l

HI!

v
‘

"mu

Will

ll

‘

 

§§é IIIHI

Eafia'rmcm mmms umfl amm‘sw

AND MGVEFc‘EEE'vi? "z’éffifi

'i’i‘wsis {as the» 339m” 6% 5%. A.
fi-‘ii’ifiE-éé‘fififi STATfi Ui‘éfi‘e’ERSfiY

mwm 3&3 $3.. aanéax

on“

W5

 

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF INITIAL
ELECTRICAL STIMULUS UPON REACTION
AND MOVEMENT TIME

by
Lawrence R. Daniels

A THESIS

Smeitted to the College of Education of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied
Science in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation

1951

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

The author wishes to eXpress his sincere gratitude
to Dr. Wayne Van Huss for his help and guidance in this
study.

The writer wishes to express his thanks to the
students from Williamston High School, to Dick Nelson,
John Hertz and all who have helped make this study
possible by contributing their time and effort.

I wish to express my appreciation to my wife
Suirley for her understanding, encouragement and

helpfulness.

L.R.D.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem
Importance of the Study
Definition of terms Used
Limitations of the Study
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . .
Test Environment . . .
Test Apparatus . . . .
Testing Procedures . .
IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . .
Analysis of Data . . .
Plan of Analysis . . .
Reaction Time . . . .
Movement Time . . . .
Total Time . . . . .
Discussion of Results .
v. mummy, coucLusxou 5, AND

almmary O O O 0
Conclusions . .
Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY . .

APPENDIX . . . .

111

O

O O O O O O O

O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O 0 O O O O
C O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O 0 O O O
O O O C O O

RECOMMENDATIONS

TABLE
I.

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Analysis of Variance: Reaction Time
EXperimental (A) vs Control (C)
Groups, Experimental (A-Electric)
vs Experimental (B—Non-Electric)
Groupseeeeeeeeeeeeeee 22

Analysis of Variance: Movement Time
Experimental (A) vs Control (C)
Groups, Experimental (A-Electric)
vs Experimental (B-Non-Electric)
Groups e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 25

Analysis of Variance: Total Time
EXperimental (A) vs Control (C)
Groups, Experimental (A-Electric)
vs Experimental (B-Non-Electric)
Group 8 O O O O O C O O C O O O C O 28

Reaction Time: Control "C“, Groups
“B" and ”A" . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Movement Time: Control “C“, Groups
”B“and“A'........o.. 39

Total Time: Control "C", Groups ”B“
and “A“ O O O O O C O O O O O O O 40

iv

m-L 3

' A'r“*"-::-c-I.Mw

———.~—_,.... b“”_‘."' a. "

 

FIGURE
I.
II.
III.
IV.

LIST OF FIGURES

O O O O O

The Apparatus . . . . . . .

Reaction Time: Mean Frequency Scores
Movement Time: Mean Frequency Scores

Total Time: Mean Frequency Scores .

PAGE
16
23
26
29

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF INITIAL
ELECTRICAL STIMULUS UZPON REACTION
AND MOVEMENT TIME

by

Lawrence R. Daniels

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the College of Education of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied
Science in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS

Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation

Approved a (/6!

 

Lawrence R. Daniels

ABSTRACT,

Statement of the Problem. To determine the effect of
low grade initial electric shock administered as the initial
stimulus and continued through the completion of movement
upon reaction and movement time.

Methodology. Sixteen students from Williamston High
School ranging in age from eleven to fourteen served as
subjects. They were divided into two groups A and C.

Group A was then designated as an experimental group.
Group A received an electrical and auditory stimulus
simultaneously while group C was maintained as a control
group and received only the auditory stimulus.

SUbjects were given twenty-five trials two times
weekly over a three month period. For the first fifteen
trials the subjects (Group A) were stimulated by a thirty
volt electrical shock and by a auditory stimulus (buzzer).
These trials were designated as preliminary trials. During
trials sixteen through twenty the subjects (designated as
group B) responded only to auditory stimulus. During
trials twenty-one through twenty-five the subjects (designated
group A) were stimulated by a simultaneous thirty volt initial
electrical shock and the buzzer. These trials were averaged

weekly.

Lawrence R. Daniels

2.

Group C weekly average was determined from trials

fifteen through twenty-five.

To study retention the subjects were given a two

week break tnen were retested with only the auditory

stimulus (buzzer).

Reaction and movement time was measured by two

electrical chronoscopes calibrated in milliseconds.

All of the data were statistically analyzed using

the analysis of variance technique.

Conclusions.

1.

2.

3.

Reaction Time: Training with a low voltage

initial electrical stimulus decreases the time
necessary for the subject to react.

Movement Time: Training with a low voltage

initial electrical stimulus continued though the
movement does not alter movement time significantly.
Total Time (reaction and movement time): Differs
significantly when a group trained on low grade
electric shock is tested with and without shock.

This is attributed to a cumulative effect of the

[two variables.

Retention Time: During two weeks of inactivity
reaction, movement and total times do not shift

significantly.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

EXperiments concerning the study of reaction and
movement time, using various kinds of stimuli, have been
carried on for more than one hundred years. However,
much of this experimentation has used varying types of
stimuli only as a matter of greatest conveniences, for
the purpose of cross-checking, or to study reenforcement
and motivation.

Henry's1 recent studies concerning reaction time
have established that low voltage shock when administered
as a secondary stimulus can decrease-the time necessary
for the subject to react.

The hypothesis of this study is that training with
an initial electrical stimulus produces a faster reaction
time than training with an initial auditory stimulus and
that such differences are retained for several weeks after
cessation of training. The effect of initial electrical

stimulus as related to movement time will be considered.

