The Effects of Visual Distraction on Reaction Time
The effects of Visual Distraction on Reaction Time
Abstract
Distraction has been associated with affecting human reaction time. These associations have been obtained from studies focusing on drivers in particular. Driver distraction is very common nowadays and it is associated with many car crashes (Governors Highway Safety Association, 2011). Distraction can take forms in visual, cognitive, auditory and manual handling of the vehicle. In this study the aim was to test the effects of visual distraction on human reaction time. 56 young (less than 65yrs age) were involved in this study and a within participant two-tailed experimental design was used. The (IV) was the distraction and (DV) was the reaction time. Tests were performed investigating reaction time with distraction and without distraction using a computer based stimulus. A significant difference was found between the reaction test study with distraction and without distraction t(54)= 5.50; p<0.001). Participants found the distraction task more challenging due to the visual images diverting their attention than without distraction. Overall, distraction can affect human reaction time and this coincides with previous findings (Lee et al 2001).
Introduction
Human reaction time can be affected by many factors, one such example is distraction. Literature suggests that distraction can affect a person’s ability to react to a particular stimulus, in the sense that it increases the reaction time (Lee et al 2001). The impact of distraction on reaction time carries huge significant to the current society in terms of the daily activities which are performed by majority of the people, such as driving. The use of technology whilst driving has been re-assessed and more recently the use of Sat Nav has been a debatable topic (Dave Evans, 2012). More specifically, evidence suggests that when one looks directly at an object, their peripheral vision becomes slightly impaired and this affects a person’s reaction
Abstract
Distraction has been associated with affecting human reaction time. These associations have been obtained from studies focusing on drivers in particular. Driver distraction is very common nowadays and it is associated with many car crashes (Governors Highway Safety Association, 2011). Distraction can take forms in visual, cognitive, auditory and manual handling of the vehicle. In this study the aim was to test the effects of visual distraction on human reaction time. 56 young (less than 65yrs age) were involved in this study and a within participant two-tailed experimental design was used. The (IV) was the distraction and (DV) was the reaction time. Tests were performed investigating reaction time with distraction and without distraction using a computer based stimulus. A significant difference was found between the reaction test study with distraction and without distraction t(54)= 5.50; p<0.001). Participants found the distraction task more challenging due to the visual images diverting their attention than without distraction. Overall, distraction can affect human reaction time and this coincides with previous findings (Lee et al 2001).
Introduction
Human reaction time can be affected by many factors, one such example is distraction. Literature suggests that distraction can affect a person’s ability to react to a particular stimulus, in the sense that it increases the reaction time (Lee et al 2001). The impact of distraction on reaction time carries huge significant to the current society in terms of the daily activities which are performed by majority of the people, such as driving. The use of technology whilst driving has been re-assessed and more recently the use of Sat Nav has been a debatable topic (Dave Evans, 2012). More specifically, evidence suggests that when one looks directly at an object, their peripheral vision becomes slightly impaired and this affects a person’s reaction
References: Ando, S., N. Kida and S. Oda.. (2002). Practice effects on reaction time for peripheral and central visual fields. Practice effects on reaction time for peripheral and central visual fields. 95 (3), p747-752 Dave Evans Hendrick, J. L. and J. R. Switzer. (2007). Hands-free versus hand-held cell phone conversation on a braking response by young drivers..Perceptual and Motor Skills. 105 (2), p514-523. Horrey and Wickens. (2006). Techniques Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving Using Meta-Analytic. Human factors: The journal of the human factors and ergonomics society. 48 (1), p196-204. Kaber, David B. ; Liang, Yulan ; Zhang, Yu ; Rogers, Meghan L. ; Gangakhedkar, Shruti. (2012). Transportation Research Part F.Psychology and Behavior. 15 (5), pp491-501 . Lee, J. D., B. Caven, S. Haake, and T. L. Brown. . (2001). Speech-based interaction with in-vehicle computers. Human Factors: The effect of speech-based e-mail on drivers ' attention to the roadway. 43 (4), p1-9. NHTSA. (2010). Highlights of 2009 Motor Vehicle crashes. Available: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811363.PDF. Last accessed 18th October 2012. Welford. 1980 and Brebner, J. T. Introduction: an historical background sketch. In A. T. Welford (Ed.), Reaction Times. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-23. Zheng Xianjun Sam ; McConkie George W. (2010), Accident Analysis & Prevention, Assessing Safety with Driving Simulators, Volume 42, Issue 3, Pages 921-928 Muhrer, E., & Vollrath, M