can't devise such a plan, then you have to let all slip by.

      Comment


      • Re: reaction times

        <<However, I'm not sure you can conclude that reaction time is not trainable.>>

        Sorry, I should have added at the end of this sentence "... from this data alone"

        Comment


        • Re: reaction times

          >I see your lips moving but I don't hear anything
          >new. Why don't you go and actually work on
          >whatever changes you think are needed instead of
          >reitterating a million times that you're right,
          >the world is against you, and they're wrong.

          we are and have been for 3 years!!

          Comment


          • Re: reaction times

            Let's agree to disagree and end this thread now. There are more pressing issues to discuss. We all need to jump onto the Alan Webb thread and solve all of his problems. I bet he can't wait to see the solution.

            Comment


            • Re: reaction times

              >Let's agree to disagree and end this thread
              > now. There are more pressing issues to
              > discuss.

              Look, I happen to find this discussion interesting, because it address a relevant subject from a bunch of different angles. You are free to not click on the subject "reaction times" if you don't want to.

              It's not like there's a party next door and we're keeping you awake at night!

              Comment


              • Re: reaction times

                >>Let's agree to disagree and end this thread
                >
                >now. There are more pressing issues to
                >
                >discuss.

                Look, I happen to find this
                >discussion interesting, because it address a
                >relevant subject from a bunch of different
                >angles. You are free to not click on the subject
                >"reaction times" if you don't want to.

                It's
                >not like there's a party next door and we're
                >keeping you awake at night!

                I also find it an interesting,relevant, and very important issue. I agree with JRM that those not interested are free to "get a life" and browse other threads.

                Comment


                • Re: reaction times

                  I don't see it anywhere in this Board's guidelines, but hopefully the moderators will follow the unwritten rule that once a thread gets down to a back and forth argument between/among 2-3 people it's time for them to take it offline and have their own private pissing match.

                  And, "useless" threads can have a negative effect. There are only so many lines (15?) available on the front screen and once something gets pushed off that, it tends to die quickly, no matter who valuable it is. So if we've got yahoos arguign the same drug crap under the rubric of multiple threads, bad drives out good. Make sense?

                  Comment


                  • Re: reaction times

                    >And,
                    >"useless" threads can have a negative effect.
                    >There are only so many lines (15?) available on
                    >the front screen and once something gets pushed
                    >off that, it tends to die quickly

                    Change the 15 to 100 then.

                    Comment


                    • Re: reaction times

                      I just discovered this thread, so here is my late contribution. The auditory evoked potential (time the stimulus travels from the inner ear to the auditory cortex) is 80-100 milliseconds. If you add the time for the sound to reach the ear, you are clearly over 0.1 sec. That proves that any faster start is clearly anticipatory.
                      "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                      by Thomas Henry Huxley

                      Comment


                      • Re: reaction times

                        >I don't see it anywhere in this Board's
                        >guidelines, but hopefully the moderators will
                        >follow the unwritten rule that once a thread gets
                        >down to a back and forth argument between/among
                        >2-3 people it's time for them to take it offline
                        >and have their own private pissing match.

                        And,
                        >"useless" threads can have a negative effect.
                        >There are only so many lines (15?) available on
                        >the front screen and once something gets pushed
                        >off that, it tends to die quickly, no matter who
                        >valuable it is. So if we've got yahoos arguign
                        >the same drug crap under the rubric of multiple
                        >threads, bad drives out good. Make sense?

                        What does this have to do with reaction times?
                        You realize that by answering this you are getting into one of those "pissing" matches you're concerned about.
                        I really do think this is interesting, and so do others. If what you think is interesting is not shared by enough others to keep in the top 15 lines, please don't blame it on those of us who like to debate and be very (excruciatingly painfully) thorough. If the topic doesn't interest you then click on another. Or join in. The more the merrier. Cheers!!

                        Comment


                        • Re: reaction times

                          >I just discovered this thread, so here is my late
                          >contribution. The auditory evoked potential (time
                          >the stimulus travels from the inner ear to the
                          >auditory cortex) is 80-100 milliseconds. If you
                          >add the time for the sound to reach the ear, you
                          >are clearly over 0.1 sec. That proves that any
                          >faster start is clearly anticipatory.

                          Where are you getting that info from? I would like to present it to others. Thanks.

                          Comment


                          • Re: reaction times

                            All you have to do is to enter "auditory evoked potentials" in a search engine. You don't need specialized neurological literature, even though there is plenty of it readily available in libraries.
                            "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                            by Thomas Henry Huxley

                            Comment


                            • Re: reaction times

                              >I just discovered this thread, so here is my late
                              >contribution. The auditory evoked potential (time
                              >the stimulus travels from the inner ear to the
                              >auditory cortex) is 80-100 milliseconds. If you
                              >add the time for the sound to reach the ear, you
                              >are clearly over 0.1 sec. That proves that any
                              >faster start is clearly anticipatory.

                              It's about 8 milliseconds, not 80-100. Just looked it up. Also, using a speed of sound of 340 m/sec and a distance from the starting block speaker to the sprinters ear of 2m(which is generous)you get about 5 msec. Add that to the eight and you get 0.011sec, well below the 0.1 limit. Even if another .005-.01sec (5-10 milliseconds) of time from the brain to the muscle is added, the time is still only 0.016-0.021 seconds.

                              Comment


                              • Re: reaction times

                                JRM, glad to see you're still around...

                                I know I've asked several time, but a will ask again (perhaps in a slightly different manner).

                                One athlete consistently records reaction times in 0.14 sec (average) and another is consistently at 0.17 sec. How would you explain the difference? Is it mostly genetic -- one is naturally faster than the other? Or, is it mostly from training/conditioning?

                                Based on some of your earlier responses, I would guess that it's genetic (or, whatever the proper term is).

                                My position on the 0.100 standard is not that it should be lowered. You've mostly convinced me that athletes with reaction times below did not honestly react to the sound.

                                Instead, my position (which has evolved) is that 0.100 would not necessarily catch all of the "anticipaters" -- it could be possible that someone who is anticipating the gun could have a reaction time greater than 0.100.

                                Does this make sense?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X