 

1 .

Franklin M. Henry, "Increase in Speed of
Movement by Motivation and by Transfer of Motivated
Improvement“ , Research Quarterly, 22: 219-228 (May 1951)

Statement of the Problem

This study was conducted to determine the effect
of a low grade electric shock administered as the initial
stimulus and continued through the completion of movement
upon reaction and movement time in boys eleven to fourteen

years of age.
Importance of the Study

Henry's? evidence_has indicated that electrical
shock administered as a secondary stimulus can cause
definite improvement in reaction timing. Independent
confirmation of this study is needed because of the
importance of these findings. Further, study is needed
to determine the effect of the same type of electrical
shock administered as initial stimulus. _

If reaction and movement times can be improved
by such training, and the improvement retained, it
means that there must be some change brought about in
the nerve pathways. The implications to sports and other

activities involving rapid reaction and movement are many.
Definition of Terms Used

Reaction Time. For the purpose of this study

 

21b1d.

 

3.

reaction time is defined as that measured interval of time
between the onset of the stimulus and the beginning of the
action required for movement time. This was calibrated at
l/lOO of.a second.

Movement Time. Movement time is that time required
to move the right hand sixteen inches from the release
key directly forward breaking the beam of an electric eye.
This was calibrated at l/lOOO of a second.

Electrical Shock. Electrical shock is a thirty volt
shock administered to the subject's left arm through
electrodes fastened to the arm by means of a perforated
rubber band.

Buzzer. The buzzer is an auditory sound of
undetermined intensity given by a battery device.

Initial Stimulus for Groups B and C. Initial
stimulus for Groups B and C consisted of the buzzer of
undetermined auditory intensity.

Initial Stimulus for Group A. Initial stimulus
for GrOup A consisted of the thirty volt electrical
shock.

Mean Frequency.~Mean frequency for group B is
determined by the sum of the trials sixteen through
twenty divided by five. Mean frequency for group A was
determined by the sum of the trials twenty-one through
twenty-five divided by five. Mean frequency for group C
was determined by the sum of trials fifteen through

twenty-five divided by ten. Individual frequencies were

totaled weekly to determine group mean frequency.

Limitations of the study

In testing reaction and movement time in this
study only the right hand was used in a forward motion.
A thirty volt electrical charge only as compared with
an auditory sound of undetermined intensity was used as
the means of stimulus. Retesting to determine retention

was conduction only once after a lapse of two weeks.

CRAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A study of reaction time was first undertaken by
astronomers ( as early as 1822) for the purpose of determin-
ing individual differences in recording times of stellar
transits. A short time later (1850) with the publication by
Helmholtz3 of the first simple reaction time measurements,
physiologists became interested in reaction time as a
measurement of the speed of nerve conduction.

This interest spread to psychologists and resulted
in experimentation such as that reported by Wundt in his
Grundzerge der Physiologischen Psychologie and further led
to additional studies such as those by Donders and deJaagers
on discrimination and choice“.

At successive stages during this early period major
interest centered around, (1) time relationships and their
variations with quality, intensity, and complexity of stimuli
(1865-1888), (2) the effect of the direction of attention
upon reaction times (1888-1905). (3) the introspective
analysis or the reaction (1905-1912). Present day interest
in reaction time seems not to be limited to any particular

field, but ranges widely over all aspects of the problem.

 

3Helmholtz, (original reference not given) as cited
in V. A. C. Henmon, ”Professor Cattell's Work on Reaction
Time,“ Archives of Psycholo , 4 (1913-1915), p. 1

A.Ibide’ ppe 1'3e

6.

In 1865-68 after experimentations of their own and
study of the experimentation of their peers Donders and
de Jaager5 pointing out the difficulties involved in the
measurement of reaction time, stated that the reaction
method is essentially modified by the kind of stimulus
employed, as well as by the mode of reaction and degree of
attention. Thus the original purpose of their eXperiments
dealing with the speed of nervous conduction as measured by
the reactionwas proved too variable to be valid. Is is
significant to note that in later experiments these two men
used two different stimuli for the purpose of the study of
discrimination and choice in order to isolate and measure
by the reaction method the time of complex mental processes.
Two methods were used to isolate the processes. In Donders
B method two stimuli were employed and reaction was made
with the right hand if one stimulus appeared and with the
left hand if the other appeared. In Donders C method two
stimuli were presented and reaction was made if one of the
two appeared and no reaction if the other appeared. A method
consisted of simple reaction. Donders believed that the C
method added to simple reaction (A method) the process of
discrimination and he concluded that time of discrimination
could be determined by simple subtraction while in B method

there was involved discrimination and choice and that time

 

5Ibld

O

 

7.

of choice could be determined by subtracting the time by the
C method from that by the B method.6 There are, however, no
(published studies indicating that they carried on any study
directed to the discovery of the degree of difference which
the various kinds of stimuli caused in reaction time.

The early numbers of the Philosophische Studieg
are largely given over to reports of experiments on the
relationship of the stimulus to sensation and to reaction
time measurements, however, the stimulus in these studies
was considered only as a means of control and isolation in
determining the factors involved in reaction.

7 Hall and Kries7 (1879) in their studies of stimulus
centered on the response effected by the place of stimulus
but it seemed not to consider the same effects as infuenced
by the various kinds of stimuli to further analyze their
data in relation to type of stimulation.

Cattell, one of the first experimenters to reduce
the scources of error involved in earlier experiments due
to control and mode of stimulation as well as lack of
regard for non typical systems, is important to this study
because of his regard for the influence of the quality and
intensity of the stimuli as well as for his systematic
approach, somewhat lacking in earlier experiments. His

observations along with Kries, Aurebach, Rene and Buccola

 

61bid., p. 3.

