Hick's Law Lab 1

Hick’s Law Lab 1
Kamron Kenan
September 22, 2016
PEDU 3000
This study source was downloaded by 100000836345228 from CourseHero.com on 01-29-2022 14:56:31 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/24068970/Lab-Hicks-Lawdocx/
Introduction
The relationship between the number of alternatives and choice reaction time (RT) has
been studied multiple times over the years. As the number of stimulus-responses (S-R) increased,
a person’s reaction time also increased and their movements were slower. The relationship
between the number of stimuli or choices and the time to respond to each response is known as
Hick’s Law (Coker, 2013). Highly overlearned S-R relationships can become familiar and
facilitate response selections (Schmidt & Lee, 2011).
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine how movement preparation is influenced by the
number of response choices.
Methods
Participants
In this study there were a total of 32 participants.
Equipment
These participants were split into groups of two or three and were asked to grab two 30
centimeter rulers. Participants in this study also needed an individual data sheet for each person.
Procedures
Condition 1: Simple Reaction Time
The first experiment participants conducted was to test a person’s Simple Reaction Time
(SRT). Both individuals stood directly in front of each other. The experimenter held one ruler
vertically at its highest point with their thumb/finger on the the 30 centimeter line. The
participant placed their thumb and forefinger of one hand on either side of the ruler at 0 cm. The
ruler could not be touched by the participant. Then, without giving any warning to the
participant, the experimenter released the ruler forcing the participant to catch as quickly as
possible. The numerical value where the participant caught the ruler was recorded. This was
done a total of ten times for each individual in the group.
Condition 2: Choice Reaction Time
The second experiment conducted was to test a person’s Choice Reaction Time (CRT).
Both individuals stood directly in front of each other as before. The experimenter held two rulers
vertically at the 30 cm line. The participant placed their thumb and forefinger on either side of
each ruler at 0 cm without touching the ruler. The experimenter, without warning, dropped one
of the rulers while still holding the other ruler. The participant had to catch the ruler that was
dropped as quickly as possible. The purpose of this experiment was for the participant to avoid
performing the catching movement with both hands. The numerical value where they caught the
ruler, if they did, was recorded. This experiment was also completed 10 times for each
individual.
Results
The total time was recorded by adding up the cm totals for trials 1 through 10. The mean
time was also calculated for each participant. The mean of all 32 participants was also calculated
for SRT and CRT. The individual results for myself as well as all 32 participants are shown
below.
The above graph represents my individual data for Simple and Choice Reaction Time. The mean
for SRT(left) was 12.8 cm and the mean for CRT(right) was 16.5 cm.
The above graph represents the mean SRT(left) and mean CRT (right) for all 32
participants.
Discussion
Based on the individual and group data, the more chances that were given, the better
anticipated the movement of the experimenter was. With the first trial, the participant did not
know when the experimenter would drop the ruler. But by the tenth trial, the participant was able
to anticipate when the experimenter would drop the ruler based on body movements and facial
expressions of the experimenter. Condition 1 does not accurately measure reaction time because
the focus of the participant is only on one object, the ruler. This allows the participant to
anticipate and at times accurately depict when the ruler is going to drop. It is important to not let
the participant know when the ruler is going to drop because if you tell them when the ruler is
going to drop, the reaction time will be shorter. The data would then be considered inconclusive
because there would be no variation in the data.

Hick's Law Lab 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hick's Law Lab 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hick’s Law Lab 1

September 22, 2016

facilitate response selections (Schmidt & Lee, 2011).

number of response choices.

Condition 1: Simple Reaction Time

done a total of ten times for each individual in the group.

Condition 2: Choice Reaction Time

because there would be no variation in the data.

You might also like