[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
About the Journal
Aims and Scope
Content Coverage
Conflict of Interest
Publication Ethics
Editorial Board::
Executive Members::
Instruction to Authors::
Peer Review::
Articles Archive::
Current Issue
All Issues
Indexing Databases::
Contact Us::
Contact Us
Contact Form
Site Facilities::
Search contents
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
:: Volume 24, Issue 3 (10-2022) ::
J Gorgan Univ Med Sci 2022, 24(3): 99-108 Back to browse issues page
Intraindividual Reaction Time Variability to Visual Stimulus in Binocular and Dominant or Non-Dominant Monocular Vision
Mohamad Fayaz1 , Mahsa Amiri Resketi2 , Vahid Tajari2 , Seyed Mehran Hosseini * 3
1- Department of Biostatistics, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- General Physician, Student Research Committee, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran.
3- Professor, Neuroscience Research Center, Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran. , hosseini@goums.ac.ir
Abstract:   (1766 Views)
Background and Objective: Reaction time measures have considerable potential to aid neuropsychological assessment in a variety of healthcare settings. One such measure, the intra-individual reaction time variability is of particular interest as it is thought to reflect neurobiological disturbance. The present study aimed to investigate the intra-individual changes in reaction time to visual stimuli in dominant or non-dominant binocular and monocular vision.
Methods: This descriptive-analytical study was conducted on 12 volunteers with an average age of 30.08±1.448 years in 2021. The subjects consisted of the students and staff of Golestan University of Medical Sciences (5 female and 7 male). The reaction time was recorded automatically by the hand reaction time device of Danesh Salar Iranian Company based on the time of presentation of visual stimulation on the computer screen and the person's reaction, i.e. pressing the buttons of the handles by each of the two hands. All experiments were performed between 10 and 11 am and following at least 2 hours of fasting. Data collection was done following training trials for correct performance of the 2-choice reaction time test. After completing the reaction time tests for each volunteer, the dominant eye was determined by the hole-in-card method.
Results: In 4 volunteers, the dominant eye was left and in the rest of the volunteers, the dominant eye was right. The dominant eye did not differ between men and women. The number of reaction times recorded in right monocular vision left monocular vision and binocular vision were 902, 911 and 893, respectively. The mean reaction time in right monocular vision, left monocular vision and binocular vision was 306.81±3.310, 304.28±3.339 and 312.95±4.569, respectively, and the range of reaction times in these three states was between 194-1750, 178-1587, and 155-1797 ms, respectively. Intra-individual reaction time variability in the dominant left eye and left hand were significantly lower compared to the dominant right eye and right hand, respectively (P<0.05). No difference was observed between the reaction time of the right monocular vision, left monocular vision, and binocular vision.
Conclusion: The alignment of the dominant left side in the eye and hand reacts faster than the dominant right side in the eye and hand. The mechanism of this phenomenon may be related to the overall process that determines the dominant left hemisphere in approximately 90% of the population.
 
Keywords: Eye Dominance [MeSH], Intra Individual Biological Variation [MeSH], Binocular Vision [MeSH], Monocular Vision [MeSH]
Article ID: Vol24-42
Full-Text [PDF 812 kb]   (7943 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Articles | Subject: Physiology
References
1. Machado-Pinheiro W, Gawryszewski LG, Ribeiro-do-Valle LE. Gap effect and reaction time distribution: simple vs choice manual responses. Braz J Med Biol Res. 1998 Oct; 31(10): 1313-18. DOI: 10.1590/s0100-879x1998001000012 [DOI] [PubMed]
2. Lü W, Wang Z. Associations between resting respiratory sinus arrhythmia, intraindividual reaction time variability, and trait positive affect. Emotion. 2018 Sep; 18(6): 834-41. DOI: 10.1037/emo0000392 [DOI] [PubMed]
3. Kochan NA, Bunce D, Pont S, Crawford JD, Brodaty H, Sachdev PS. Is intraindividual reaction time variability an independent cognitive predictor of mortality in old age? Findings from the Sydney Memory and Ageing Study. PLoS One. 2017 Aug; 12(8): e0181719. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181719 [DOI] [PubMed]
4. Haynes BI, Kliegel M, Zimprich D, Bunce D. Intraindividual reaction time variability predicts prospective memory failures in older adults. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2018 Jan; 25(1): 132-45. DOI: 10.1080/13825585.2016.1268674 [DOI] [PubMed]
5. Tamm L, Epstein JN, Becker SP. A preliminary investigation of reaction time variability in relation to social functioning in children evaluated for ADHD. Child Neuropsychol. 2019 Oct; 25(7): 885-98. DOI: 10.1080/09297049.2018.1523379 [DOI] [PubMed]
6. Sena P, Amore M, Brandimonte MA, Squitieri R, Fiorentino A. Experimental Framework for Simulators to Study Driver Cognitive Distraction: Brake Reaction Time in Different Levels of Arousal. Transportation Research Procedia. 2016; 14: 4410-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.363 [Link] [DOI]
