|
 
 |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2014 | Volume
: 14
| Issue : 1 | Page : 35-38 |
|
A comparison and importance of auditory and visual reaction time in basketball players
Tejas P Ghuntla, Hemant B Mehta, Pradnya A Gokhale, Chinmay J Shah
Department of Physiology, Government Medical College, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, India
| Date of Web Publication | 29-Apr-2014 |
Correspondence Address:
Tejas P Ghuntla
"Maa Sharda", Plot No. 13, Sumeru Bunglows, Opp. Top-3 Cinema, Talaja Road, Bhavnagar, Gujarat - 364 002
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/1319-6308.131616
Background: Present study aimed to compare and scientifically understanding the importance of visual and auditory reaction time in basketball players. Reaction is purposeful voluntary response to different stimuli as auditory or visual stimuli. In simple reaction time stimulus and response are one, while in choice reaction time stimulus and response are multiple. Materials and Methods: The visual and auditory reaction time was measured by the multiple choice apparatus in subjects. Simple reaction time and choice reaction time measured. Reaction time was measured in two sessions. In first session visual reaction time was measured and in second session auditory reaction time was measured. The results were statistically analyzed and were recorded as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and Student's paired t-test was applied to check the level of significance. Result and Conclusion: In the present study we found that auditory reaction time was less as compared to visual reaction time for both simple and choice visual reaction time tasks in basketball players. Since the auditory stimulus reaches the cortex faster than the visual stimulus; the auditory reaction time is faster than the visual reaction time. Reaction time is good indicator of quickness in sports. Faster reaction times are significant for better performance of athletes. Reaction time decreases by practice. Skills can be improved by practice. Sports person can practice regularly to improve their reaction time and ultimately their performance. ملخص :
الخلفية: هدفت الدراسة الحالية لمقارنة والفهم العلمي لأهمية التفاعل السمعي والبصري في لاعبي كرة السلة. إن التفاعل هو استجابة إرادية ذات هدف لها حوافز مختلفة مثل الحوافز السمعية والبصرية . في وقت التفاعل البسيط فإن الحافز والاستجابة هما واحد ، بينما في وقت الاستجابة المختارة فإن الحافز والاستجابة أمر مضاعف.
المواد والطرق : تم قياس وقت التفاعل البصري والسمعي بواسطة جهاز متعدد الخيارات وتم تسجيل وقت التفاعل البسيط ووقت التفاعل الاختياري. تم قياس وقت التفاعل في جلستين أثنين.
في الجلسة الأولى تم قياس وقت التفاعل البصري وفي الجلسة الثانية تم قياس التفاعل السمعي . تم تحليل النتائج إحصائيا وتدوينها على شكل متوسط الانحراف القياسي ± وتم تطبيق تجربة الطلاب ت المزدوجة للتحقق من مستوى الأهمية.
النتائج والاستنتاج : وجدنا في هذه الدراسة أن وقت التفاعل السمعي كان أقل مقارنة مع التفاعل البصري في كلاً من التفاعل البسيط والتفاعل الاختياري عند لاعبي كرة السلة . وربما أن الحافز السمعي يصل إلى الدماغ أسرع من الحافز البصري فإن التفاعل السمعي هو أسرع من التفاعل البصري. إن وقت التفاعل هو مؤشر جيد للسرعة في الرياضة. وإن سرعة التفاعل أسرع أمر هام لأداء أفضل في الرياضيين . يمكن تقصير وقت التفاعل وتحسين المهارات بالتدريب وعليه ينبغى على الرياضيين التدريب بانتظام لتحسين وقت تفاعلهم وبذلك يتحسن أداؤهم.
