Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

reaction time

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • reaction time

    to continue the previous almost 200 thread discussion - from athens (the ioc olympic world congress on sport sciences)...checking what study might have been the determining factor for the iaaf 0.100 that is the line between legal and fs, the top researchers in the sport do not know of any studies done to set this figure....i spoke to peter bruggemann (his work was done in 1986 junior worlds, 1997 worlds and 1988 og)... michiyoshi ae, said he tested 3 athletes in a scientific setting- (not in a competitive situation)...one being christie- he found chistie's reaction time to be faster than 0.100!!! and this was probably the basis for the article in track and field news after his dq from atlanta!!!!

  • #2
    Re: reaction time

    The Fastest legal Reaction Time ever recorded was(and still is!!!) exactly 0.100s by (guess who?) Jon Drummond (USA) in the Monaco GP in the year 1993.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: reaction time

      No, the 0.100 for Drummond is an ANTICIPATION time, not a reaction time.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: reaction time

        Correct. A single example of ANYTHING cannot prove any general rule.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: reaction time

          Yet another good reason to be a distance runner. I've never won or loss a race by 0.10 secs or been DQed for a false start.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: reaction time

            In a Motor Skills Learning class that was part of our Exercise Science curriculum, we tested the reaction time for visual and auditory tasks in a lab setting.
            For the visual test, the student would stand with their finger on a button. When a light came on at random time intervals, they pressed the button. NO ONE BROKE 0.180. And the brain reacts faster to visual cues than auditory cues.
            For the auditory test, a machine produced a sound and the student pressed the same button. Best time was around 0.220.
            At least 20 sleep deprived, disinterested college students took part in this class demonstration! For me, this revealed how much anticipation is present at a world class track meet, as well as how fair the 0.100 reaction limit is. 0.100 is actually very generous for the athletes.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: reaction time

              Joel is absolutely right. The 100 milliseconds that are allowed are too generous already. They all anticipate the gun. The question is whether some anticipation or how much should be allowed.
              "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
              by Thomas Henry Huxley

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: reaction time

                >NO ONE BROKE 0.180. And the brain reacts faster
                >to visual cues than auditory cues.
                >For the auditory test, a machine produced a
                >sound and the student pressed the same button.
                >Best time was around 0.220.

                Actually, auditory reaction times are faster than visual ones, although not by much. However, there is still a long way to go between 0.180s and 0.100s.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: reaction time

                  It is possible that the sleep-deprived, disinterested nature of the class affected the results and made the listening slower to respond than the sight. In fact, I may have been the only runner in the room, and the only one who cared about the results of the test.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: reaction time

                    C'mon, folks, admit it...

                    1) Every sprinter anticipates every gun. Always have, always will. Anyone who is surprised by the gun gets left in the blocks. Every measurement of reaction time in a race is an anticipation time.

                    2) No one has set any definitive standard of the fastest possible human reaction time in a race situation. Such a study would have to involve sensors on the central nervous system to see exactly when the brain processes the auditory stimulation of the gun, exactly how long it takes to begin a command to stimulate the muscles involved in starting, and exactly when that reaction really begins. And, since non-athletic subjects pushing buttons with their fingers bear no correlation to the situation of athletes starting a race (different muscle groups and actions being involved), it would have to be done with highly adrenalized athletes in a realistic starting situation. I doubt anyone has even come close to such a study... am I wrong? And even when/if such studies are done, do we then believe that finding to be immutable? Who is to say that some physical/neurological freak couldn't break the world record for reaction time and be thrown out of a race as reward for the accomplishment?

                    3) We ought to quit trying to deter anticipation and simply kick out anyone who leaves before the gun. All the reaction rules are bunk.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: reaction time

                      >the top researchers in the sport do not know of
                      >any studies done to set this figure....i spoke to
                      >peter bruggemann ...

                      C'mon - who's going to believe IAAF just put their finger to the wind and picked 0.1 seconds ?

                      Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - Maybe there's other people who know what supported the decision.

                      If you look at T & F's charts of Drummonds's DQ (
                      http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/genera ... field.html) the 0.1 seconds looks generous.

                      Unless you want to believe sprinters have trained themselves to get out of the blocks just a bit slower than the DQ limit.

                      But then, you should be able to find and produce some coaches who can tell us how this is done (assuming it doesn't involve illegal substances).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: reaction time

                        <sensors on the central nervous system to see exactly when the brain processes the auditory stimulation>

                        Auditory (and visual) evoked responses are well established. It takes between 100 and 200 milliseconds for the auditory stimulus to be processed by the cerebral cortex. The reaction (response) to that starts after this. That's why the 100 milliseconds allowance is more than generous. My question, again is why can't we allow this anticipation and judge the start by visual evidence (the way it was done for a good 100 years). To anybody's eye, Drummond did not move before the gun.
                        "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                        by Thomas Henry Huxley

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: reaction time

                          Why the hell is anticipation of the gun a bad thing? It's available to everybody on the line. If you react/anticipate the gun in 0.00001, so be it.

                          The current rule isn't fan friendly since it requires an explanation for average person why .09 is illegal. Everybody and their mother understands that anything before the gun is illegal.

                          The constant splitting hairs between what is allowed and disallowed probably does more to turn off the average sports fan than anything else in the sport.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: reaction time

                            Cooter, you are exactly right !

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: reaction time

                              >The constant splitting hairs between what is
                              >allowed and disallowed probably does more to
                              >turn off the average sports fan than anything
                              >else in the sport.

                              I don't think the false start rules or reaction times are any more confusing than the subtle rules governing any other sport (cf baseball, basketball, or football, for starters).

                              In fact, the average sports fan will probably not question the rule the way die-hard track fans will, but rather will just accept the fact that someone was in violation of it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X