The Effects of Visual Distraction on Reaction Time Paper
Overall, distraction can affect human reaction time and this coincides with previous findings (Lee et al 2001). Introduction Human reaction time can be affected by many factors, one such example is distraction. Literature suggests that distraction can affect a person’s ability to react to a particular stimulus, In the sense that it increases the reaction time (Lee et al 2001). The Impact of distraction on reaction time carries huge significant to the current society In terms of the dally activities which are performed by majority of the people, such as driving.
The use of technology whilst driving has been re-assessed and more recently the use of sat Nava has been a debatable topic (Dave Evans, 2012). More pacifically, evidence suggests that when one looks directly at an object, their peripheral vision becomes slightly impaired and this affects a person’s reaction time (Brenner and Welfare, 1980). Also the use of hands-free phones whilst driving results has a negative effect on attention and does not improve reaction time performance (Horror and Wickers, 2006), (Hendricks and Sweetie, 2007).
Distraction is a common cause of accidents (NATHAN, 2009). The need to reduce potential threats to others as a result of reduced reaction time points to the need of further research into the effects of distraction. Visual distraction can affect driver’s reaction time and with Increasing number of Len- car technologies available, reaction time Is likely to be affected. Previous experiment investigated the effects of in-car technology perceived as visual distraction using a calculator Dates experiment on ventricle Drawing Elegance Ana control (Karee et al, 2012).
They found that visual distraction associated within the car such as devices resulted in higher work load and as a result affected driver’s control of the car. The visual pathway may be responsible for affecting human reaction time (Ghent, McCormick, 2010). Research showed that visual stimuli presented to different regions of the eye produced different reaction times (Brenner and Welfare, 1980). In addition to this, it has been found that drivers with experience of being exposed to several visual stimuli have shown to have a faster reaction time than inexperienced drivers (Constantinople et al, 2010).
This suggests that the human brain no longer finds a certain stimuli as a distracted and is able to process it effectively (And et al, 2002). Therefore, studying the common response to visual distraction, looking for a potential mineral pattern and its consistency in human reaction time is needed. This study will focus on the effects of distraction brought by visual stimuli on human reaction time. The distraction task will involve a sensory visual background for the participant to view whilst also keeping an eye out for the red dot flashing on the centre of the screen.
Upon noticing a red dot, the individual will have to respond by pressing the space bar. According to previous findings, visual stimuli should increase reaction times of an individual. Method Design A within-participant two-tailed experimental design was used to explore the effects of castration on reaction time. Participants were randomized to one of two conditions of the independent variable (V); either to perform the distraction task first or the non-distraction task. Randomization of the participants was decided by using the random number table to allocate participants into group 1 or group 2.
The dependent variable (DVD) was the speed taken (seconds) to complete the reaction task. Participants The participants were a convenience sample of 55 young adults (less than rays age) which comprised of both males and females studying at Nottingham Trend University, England. Among them, 31 were female and 24 were male. Their age ranged between 16 and 62 years old and the age mean was 29,98 years old. None of the participants had previous knowledge of similar visual tasks. No specific incentive was used. Material The study was examining reaction times using a computer based stimulus.
The tool used to measure reaction time among young adults was an online test developed by Ennobler Learner Foundation (http://www. Learner. Org/courses/neuroscience/ interactive/reaction. HTML). An information sheet was presented to the participants explaining the experiment. Procedure Participants were asked to read the information sheet and provide written informed consent. All the pages of the online test were opened and ready to use. Participants were given one trial test before commencing onto the recorded test.
Participants were required to press the ‘space bar’ on the computer/laptop using their dominant hand every time a red dot flashed on the screen. In the distraction task, visual stimuli were presented in the background and participants were required to press the space bar when seeing a red dot flash. Three tests were carried out for the control and experimental task. Results were recorded onto a data sheet. On completion of the experiment the participants were then thanked and debriefed. Results For the non-distraction condition (Rotor), the mean was 0. 05 and the median was 0. 298 whether for the distraction condition (RD) the mean it was 0. 331 seconds and the median 0. 330 In the non-distraction condition, scores ranged from 0. 225 to 0. 544 whereas on the distraction condition the minimum was 0. 233 and the maximum score was 0. 497. A significant difference was found between the reaction test study with distraction and without distraction t(54)= 5. 0; p< 0. 001). Discussion The results indicated that there is a significant difference between the reaction time with visual distraction and non-distraction.
The average reaction time with visual distraction is 0. 026 seconds longer than in the non-distraction task. In addition, the difference between the two variables was considered replicable to most of the population. It is coherent with the previous studies that suggest that sensory distraction increased reaction time. In the experiment, the main visual stimulus was presented in the direct vision of the artificial (red dot in the centre of the computer screen) and other visual distraction cues were moving around the red dot involving peripheral vision.
As Brenner and Welfare (1980) concluded, participants’ concentration on the centered stimulus might have impaired the participants’ peripheral vision which resulted in a load in processing the visual stimuli and consequently in a delay in reaction time. Ghent and Mnemonic (2010) suggested that a visual disruption occurs between two visual systems, the ventral and dorsal pathways, causing blank display. The ventral pathway detects object (identical features such as color or shape) and the dorsal pathway detects location (motion features).
In the present method design, the red dot, main stimulus was immobile and other cues’ location were shifting acting as motion features and eventually creating a blank display between the two visual systems, hence bringing delays in response time. With a standardized procedure, a randomization in attributing participants to their task, contouring variables Kept to a strict Mullen, tens true-experiment gives strong evidence that reaction time increases with visual distraction.
Although, the small size of the computer used during the experiment and the nature of the stimulus being simple, in AD and right in front of the participant (using direct vision only) can be seen as disconnected from the real world. Its ecological validity can be questioned since in the everyday life, people have to deal with AD, complex and multiple stimulus and this experiment doesn’t show how people’s reaction time is influenced in a real world situation. Also, participants had to repeat the test seven times (including the trial) which could have caused fatigue and consequently delays in reaction time.
It isn’t known to what extend this parameter was involved in the experiment results. The results found that a visual stimulus can make difference in milliseconds in someone’s reaction time, and for drivers, this is not negligible. Mummer et al. showed that visual distraction impairs drivers’ ability in being critical and in dealing with sudden events. Saber et al. (2012) stated that visual stimuli, especially in-car technology, resulted in high workload in the brain and more off-road glances.
Hence, it should not be underestimated and included in road safety measures. Visual advertising such as hoots, posters, etc. Installed near roads can distract drivers and make them loose attention especially on motorways where the high speed requires drivers to have an optimized reaction time. Road assignation should also be kept to minimal designs with clear and identifiable colors not to delay drivers’ reaction time. In general, the environment nearby the road should be kept as clean and simple as possible to avoid any visual distraction.
Further research should investigate the potential different levels of visual distraction and see if more complex and/or other types of stimuli provoke different and longer exaction times. Forms and shapes were used in this experiment, but exploring the humans reaction time when presented faces cues for instance could bring new learning. It seems that after practicing, visual distraction are start not being seen as distraction (And, 2002). Previous research also showed that experienced drivers had a faster reaction time than learners because they were using more often side mirrors (Constantinople, Chapman, Crandall, 2010).