Keywords: Auditory, basketball, choice, reaction time, simple, visual
How to cite this article:
Ghuntla TP, Mehta HB, Gokhale PA, Shah CJ. A comparison and importance of auditory and visual reaction time in basketball players. Saudi J Sports Med 2014;14:35-8 |
How to cite this URL:
Ghuntla TP, Mehta HB, Gokhale PA, Shah CJ. A comparison and importance of auditory and visual reaction time in basketball players. Saudi J Sports Med [serial online] 2014 [cited 2023 Mar 20];14:35-8. Available from: https://www.sjosm.org/text.asp?2014/14/1/35/131616 |
| Introduction | |  |
Reaction time is defined as interval of time between presentation of stimulus and appearance of appropriate voluntary response in a subject. [1] Human body responses to number of external environmental stimuli of different types. Human body gives a desired and purposeful voluntary response to stimulus. There is certain time period between application of stimulus and appropriate motor response. There are various sensory modalities and human body responses to various stimuli with different speed. Visual reaction time is time required to give response to visual stimuli and auditory reaction time is time required to give response to auditory stimuli. Majority of motor work is done by using visual and auditory information. Reaction time becomes an important component of information processing as it indexes speed of stimulus processing and response programming. [2]
Luce [3] and Welford [4] described three types of reaction time: [5] (1) Simple reaction time: Here there is one stimulus and one response. (2) Recognition reaction time: Here there is some stimulus that should be responded to and other that should not get response. (3) Choice reaction time: Here, there are multiple stimulus and multiple responses.
In simple reaction time, stimulus and response is one, so to give response only identification of stimulus and its proper response required. While in choice reaction time stimulus and appropriate response are multiple so after identification of stimulus out of many, one response out of many has to be verified.
It is documented that mean auditory reaction time is 140-160 ms and visual reaction time is 180-200 m. [4],[6],[7],[8],[9] Basketball player has to give proper and quick response during the game. They have to play using their auditory and visual information. They have to throw ball in proper direction. In present study, we compare visual and auditory reaction time of basketball players.
| Materials and Methods | | |
Study was conducted in 50 male basketball players in west zone of India. Subjects were players at basketball club in district. Players were regularly practicing 2-3 h a day. Subjects having practice of game for minimum of 1 year were included in study. Personal history and medical history of all subjects was collected in predesigned Performa. Medical history was taken to rule out any medical or surgical disease which would affect reaction time of individual. After taking consent, Reaction time was measured with multiple choice apparatus 653 MP (reaction time apparatus), an Inco company product (Ambala), with accuracy of ±0.001 s. Visual reaction time and auditory reaction time were measured. Study was conducted in two sessions. In first session visual reaction time was measured. Visual reaction time was measured under two categories: (1) Simple reaction time, where subject has to respond to visual stimuli by pressing key and (2) choice reaction time, where subject has to respond to different colored visual stimulus by pressing respective key. In second session, auditory reaction time was measured. Auditory reaction time was measured under two categories: (1) Simple reaction time, where subject has to respond to auditory stimuli by pressing key and (2) choice reaction time, where subject has to respond to different auditory stimulus by pressing respective key. In both sessions, subjects were given practice session in which the subject responded to auditory or visual stimuli till near about constant values of reaction time come and then auditory or visual stimuli were given for three times and minimum reaction time was taken as a final reaction time for that sensory modality of that subject.
Data was collected and was statistically analyzed. Reaction time was taken as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The level of significance between auditory reaction time and visual reaction time was tested by Student's t-test (paired). The observation was taken as a significant of P value less than 0.05.