71bid.

7.

of choice could be determined by subtracting the time by the
C method from that by the B method.6 There are, however, no
'published studies indicating that they carried on any study
directed to the discovery of the degree of difference which
the various kinds of stimuli caused in reaction time.

IThe early numbers of the Philosophische Studigg
are largely given over to reports of experiments on the
relationship of the stimulus to sensation and to reaction
time measurements, however, the stimulus in these studies
was considered only as a means of control and isolation in
determining the factors involved in reaction.

A Hall and Kries7 (1879) in their studies of stimulus
centered on the response effected by the place of stimulus
but it seemed not to consider the same effects as infuenced
by the various kinds of stimuli to further analyze their
data in relation to type of stimulation. ’

Cattell, one of the first experimenters to reduce
the scources of error involved in earlier experiments due
to control and mode of stimulation as well as lack of
regard for non typical systems, is important to this study
because of his regard for the influence of the quality and
intensity of the stimuli as well as for his systematic
approach, somewhat lacking in earlier experiments. His

observations along with Kries, Aurebach, Rene and Buccola

 

61b1de’ P. 3e

71bid.

stated that reaction time to electrical stimuli became
shorter with increasing intensity but these observations were
incidental as were the variations reported in the intensity of
auditory stimuli by Exner and in visual stimuli by Wundt.8
Berger and Cattell made limited further experiments
with visual, auditory, and electrical stimuli using eight
intensities of visual stimulation, four of auditory stimu-
lation and four intensities of electrical stimulation.
The limited results showed that the greater intensity of
each individual stimulus caused shorter reaction time.
However, no comparison seems to have been made between the
stimuli themselves as individual units affecting reaction
time. Cattell's further studies with Dolly (1893) used
both electrical and tactile stimulus to determine the
effect of intensity. They again concluded that the reaction
time to electrical and tactile stimulation decreases with
increasing intensity. Still, as in previous studies con-
ducted by these men and others no specific comparisons of
the two kinds of stimuli are indicated.9
G. R. Wells10 was one of the first to investigate

the influence of duration of visual and auditory stimuli

on the time required for simple reactions. His auditory

 

81bld.. p. 12.
91b1d., p. 26.

10G. R. Wells, 'The Influence of Stimulus Duration on
Reaction Time,” ngchological Monographs, 15 (1913, p. 69.

9.

stimulus was supplied by the sound of an electric buzzer to
which two subjects gave response under five compared durations.
These trials completed, he experimented with a visual stimulus,
that of a plaster surface with the brightness of 0.41 candles
per square meter. Testing six subjects at five hundred diff-
erent times with ten degrees of the stimuli he concluded that
the degree or intensity of stimuli does have an effect upon
the subject. While he used neither electrical shock nor
measured the results of the two stimuli against each other
he is important as one of the first to study intensity,
which is in effect a different kind of stimuli as the degree
is changed, and because his work led others to investigate
this problem of degree and intensity.

Eight years later Wells, with Kelley and Murphey11
became interested in the relation between the intensity
of the stimulus and the ratio of the reaction time to
light with respect to the reaction time to sound. In
experimentation the intensities of the visual and aud-
itory stimuli were not measured, but study concentrated
on checking the ratio-relationship between two stimuli,
light and sound.' These joint experiments concluded
that the relation between reaction.time to sound and

light is dependent upon the magnitude of the stimuli.

 

11G. R. Well, a. M. Kelley, and e. Murphey,
”Comparative Simple Reactions to Light and Sound ,"
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4 (1921), pp. 57-62.

10.

The method of eXperimentation involved the use of
thirteen subjects, using Klopsteg's method of timing and
allowing an interval separating the warning signal from
the stimulus 1.2 seconds in half of the cases and increasing
the interval to about 3.1 seconds in the other half of the
cases.

The ratio between the median reaction time to light
and the median for sound were, (1) eleven untrained observers
1.15 seconds, (2) subject K 1.34 seconds, and (3) subject
W 1.45 seconds. The correlation between the ratios and the
median reaction time to sound in the untrained group was
found to be 0.52 seconds. Those with a quicker reaction to
sound tended toward a relatively slower reaction to light.

Woodrow12 compared variation in the preparatory
interval and changes in the intensity of stimuli as second
order differences in simple reactions to light, sound and
touch of “moderate” but unmeasured intensities. He found
that the average effect was about eleven percent greater
for sound than for touch and about eleven percent greater
for light than for sound. He concluded however, that the
differences lay not in the various kinds of stimuli but
rather in the degree of attention given by the subjects
to the mode of stimuli.

 

12H. Woodrow, “The Measurements of Attention",

ngchological Bulletin, 20 (1923). p. 565

11.

In 1923 a study of the works of these men and of
others led Johnson to the hypotheses that ”the speed of
reaction depends first on the adequacy of the stimulus
as to intensity, area, duration to excite the sensory
receptors“.13

Lanier14 in his studies of the interrelations or
speed in various activities used three kinds of stimulus
in his first experiment to measure simple reaction time
and in his conclusions points out that there may be a
varying effect on nerve impulses from the higher motor
centers by variations in the scource and nature of the
stimulus, but the author knows of no reported further
studies carried on by him to answer the question posed
by this experiment.

With the work of Henry interest in experimentation
concerning reaction times expanded to the consideration
of improvement in reaction time effected by motivation.

Henry15 in early experimentation studying moti-

vation used an apparatus which measured simple reaction

 

13H. M. Johnson, "Reaction Time Measurements",

ngchological Bglletin, 20 (1923), p. 565.

