Effect of varying 'reaction time' foreperiods upon overt performance, as measured by muscular power

Murray, David Anthony (1978) Effect of varying 'reaction time' foreperiods upon overt performance, as measured by muscular power. Masters thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland.

[English] PDF (Migrated (PDF/A Conversion) from original format: (application/pdf)) - Accepted Version Available under License - The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission. Download (35MB) [English] PDF - Accepted Version Available under License - The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission. (Original Version)

Abstract

This study examined the possible relationship between reaction time ‘foreperiod’ length and optimal performances as measured by a text of muscular power. Specifically, several questions were asked: -- 1. Would the use of 5 different foreperiods (i.e. 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 seconds) produce significantly different measures of muscular power for the same individual, using the same sub-maximal load for all trials? -- 2. Which of the 5 choses foreperiods would have a ‘no’ effect of an ‘equal’ effect upon measured muscular power? -- 3. Could various foreperiods be used in a future investigation with reasonable certainty of no inherent experimental bias being introduced into the data, which might contaminate recorded measures of muscular power? -- The ultimate problem was defined: did 24 force-velocity trials with the same sub-maximal load, but with randomly varied reaction time foreperiods, induce significantly different scores of muscular power from the same individual? This was determined by comparing optimal performances for each foreperiod. -- The alternative hypothesis (H) was tested: Any individual’s average score of muscular power, with a pre-determined sub-maximal load, will be significantly different for each of 5 different foreperiods. -- To test the alternative hypothesis, a one-group repeated measures design, involving a single test, was employed. A random sample of 7 male students was tested, using specially constructed apparatus designed to (a) measure muscular power, (b) vary foreperiods. The test consisted of 24 trials with randomly varied foreperiods; the subject was asked to respond to a green light, by kicking against a resistance as hard and fast as possible. -- Mechanical principles governed both the construction of the measuring instruments, and the calculation of scores of muscular power from observed data. (A high reliability score (r = 0.99) was obtained for the measuring technique employed.) -- The effect of the independent variable (i.e. randomly varied foreperiod) upon the dependent variable (i.e. measured muscular power) was ascertained; to compare performances with each of the 5 chosen foreperiods, an analysis of variance, utilizing a repeated measures design with two experimental variables, was undertaken. Statistical analysis (two-tailed, at the 0.05 level of significance) indicated that the treatments effects (i.e. varying foreperiods) were insignificant, since the tabled F value was considerably greater (=5.664) than the obtained value (=0.722). Consequently no reasonable evidence existed for rejecting the Null Hypothesis (H₀); the Alternative Hypothesis (H₁) could be rejected with reasonable confidence, since the low observed F value indicated a relatively small chance of making a type II error. -- Differences between subjects were highly significant (α = 0.05) with an obtained F value much larger (= 440.647) than the tabled value (= 2.214). Order of trials had no significant effect on performance (α = 0.05); the obtained F value being smaller (= 2.532) than the tabled value (= 2.719). Each of the three first-order interactions was insignificant (α = 0.05). -- It was concluded that: -- (1) Whilst an optimum foreperiod may exist for any reaction time task, results indicated that no such optimum foreperiod exists for the muscular power task outlined in this investigation. -- (2) Similar randomly varied foreperiods would not act as an intervening variable, contaminating observed scores of muscular power, in future investigations. -- It was subsequently recommended for future investigations, that various sub-maximal loads be used together with randomly varied foreperiods, when measuring simultaneously muscular power and reaction time.

Actions (login required)

View Item