| Results | | |
Auditory reaction time found to be significantly (P value less than 0.05) less than visual reaction time in simple reaction time task [Table 1]. | Table 1: Difference in auditory and visual reaction time
in simple reaction time task
Click here to view |
Auditory reaction time found to be significantly (P value less than 0.05) less than visual reaction time in choice reaction time task [Table 2]. | Table 2: Difference in auditory and visual reaction time in choice reaction time task
Click here to view |
| Discussion | | |
In the present study, we found that auditory reaction time was less than visual reaction time. This is in parallel with previous studies concluding that auditory reaction time is slower than visual reaction time. [10],[11]
Reaction time has mainly two components: [12] (1) Mental processing time: It is the time required for responder to perceive stimulus, identifying and analyzing of stimulus, and decide the proper motor response. (2) Movement time: It is time required to perform movement after selection of response. This implies that the faster the stimulus reaches the motor cortex, faster will be the reaction time to the stimulus. [11] The faster the stimulus reaches the brain, the faster the signal is processed and the necessary responses are sent for the necessary motor reaction. [11]
Many researchers have confirmed that reaction to sound is faster than reaction to light. [5] Perhaps this is because an auditory stimulus only takes 8-10 ms to reach the brain, [13] but a visual stimulus takes 20-40 ms. [14] Therefore, since the auditory stimulus reaches the cortex faster than the visual stimulus, the auditory reaction time is faster than the visual reaction time. [11] Differences in reaction time between these types of stimuli persist whether the subject is asked to make a simple response or a complex response. [15] In other study it has been observed that auditory reaction time is less than visual reaction time. [11],[16],[17]
Reaction time is of importance in all combative activities. [18] Movement, speed, and quick reactions are main qualities in sports. This factor partly judges how successful a basketball player can be on defense. When offensive player makes move, quick or slow reaction of defensive player would decide success or failure. [18] Reaction time is often missed and usually unseen element in selection of basketball player. In sports like basketball, in which movement of player is conditioned by signals, by movements of opponents or by motion of ball, reaction time is of great importance. A player who can react faster to the movement of ball or opposite team player can change direction of game. [18]
Quickness is important in basketball game, but basketball is not just running to a set line and changing direction. It is a game of reaction. [19] In basketball game, player has to give response to audible and visual stimuli. The inbounding player must react first to the official's whistle signaling the start of the clock that is audible stimuli. Player must survey the position of defense and movement of ball to determine where to throw the pass. Here he gives response to visual stimuli. [20]
Success in basketball relies heavily on the ability to move fast and change direction quickly. But without reaction; speed and quickness can be misguided. [19] As performance of athlete is directly linked with duration of reaction time, players and coaches are starting to understand importance of reaction time in sports performance. [19] In a study, [21] it is reported that reaction times reduced with repeated practice. Therefore, reaction times to a particular stimulus can be made faster with repeated practice with a particular stimulus. Proper change-of-direction training program should include drills that require players to make moves based on visual information like partner pointing and audible cues like partner calling out directions. [19] Players can improve their performance by improving reaction time.
| Conclusion | | |
Reaction time is an important parameter for sports person's quickness and their performance. Improvement in reaction time will ultimately improve sports person's performance. Basketball players can concentrate in improving their reaction time to improve their performance in game. Reaction time reduces by practice. [21] Sports person can practice regularly to improve their reaction time and ultimately their performance.
| References | | |
| 1. | Jain AK. Manual of practical physiology for MBBS. In: 4 th ed, Ch. 23. Reaction Time (Visual and Auditory) and Reflex Time. New Delhi: Avichal Publishing Company; 2012. p. 277-9. 
|
| 2. | Rao SL, Gangadhar BN, Keshavan MS, Hegde AS, Nardev G. Reaction time deficits in post traumatic syndrome. Indian J Psychiatry 1985;27:63-5.
[PUBMED]  |
| 3. | Luce RD. Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.
|
| 4. | Welford AT. Choice reaction time: Basic concepts. In: Welford AT, editor. Reaction Times. New York: Academic Press; 1980. p. 73-128.
|
| 5. | Clemson University, [Homepage on the Internet]. Clemson: Konsinski RJ. A literature review on reaction time. Available from: http://www.biology.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm [Last updated 2012 Sept; Last cited 2012 Oct 06].
|
| 6. | Galton F. On instruments for (1) testing perception of differences of tint and for (2) determining reaction time. J Anthropol Inst 1890;19:27-9.
|
| 7. | Woodworth RS, Schlosberg H. Experimental psychology. New York: Henry Holt; 1954.