14Lyle H. Lanier, “The Interrelation of Speed of

Reaction Measurements”, Journal of Experimental Psychology,
17 (April, 1954), pp. 371-399.

15Frenklin M. Henry, "Increase in Speed of Movement
by Motivation and by Transfer of Motivated Improvement',
Research Quarterly, 22 (May 1951), pp. 219-228.

12.

time (finger press), speed of coordinated movement (snatch-
ing a ball), and speed for a less complicated movement
(treadle press). An adjustable electronic delay circuit
provided for administering a mild electric shock for slow
reponses, after the initial visual stimuli were used.

Henry concluded as a result of these experiments
that regardless of the explanation adOpted motivation
due to administering electric shock during the period
of a reaction or movement that is slower than that of an
individual's own average reaction has a significant
facilitating influence in speeding up the reaction or
movement.

In a later experiment concerned with two problems
the relationship of reaction time and speed of movement
in individuals and the role of sensory stimuli that
function to improve speed during the slower half of his
responses to a reaction signal, Henry15 used sixty
college men as subjects dividing them into groups of ten.
One group was used as a control; the others were moti-
vated by dim or bright light, electric shock plus bright
light, or sound. Henry found that all groups improved in
reaction time and most of them in movement time by

whatever stimulus received.

 

16Franklin Henry, "Independence of Reaction and
Movement Times and Ehuivalence of Sensory Movtivators of

Faster Response“, Research Quarterly, 23 (1952), pp. 43-53.

13.

Significant to this study he does state that the
effects of light plus shock were of questionable signi-
ficance but on analyzing the data as a whole feels that
it fails to yield any evidence of a differential effect
as between the various motivating stimuli.

Carrying the study of motivation further Hipplel7
studied sixty boys in equal numbers of white and negro
race using experimental and control groups to determine
if racial differences were present with respect to the
motivating agent, and concluded that the white signi-
ficantly increased their speed of response and their
muscle tension while the improvement was not signi-

ficant enough to be obvious in the negro subjects.

 

17Joseph E. Hipple, 'Racial Differences in the
Influence of Motivation on Muscular Tension, Reaction
Time and Speed of Movement", Research Quarterly, 25
(1954). pp.297-305.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

For the purpose of this study which was conducted
to determine the effect of low grade shock administered
as the initial stimulus and continued through the
completion of movement upon reaction and movement time
sixteen male students were used as the subjects in this
study. SUbjects ages ranged from eleven years old to
fourteen years of age, the subjects were from the
Williamston High School, Williamston, Michigan.

Tests were administered to these subjects over
a three month period, beginning in February and ending
in early May of 1960. SUbjects were tested twice a
week generally on Mondays and Tuesdays between the
hours of 12:30 and 2:30 P. M.

These sixteen students were chosen from a group
of thirty-five. The original thirty-five were all given
a simple auditory reaction and movement test consisting
of twenty-five trials with the mean score taken from
the last ten trials. Those students having the lowest
reaction time scores were chosen as subjects. The
range in reaction time varied from 224 milliseconds to
457 milliseconds. Movement Time varied from 91 milli-

seconds to 304 milliseconds.

15.

The final sixteen were next divided into two
groups A and C. Group A received electrical and auditory
stimulus, while Group C was maintained as a control
group and received only auditory stimulus.

The subjects were separated into groups on the
basis of their reaction scores. SUbjects, l, 4, 5, 8,
9, l2, l3, and 16 in reaction time measurement were
designated to group A while subjects ranking 2, 3, 6,
7, 10, 14, and 15 comprised group C. For all intents
and purposes the subjects were matched pairs.

Group A subjects were given twenty-five trials
two times weekly for seven weeks over a period of
three months. For the first fifteen trials the subjects
was stimulated by a thirty volt electrical charge and
by an auditory stimulus (buzzer). These trials were
designated as preliminary trials. During trials sixteen
through twenty the subjects (then designated Group B)
responded only to auditory stimulus. These trials were
averaged weekly. During trials twenty-one through
twenty-five the subjects (designated Group A) were
stimulated by a simultaneous thirty volt electrical
charge and a buzzer. These five trials were averaged

weekly.

16.

L 7 I

./

 

 

4‘..- pen-w.“

Electric g}; — , . __ ~ — ~ :1 7
E12 / 5 /fl 4
, , f /
.‘l ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

/.

7’ ‘1

16“ /y
Z /l,‘;
fl
*— f “Reac tion Key

I _ .22--..

 

 

 

 

Figure l The Apparatus

Group C was given twenty-five trials two times
weekly for seven weeks over a period of three months. These
subjects were stimulated with the auditory stimulus (buzzer).
The first fifteen trials were designated as preliminary trials.
The weekly average was determined from the trials sixteen to
twenty-five.

As a study of retention after the three month period
was completed and immediately fellowing the subjects seventh
week both groups A, B and C were given a test consisting of
twenty-five trials stimulated only by the auditory stimulus
(buzzer) with the average taken from test fifteen to twenty
for Group B and for Froup A tests twenty-one to twenty-five.

Group C was averaged from trials fifteen to twenty-five.

17.

Again on the tenth week groups A, B and C were given
a test consisting of twenty-five trials stimulated only by
the auditory stimulus (buzzer) with the average taken from
test fifteen to twenty for group B and for group A tests
twenty-one to twenty-five. Group C was averaged from trials
fifteen to twenty-five.

Test Environment. All test were administered in a
room 10' x 10'. The testing apparatus was set upon a wooden~
table. The subject to be tested stood at the table facing
the apparatus at all times, with his back to the Operator.
There was little outside distraction. The room was generally
warm and humid.

