China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Functional Neurology
Published in James Crossley, Functional Exercise and Rehabilitation, 2021
Perception time is the time taken for a stimulus to trigger attention and for our brain to identify the significance of that stimulus. Perception times can vary from one quarter to three quarters of a second, and can be reduced with task-specific training. Choice reaction time is the time taken between recognizing a stimulus and choosing an appropriate response.
Information processing
Published in Andrea Utley, Motor Control, Learning and Development, 2018
Lieberman et al. (2006) examined the effects of a number of environmental stressors on mood and a number of cognitive performance measures, including choice reaction time. A brief, intense, laboratory-based simulation of a multistressor environment, which included sleep loss, continuous physical activity and food deprivation, was designed to simulate military operations and the stressors suffered by woodland firefighters, disaster victims and relief workers (sustained operations [SUSOPS] scenario). Data on a number of measures were collected during both the SUSOPS scenario and a control period in 13 volunteers. Results showed that there were significant decrements in choice reaction time, and overall cognitive function declined more extensively and rapidly than physical performance.
Early detection of dementia
Published in Stephen Curran, John P. Wattis, Practical Management of Dementia, 2018
Sonja Krüger, Miguel A. Bertoni, Stephen Curran
Choice Reaction Time (CRT) is a widely used measure with an extensive body of literature. Hindmarch and Wattis36 have suggested that CRT is an indicator of sensori-motor performance, a common feature of many ‘everyday’ activities. It has also been proposed as a measure of the efficiency of attentional and response mechanisms in the information-processing chain, without the need for extensive cognitive processing.35 In this test, subjects are required to respond to a critical stimulus, and the time taken to do this is recorded. However, because the subject is presented with a number of identical stimuli, this also provides a measure of attentional monitoring abilities. A number of studies have demonstrated significant reductions in reaction times in patients with AD compared with controls,37,38 and because of its ease of use it should be investigated further as a screening test. These tests are summarised in Table 4.3.
Arterial Stiffness and Cardiorespiratory Fitness Are Associated With Cognitive Function in Older Adults
Published in Behavioral Medicine, 2022
Justin R. Mason, Gershon Tenenbaum, Salvador Jaime, Nelson Roque, Arun Maharaj, Arturo Figueroa
The neuropsychological tests were performed on a 15-inch touchscreen monitor with a display refresh rate of 60 Hz positioned at ≈60 cm distance from the participant’s eyes. Simple and choice reaction time were recorded via the Deary-Liewald task.38 The mental rotation test and Stroop test were run using E-Prime (Psychology Software Tools, Inc.) and Psychology Experiment Building Language,39 respectively. The cognitive battery took approximately 2 hours to complete and tests were provided in the following order: (a) simple reaction time, evaluating processing speed; (b) choice reaction time, evaluating psychomotor speed; (c) Useful Field of View®, evaluating processing speed, divided attention, and selective attention; (d) Trail Making Test part A, evaluating visual scanning and psychomotor speed; (e) Trail Making Test part B, evaluating cognitive flexibility of executive function; (f) mental rotation test, evaluating figural spatial skill; and (g) Stroop test, evaluating inhibition control and selective attention (see Supplementary File 1 for description of cognitive assessments and screening measures).38,40–44
Cognitive and skill performance of individuals at sitting versus standing workstations: a quasi-experimental study
Published in International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 2022
Matin Rostami, Mohsen Razeghi, Hadi Daneshmandi, Jafar Hassanzadeh, Alireza Choobineh
Reaction time calculated via the elementary cognitive task (ECT) has been one of the most comprehensive studies in psychology [43]. ECTs are performed for the assessment of simple cognitive tasks. Performing these primary tasks requires little attention. ECTs are basically related to the speed of information processing [44]. In general, ECTs require people to evaluate and react to simple visual stimuli [45]. The ‘advanced reaction time’ software measures two main types of reaction time (i.e., simple and choice) with an accuracy of 1 ms [43]. Simple reaction time is usually defined as the time required for the subject to detect the presence of a stimulus [46]. For choice reaction, on the other hand, the participant is required to give different answers to two different stimuli. Reaction time is more affected by inheritance (especially simple reaction time), but internal factors (such as intelligence) and environmental factors (such as number of stimuli, fatigue) can have a significant effect on reaction time (especially choice reaction time) [47]. Therefore, in this study, the ‘advanced reaction time’ test was used to measure choice reaction time.
Top-down Inhibitory Motor Control Is Preserved in Adults with Developmental Coordination Disorder
Published in Developmental Neuropsychology, 2021
William Mayes, Judith Gentle, Irene Parisi, Laura Dixon, José van Velzen, Ines Violante
Action initiation in response to a presented stimulus is commonly measured using Choice reaction time tasks (Miller & Low, 2001) to provide a measurement of reaction time and accuracy, and as an index of bottom-up information processing. When considering how inhibitory control regulates action initiation, a distinction should be made between action restraint and action cancellation processes. Action restraint refers to the inhibition of automatic responses that have not yet been initiated, whilst action cancellation refers to the rapid termination of movement after initiation (Dambacher et al., 2014). Importantly, action cancellation as a function of top-down inhibitory control, requires additional executive resources (Aron, 2011; Schachar et al., 2007; Verbruggen & Logan, 2008a). Distinguishing these in DCD is important, as it can provide additional information regarding the source of inhibitory deficits. A common task to evaluate action restraint is the “Go/No-Go” task, in which participants are required to respond to frequent “Go” trials, and to suppress responses during infrequent “No-Go” trials (Gomez, Ratcliff, & Perea, 2007). Several studies have investigated action restraint processes in DCD using this paradigm (Cousins & Smyth, 2003; Querne et al., 2008; Thornton et al., 2018) and found increased total error rates relative to control participants. There is far less evidence for the presence of an action cancellation deficit in DCD.