|
| 8. | Fieandt KV, Huhtala A, Kullberg P, Saarl K. Personal tempo and phenomenal time at different age levels. Reports from the Psychological Institute, No. 2, University of Helsinki; 1956.
|
| 9. | Brebner JT, Welford AT. Introduction: An historical background sketch. In: Welford AT, editor. Reaction Times. New York: Academic Press; 1980. p. 1-23.
|
| 10. | Solanki J, Mehta HB, Shah C, Gokhale PA. A study of correlation between auditory and visual reaction time in healthy adults. Ind J Med Public Health 2012;2:36-8.
|
| 11. | Shelton J, Kumar GP. Comparison between auditory and visual simple reaction times. Neurosci Med 2010;1:30-2.
|
| 12. | Green M. How long does it take to stop? Methodological analysis of driver perception-brake time. Transport Hum Fact 2000;2:195-216.
|
| 13. | Kemp JB. Reaction time of young and elderly subjects in relation to perceptual deprivation and signal-on versus signal-off condition. Dev Psychol 1973;8:268-72.
|
| 14. | Marshall WH, Talbot SA, Ades HW. Cortical response of the anaesthesized cat to gross photic and electrical afferent stimulation. J Neurophysiol 1943;6:1-15.
|
| 15. | Sanders AF. Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 1998. p. 114.
|
| 16. | Pain MT, Hibbs A. Sprint starts and the minimum auditory reaction time. J Sports Sci 2007;25:79-86.
|
| 17. | Thompson PD, Colebatch JG, Brown P, Rothwell C, Day BL, Obeso JA, et al. Voluntary stimulus sensitive jerks and jumps mimicking myoclonus or pathological startle syndromes. Mov Disord 1992;7:257-62.
|
| 18. | Gavkare AM, Nanaware NL, Surdi AD. Auditory reaction time, visual reaction time and whole body reaction time in athletes. Ind Med Gaz 2013;6:214-9.
|
| 19. | Stein A. Basketball quickness with the jordan classic conditioning coach. Available from: http://basketball.stack.com/training/speed-training/basketball-quickness-with-the-jordan-classic-conditioning-coach/[Last accessed 15 Oct 2013].
|
| 20. | Stein A. Enhanced reaction time for basketball. Available from: http://basketball.stack.com/training/speed-training/enhanced-reaction-time-for-basketball/[Last accessed 15 Oct 2013].
|
| 21. | Ando S, Kida N, Oda S. Practice effects on reaction time for peripheral and central visual fields. Percept Mot Skills 2002;95:747-51.
|
[Table 1], [Table 2]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Channeling of Brain Towards Engaging Sensorimotor Tasks for Inducing Hedonic Pleasure to Alleviate Blood Pressure in Hypertension |
|
| Madhuri Taranikanti, Aswin Kumar Mudunuru, Archana Gaur, Anzala Kauser, Sai Shriya Taranikanti, Madhusudhan Umesh, Vidya Ganji, Kalpana Medala, Roja Katta, Varatharajan Sakthivadivel, Akhila Dronamraju, Rohith Kumar Guntuka | | Annals of Neurosciences. 2022; : 0972753122 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
The secrets to saving soccer penalty kicks: An observation from coaching eyes |
|
| Nuruzzaman Nayan, MuhammadShahidul Islam | | Saudi Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022; 22(2): 47 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Characteristics of Cognitive Abilities among Youths Practicing Football |
|
| Wojciech Pasko,Maciej Sliz,Mariusz Paszkowski,Janusz Zielinski,Klementyna Polak,Maciej Huzarski,Krzysztof Przednowek | | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(4): 1371 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
Multimodal Cue Combinations: A Possible Approach to Designing In-Vehicle Takeover Requests for Semi-autonomous Driving |
|
| Gaojian Huang,Clayton Steele,Xinrui Zhang,Brandon J. Pitts | | Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2019; 63(1): 1739 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
 |
|
|
|
Related articles