Test Apparatus. The apparatus consisted of a stimulus
unit, a response unit, and a recording unit.

Both the auditory (buzzer) and the electrical (30
volt shock) stimuli were supplied by the control box,

A reaction key and an electrical eye placed sixteen
inches apart, mounted on a twenty by five inch board, com-
prised the response unit. See figure 1.

The recording unit consisted of two chronoscOpes.
ChronoscOpe A was graduated in 0.01 seconds and chrono-

scOpe B was graduated in 0.001 seconds. Henry18 has

 

18Franklin Henry, “Independence of Reaction and
Movement Times and Equivalence of Sensory Movtivators of
Faster Response", Research Quarterly, 23 (1952), pp. 43-53.

18.

demonstrated that chronoscOpe with an accuracy of 0.01
seconds is adequate for reaction and movement time measure.

The apparatus functioned as follows: Approximately
two seconds after the preparatory signal of a bell was
given to the subject to be tested the stimulus regulating
Aswitch was thrown by the Operator. This caused chronoscOpe
A to begin recording stimultaneously with the advent of
the release of the auditory or electrical stimulus. When
the subject released the reaction time key (which he had
depressed at the sound of the bell) chronoscope A made
the final recording and chronoscOpe B started recording
movement time until the subject passed his hand through
the beam of the electric eye, causing the final recording
by chronoscOpe B. The reaction time for each trial was
read from chronoscope A and the movement time for the
same trial was read from the chronoscOpe B.

Testing Procedures. The subject was standing
before the apparatus situated on a table, and was
instructed to place his middle finger of the right
hand (only right handed subjects were considered for
this testing) upon the reaction key. He was instructed
to depress the reaction key as far as possible at the
sound of the bell.

If the stimulus was to be electrical the thirty
volt charge was supplied through two electrodes attached

19.

to a perforated rubber hand one inch wide which encircled
the left arm, allowing the electrodes to touch the skin
on the back and inside of the arm.

When he received the auditory or electrical
stimulus the subject responded by releasing the reaction
key and moved his right hand forward through the electric
eye. He was instructed to react and move as quickly as

possible.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
ANALYSIS OF DATA

This study was designed to determine the effect of
an initial low grade electrical stimulus upon reaction time.
The effect of this stimulus as related to movement time was
considered.

Sixteen male junior high school students ranging in
age from eleven to fourteen years of age were used as
subjects for the study. These were divided into two groups,
A and C. Group A simultaneously received a thirty volt,
electrical stimulus and an auditory stimulus supplied by a
buzzer. Group C served as a control group and received only
the auditory stimulus of the buzzer. The same buzzer was
used throughout-the experiment.

Group A subjects were given twenty-five trials two
times weekly for seven weeks. For the first fifteen trials
the subjects were simultaneously administered the initial
stimuli consisting of the electrical charge and the buzzer.
These trials were used for training and as preliminary trials
prior to measurement. During trials sixteen through twenty
the subjects (then designated group B) were administered
the initial auditory stimulus only. These trials were

averaged weekly and plotted accordingly. (See Figure II.

21.

Reaction Time). During trials twenty—one through twenty-five
the subjects (designated group A) were initially stimulated
by the electrical charge and the buzzer. These trials were
averaged and plotted.

Upon receiving the initial stimulus the subjects of
groups A, B and C were required to release the reaction
key as fast as possible and move the right hand through
the electric eye which was located sixteen inches directly
forward. (See Figure 1) Both reaction time and movement
time were recorded by chronoscOpes. The weekly mean scores

for groups A, B and C were used in the statistical analysis.19
PLAN OF ANALYSI 3

The analysis will be divided into three parts;
Reaction Time, Movement Time and Total Times. Under
each of these heading groups A vs B and groups A vs C
are presented with the analysis of variance results and
appropriate graphs. To determine if the training effect
was retained during the two week lay off between the eighth
and tenth week the ”t“ test was used.
Reaction Time.

Results of the statistical analysis between A vs C

(See Figure II, Table I) shows the groups differed significantly

 

19Cyril H. Goulden, Methods of Statistical Analysis,
(New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.). pp. 63-101. (1956).

TABLE I

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: REACTION TIME

Experimental (A) vs Control (0) Groups

22.

 

 

 

 

 

Source of fiance Mm of W
Squares
Total 111 765.09 - - - - - - -
Group 1 299.91 299.91 l38.2l**
Weeks 6 41.68, 6.95 3.20**
Individuals 14 231.30 16.52 7.61**
Weeks x Groups 6 10.06 1.68 .77
Error 84 182.14 2.14 - - -

 

Experimental (A- Electric) vs Experimental (B-Non-Electric) Groups

 

——

Total

Groups

Weeks

Individuals

Weeks x Groups
Group X Individuals
Weeks X Individuals
Error (G X W x I)

111
1
6
7
6
7

42
42

8,412.85

152.29
42.16
212.20
10.20
9.90
108.29

7,877.81

152.29
7.03
30.31
1.70
1.41
2.58
187.57

.81

.037
.161
.009
.007
.013

 

**P8 (.01
*P = < .05

L 28mm 2
2

zmwm MNMDSMEOM mOQmMm

 

Ul‘l

. . Odomd w

x H Queue 0

 

Milliseconds
'\
T

 

 

 

 

.: - a: h .
Hnwwwvw Hmd mmw mam saw mdw mew new may HOAW

24.

as a result of the treatment although their fiesponse was not
consistent as is indicated by the non-significant Groups X‘
Weeks interaction. The significance in Weeks and individuals
was expected since they were training and the Individuals
were different. These results are in accord with Henry's?0
findings and indicate that reaction time may be improved by
an initial low grade electrical stimulus. -

In the analysis of A vs B no significant differences
were found indicating that following training with electric
shock the response differences when no shock was administered
were attributable to chance.

Groups 0 and the experimentals were studied for
retention of the training effects. Since no shock was used
the two experimental groups' data were the same as they
were for the same subjects. The differences between week
eight and week ten for each of the group were used in
calculating the "t“. This was insignificant (t .268 P .05)
indicating the retention of the training effects was not
significantly different between the experimental and control
groups.

Movement Time

In the analysis of A vs 0 (See the table II and Figure

III) only the group X weeks interaction was significant. This

difference is not clear cut in figure III and would appear to

 

20Henry, loc. cit.

TABLE II

25.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: MOVEMENT TIME

Experimental (A) vs Control (0) Groups

 

 

 

Source of Variance D. Fa Sum of E. M. S. F
Shuares
Total 111 84,745.56 - - - - - - -
Group 1 1,720.72 1,720.72 2.69
Weeks 6 1,146.52 191.08 .299
Individuals 14 15,850.27 1,132.16 1.77
Weeks X Groups 6 12,380.47 2,063.41 3.23**'
Error 84 53.647.60 638.66 - - -

 

Experimental (A- Electric) vs Experimental (B-Non-Electric) Groups

 

 

 

Total 111 106,400.49 - v - r - ' '
Group 1 139.89 139.89 .269
Weeks 6 19,740.30 3,290.05 6.342**
Individuals 7 25,284.13 3,610.02 6.963**
Weeks x Groups 6 1,406.92 234.49 .452
Groups X Individuals 7 2,023.03 289.00 .557
Weeks x Individuals 42 36,018.56 857.58 1.653
Error (G X W X I) 42 21,785.66 518.71 - - -
**P=< .01

*P=( .05

Milliseconds

.‘
I
C.)

C)
1‘

.n K \4.

er. .. \— I.
J \nl.

I . .‘ vly

 

 

1- ....,e..10

P.

. \a_ .
I! All .\|.-'I:I

\-

,\ o-I'lll VOC‘JII‘m‘
a, A .3 . a
-....\.r.. s tits..,.v‘.. (-
4.0.1.0.!4‘. '-

1 .I

..II\ 0 r . To

0.1.4

It...

71..

 

 

“.1
r.

1v“
l

1”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

J 1

(3

27.

be due to chance fluctuation.

The analysis of A vs B reflected no differences in
groups. The weeks significance was expected probably reflecting
a conditioning to the movement without Shock, however, the
individual responsed differently to the absence of shock.

The ‘t‘ calculated to compare the groups on retention
of movement time improvement was insignificant (t==.352)
indicating the differences is contributable to chance.

Tptal Time

Results of the statistical analysis of A vs C (See
Figure IV, Table III) indicate that groups differed signifi-
cantly. This was expected because of carry-over from reaction
time. The significance in weeks and individuals was expected
since there was training and the individuals were different.

In the analysis of A vs B the group significance was
eXpected due to the summary effect of reaction and movement
times. Weeks and individuals showed the expected signifi-
cances. This was proably due in part to the conditioning
without shock. However, the individuals reacted differently
to the absences of shock.

The ”t“ calculated to compare the group on retention
of total time improvement was insignificant, (t==.428)
indicating that the differences may be attributed to chance.

TABLE III

28.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: TOTAL TIME

Experimental (A) vs Control (0) Groups

 

 

 

Source of Variance D. F. sum of E. M. S. F
Squares

Total 111 187,276.25 - - - - - - -
Group 1 45,927.00 45,927.00 57.547**
Weeks 6 16,414.87 2,735.81 3.428**
Individuals 14 54,843.52 3,917.39, 4.906**
Weeks X Groups 6 3,052.63 508.77 .633
Error 84 67,038.23 798.07 - - -

 

Experimental (A-Electric) vs Experimental (B-Non-Electric) Groups

 

 

 

Total 111 188,795.92 - - - - - - -
Group 1 18,283.58 18,283.58 23.57**
Weeks 6 17,002.35 2,833.73 3.65“
Individuals 7 68,023.53 9,717.65 12.53**
Weeks X Groups 6 466.30 77.72 .10
Groups X Individuals 7 3,518.24 502.61 .65
Weeks X Individuals 42 48,919.54 1,164.75 1.50
Error (0 X W X I) 42 32,582.38 775.77 - - -
**P=<.Ol

*P =< .05

mfifi

Milliseconds

umo

mmm

Be _

2
T

(A
\‘l
01
l

 

L

wwodwm H4

 

 

 

 

 

amoeba p.

’

amend a

M 95058

 

 

wadumw

.J
‘

30.

Discussion of Results

Before the introduction of electrical shock all groups
were adjusted equally for reaction time.

With the introduction of electrical shock group A mean
frequency for reaction time was 196 milliseconds. Control
group 0 mean frequency was 228 milliseconds. Group B mean
frequency was 219 milliseconds. This indicates that the
introduction of a initial low voltage electrical shock can
decrease the time necessary for reactfon. (See Figure 11,
weeks one to seven).

Mean frequency for movement time for Group A was 145
milliseconds. Control group 0 showed a mean frequency of 152
milliseconds while group B mean frequency was 147 as indicated
in figure III. This indicates only slight improvement which
is unaccounted for in this analysis.

Total time mean frequency was 341 milliseconds for
group A, 381 milliseconds for control group C and 366 milli-
seconds for group B.

Statistical analysis indicated a statistically signifi-
cant decrease in reaction time, but an insignificant improve-
ment in movement time as the result of a low grade initial
electrical shock.

In a study of retention from week eight to week ten
mean frequency for reaction time for groups A and B was 208
milliseconds, while group C was 216 milliseconds as indicated

in figure II. Mean frequency for movement time for groups A

31.

and B was 143 milliseconds while group 0 indicated a mean
frequency of 178 milliseconds as indicated in figure III.
Total time mean frequency for groups A and B was 350 milli-
seconds and 394 milliseconds for group C, as indicated in
figure IV. Statistically insignificant changes were found
after a two week lay-off from training. There is a need

to extend this period to determine how long the retention

period is.

CHAPTER V

!

SJMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
It was the purpose of this study to determine the

effects of a low grade electrical stimulus upon reaction
time and upon movement time.

For the purposes of this study sixteen male subjects
were divided into two groups; a control and an experimental
group. The initial stimulus which was used as the basis of
the study was a thirty volt electrical shock as compared
with an auditory stimulus (buzzer) of undetermined intensity.

The data were analyzed using the analysis of variance
technique. The experimental group receiving electric shock
during training significantly improved in reaction time over
and above the training improvement of the control group.
With electric shock training, however, there was no diff-
erence in reaction time whether the subjects were tested
with or without shock.

The experimental and control groups did not differ
significantly in movement time.

In the total time analysis the experimental group
differed significantly from the control, indicating im-
provement attributable to electric shock training. These _

differences were due to the reaction time or to the

 

33.

cumulative effects of both reaction and movement times. The
cumulative effect seems important because in the comparison
of the two experimental group's data, the differences were
sigificant even though individually reaction and movement
time had not been significant.

Conslusions

1. Reaction Time: Training with a low voltage initial
electrical stimulus decreases the time necessary for the
subject to react.

2. Movement Time: Training with a low voltage initial
electrical stimulus continued though the movement does not
alter movement time significantly.

3. Total Time (reaction and movement times): Differs
significantly when a group trained on low grade electric
shock is tested with and without the shock. This is attributed
to a cumulative effect of the two variables.

4. Retention Time: During two weeks of inactivity
reaction,'movement and total times do not shift significantly.
Recommendations

1. In future study retention time should be further
considered and the subject should be re-tested over a longer
period of time.

2. Further study should be conducted concerning the
effect of a low voltage electrical stimulus upon movement time.
Reasons why movement time does not decrease significantly in
training as reaction time does should be considered.

3. Further study should be conducted using varying

and increased amounts of voltage as initial stimulus.

B IB LI OGRAPHY

35.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Froeberg, S. ”The Relation between the Magnitude of the
Stimulus and the Time of Reaction”, Archives of
Psychology. No. 1, August, 1907. New York: The
Science Press.

Goulden, C. H. Methods of Statistical Anal sis.
New York, John Wiley and sans, Inc.l95%

Henmon, V. A. 0. ”Professor Cattell's Work on Reaction
Time”, Archives of Pa cholo . No. 4 New York: The
Science Press, 1913-1915.

Periodicals

Birren, James E. ”Age Differences in Startle Reaction
Time of the Rat to Noise and Electric Shock”,

Journal of Gerontology, 10 (October, 1955). PP. 437-
0.

Burley, L. R. ”A Study of the Reaction Time of Physically
Trained Men”, The Research Quarterly, 15 (October,
1944), p. 232.

Cattell, James McKeen ”The Influence of the Intensity of
the Stimulus of the Length of the Reaction Time”,
Brain, 9 (1886), pp. 512-516.

Henry, Franklin M. ”Increases in Speed of Movement by
Motivation and by Transfer of Motivated Improvement”,
The Research Quarterly, 22 (May, 1951), pp. 219-228.

Henry, Franklin M. ”Independence of Reaction and Move-
ment Times and Equivalence of Sensory Motivators of
Faster Response”, Th3 Research Quarterly, 23 (March,
1952). pp. 43-53.

Hipple, Joseph E. ”Racial Differences in the Influence
of Motivation on Muscular Tension, Reaction Time

and Speed of Movement”, The Research Quarterly, 25
(June. 1954). pp. 297-305.

36.

Johnson, H. M. ”Reaction Time Measurements,” Psycholog-
Teal Bulletin, 20 (1923). pp. 565-570.

Lanier, Lyle H. ”The Interrelations of Speed of Reaction
Measurements”, Journal of Ex erimental Psychology,
17 (April. 1934). Pp. 371-399.

Teichnera Warren H. ”Recent Studies of Sumple Reaction

Time , Ps cholo ical Bulletin, 51 (March, 1954).
pp. 128- 9.

 

Wells, F. L., Kelley, C. M., and Murphey, G. ”Compar-
ative Simple Reactions to Light and Sound”,
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4 (1921),

PP. 57-62.

Wells, G. R. ”The Influence of Stimulus Duration on
Reaction Time”, Psycholochal Monographs, 15
(1913): p0 69-

Woodrow, H. ”The Measurements of Attention”,

Psychological Monographs, 17 (1914), p. 158.

APPENDIX
1. Reaction Times Table IV
2. Movement Times Table V
3. Total Times Table VI

38.

TABLE IV
REACTION TIME

Contol '0” WEEKS

Initial let 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 10th

 

 

B.W. 281 269 218 200 220 212 225 204 189 248
R.L. 304 209 192 236 197 201 ~ 190 169 185 177
R.G. 295 252 260 265 241 274 264 249 246 226
J.W. 294 260 283 277 246 246 .217 212 217 247
M.W. 263 208 214 222 227 213 206 219 202 182
R.K. 253 234 233 218 196 246 219 204 208 220
R.0. 266 234 225 242 214 225 240 229 249 216
P.T. 2 5 232 223 232 234 2 4 221 224 206 224
21‘ 2211 1§§§ 18E 1§§2 1775 1811 1782 1710 1702 1750
M 27 2 7 231 2 7 222 234 223 214 213 219
Group ”B”

B.L. 291 224 217 206 220 192 226 223 ‘206 195
J.D. 285 255 240 216 249 227 175 196 215 201
M.G. 287 246 255 214 219 228 211 243 225 197
B.J. 254 256 200 209 216 217 206 223 208 199
c B. 280 242 244 231 234 209 214 250 191 249
F.C. 224 192 191 191 162 194 218 176 187 234
M.L. 273 226 210 214 211 235 203 201 199 192
0.1. 2 7 2 208 2 o 233 223 219 .298 221 1 8
3E2"'2151“'185§’1765‘1731'1744'“1725"‘1672 1720 1652—-166§

M 269 237 221 7216 218 216 209 215 207 20

 

B.L. 291 198 197 166 197 183 173 181 206 195
J.D. 285 205 195 179 207 184 183 190 215 201
M.G. 287 227 211 228 207 197 212 192 225 197
B.J. 254 199 177 178 174 185 207 189 208 199
C.B. 280 215 218 221 202 208 199 204 191 249
F.C. 224 166 148 173 185 163 168 152 187 234
M.L. 273 223 195 219 184 225 205 188 199 192
0.1. 2051218 233 201 213 1-8 221 1-8
W115): :2 1 °- 1 . 5 1 1.521..
M 2.9 205 192119: 199 193 195 1 7 207

TABLE V

MOVEMENT TIME

39.

 

 

 

Control "C" Weeks
Initial lat 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 10th

B.W. 299 121 112 198 160 146 192 135 111 218
R.L. 190 171 165 149 172 148 117 143 132 185
R.G. 297 161 142 148 170 158 136 135 179 257
J.W. 226 120 110 159 157 149 183 178 202 203
M.W. 147 174 160 171 214 181 157 142 148 161
R.K. 157‘ 105 144 184 156 117 145 148 131 219
8.0 252 167 188 209 143 150 148 139 141 168
P. T. 1 O 124 144 133 133 14 133 11° 120

”MO 11: 2 1223 11 11 1 1
M o o 1 '
Group “B”
B.L. 172 118 94 120 95 125 100 137 137 140
J.D. 101 110 106 175 119 180 198 114 110 132
M.G. 154 143 137 206 149 151 191 199 120 178
B.J. 162 153 167 188 148 124 150 157 85 151
C.B. 216 171 137 141 193 167 159 181 158 168
F.C. 153 132 118 219 176 133 140 134 108 141
M.L. 196 92 115 130 124 161 153 128 119 192
D.L. 1;8 123 130 218 162 131 141 142 144 198

X 3 2 10 2 100 13 11

g 21 11%2 1252 1122 281 1300
M 1 7 1 0 12 175 1 1 7 157 1 9 123 1

 

Group “A“
B.L. 172 180 94 115 96
J.D. 101 104 152 155 170
M.G. 154 149 120 234 163
B.J. 162 162 105 151 143
0.8. 216 164 128 173 160
F.C. 153 98 130 171 143
M.L. 196 105 122 129 114
D.L. 178 112 1 6 204 1‘3
x 552 107 007 1 32 11:2
M 167 134 126 167 14:

136
162
161
169
158
129
140
110
11.
1 o

82
122
166
174
160
137
135
141

11'
1 o

140
196
168
128
148
129
193
121
122
153

140
132
178
151
168
141
119 192
144 1'8
‘3 1 00
123 1-3

137
110
120

85
158
108

Z70.

MMEVI

TOTAL TIME
Control “C" Weeks

Initial lat 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 41th 8th 10th

 

B.W. 580 390 330 398 380 358 417 339 300 476
R.L. 494 380 357 385 369 349 307 312 317 362
R.G. 592 413 402 413 411 432 400 384 425 483
J.W. 590 380 393 436 403 395 400 390 419 450
M.W. 410 382 374 393 441 394 363 361 350 343
R.K. 410 339 377 402 352 363 364 352 339 439
R.O. 518 '401 413 451 357 375 388 368 390 384
P.T. 409 382 341 326 362 387 366 352 325 344
§1£ 3233 306% 2293 325 30 0 3053 3002 2 3 2 g 32 1
M 92 37 07 5‘ 3 2 7 35 35 10
Group ”B"

463 342 311 326 315 317 326 360 343 335
386 365 346 391 368 407 373 310 325 333
441 389 392 420 368 379 402 442 345 375
416 409 367 397 364 341 356 380 293 350
496 413 381 372 427 376 393 431 349 417
377 324 309 410 338 327 358 310 295 375
469 318 325 344 335 396 356 329 318 384

. . 43; 378 338 468 325 354 360 350 365 3E6
2 2 12 2 10 2 2 2 2 12 2 3 2

cxwowzhw
xrrowuour

 

M 435 3 7 391 3 2 3 3 329 371
Group "A"

B.L. 463 378 291 281 293 319 255 321 343 335
J.D. 386 309 347 334 377 346 305 386 325 333
M.G. 441 376 331 462 370 358 378 360 345 375
B.J. 416 361 282 329 317 354 381 317 293 350
C.B. 496 379 346 394 362 366 359 352 349 417
F.C. 377 264 276 344 328 292 305 281 295 375
M.L. 469 328 317 348 298 365 340 381 318 384
D.L. 43 31 3 3 422 426 311 3 4 31’ 36 3'6

x N: 2 2 2 '2 2-1‘ 2 1 2 11 2.5 2 1 2. 2f-

M 5 9 13 o‘ 0 9 5 O 29 71