7. Fredriksen M, Egeland J, Haavik J, Fasmer OB. Individual Variability in Reaction Time and Prediction of Clinical Response to Methylphenidate in Adult ADHD: A Prospective Open Label Study Using Conners' Continuous Performance Test II. J Atten Disord. 2021 Mar; 25(5): 657-71. DOI: 10.1177/1087054719829822 [DOI] [PubMed]
8. Hauser CK, Zhu D, Stanford TR, Salinas E. Motor selection dynamics in FEF explain the reaction time variance of saccades to single targets. Elife. 2018 Apr; 7: e33456. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.33456 [DOI] [PubMed]
9. Suchotzki K, Verschuere B, Van Bockstaele B, Ben-Shakhar G, Crombez G. Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception. Psychol Bull. 2017 Apr; 143(4): 428-53. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000087 [DOI] [PubMed]
10. Reed TE. Causes of intraindividual variability in reaction times: A neurophysiologically oriented review and a new suggestion. Personality and Individual Differences. 1998; 25(5): 991-98. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00123-8 [Link] [DOI]
11. Dankinas D, Parciauskaite V, Dapsys K. Intra-individual reaction time variability and response preparation: an EEG study. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2015; 75(4): 462-68. [PubMed]
12. Doebler P, Scheffler B. The relationship of choice reaction time variability and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Learning and Individual Differences. 2016 Dec; 52: 157-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.02.009 [Link] [DOI]
13. Chidharom M, Krieg J, Bonnefond A. Impaired Frontal Midline Theta During Periods of High Reaction Time Variability in Schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging. 2021 Apr; 6(4): 429-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpsc.2020.10.005 [Link] [DOI]
14. Ramchurn A, de Fockert JW, Mason L, Darling S, Bunce D. Intraindividual reaction time variability affects P300 amplitude rather than latency. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Jul; 8: 557. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00557 [DOI] [PubMed]
15. Batterham PJ, Bunce D, Mackinnon AJ, Christensen H. Intra-individual reaction time variability and all-cause mortality over 17 years: a community-based cohort study. Age Ageing. 2014 Jan; 43(1): 84-90. DOI: 10.1093/ageing/aft116 [DOI] [PubMed]
16. Ding Y, Naber M, Gayet S, Van der Stigchel S, Paffen CLE. Assessing the generalizability of eye dominance across binocular rivalry, onset rivalry, and continuous flash suppression. J Vis. 2018 Jun; 18(6): 6. DOI: 10.1167/18.6.6 [DOI] [PubMed]
17. Qiu JK, Zhang S- bin, Wang Z- hong. Comparison of Worth 4-dot test and hole-in-the-card test for the detection of the dominant eye under habitual and best refractive correction. Hong Kong J Ophthalmol. 2006 Dec; 10(1): 11-14. [View at Publisher]
18. Rice ML, Leske DA, Smestad CE, Holmes JM. Results of ocular dominance testing depend on assessment method. J AAPOS. 2008 Aug; 12(4): 365-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2008.01.017 [DOI] [PubMed]
19. Gonzalez CL, Ganel T, Goodale MA. Hemispheric specialization for the visual control of action is independent of handedness. J Neurophysiol. 2006 Jun; 95(6): 3496-501. DOI: 10.1152/jn.01187.2005 [DOI] [PubMed]
20. Gentier I, Augustijn M, Deforche B, Tanghe A, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Lenoir M, et al. A comparative study of performance in simple and choice reaction time tasks between obese and healthy-weight children. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2013 Sep; 34(9): 2635-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.04.016 [Link] [DOI]
21. Johansson J, Seimyr GÖ, Pansell T. Eye dominance in binocular viewing conditions. J Vis. 2015; 15(9): 21. DOI: 10.1167/15.9.21 [DOI] [PubMed]
22. Ho R, Thompson B, Babu RJ, Dalton K. Sighting ocular dominance magnitude varies with test distance. Clin Exp Optom. 2018 Mar; 101(2): 276-80. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12627 [DOI] [PubMed]
23. Roth HL, Lora AN, Heilman KM. Effects of monocular viewing and eye dominance on spatial attention. Brain. 2002 Sep; 125(Pt 9): 2023-35. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awf210 [DOI] [PubMed]
24. Mukherjee M, Patnaik V, Puri N, Bedi M. A study to correlate ocular dominance VIS-A-VIS handedness and footedness. Int J Anat Res. 2016; 4(4): 3242-45. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2016.449 [Link] [DOI]
25. Thomas NG, Harden LM, Rogers GG. Visual evoked potentials, reaction times and eye dominance in cricketers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2005 Sep; 45(3): 428-33. [PubMed]
26. Maddess RJ. Reaction time to hemiretinal stimulation. Neuropsychologia. 1975; 13(2): 213-18. DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(75)90030-5 [Link] [DOI]
27. Johansson B, Jakobsson P. Luminance and color contrast sensitivity and VEP latency in subjects with normal and defective binocularity. Eur J Ophthalmol. 1997 Jan-Mar; 7(1): 82-91. DOI: 10.1177/112067219700700115 [DOI] [PubMed]
28. Minucci PK, Connors MM. Reaction time under three viewing conditions: Binocular, dominant eye, and nondominant eye. J Exp Psychol. 1964 Mar; 67: 268-75. DOI: 10.1037/h0039953 [DOI] [PubMed]
29. Gilliland K, Haines RF. Binocular summation and peripheral visual response time. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1975 Dec; 52(12): 834-39. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-197512000-00004 [DOI] [PubMed]
30. Blake R, Martens W, Di Gianfilippo A. Reaction time as a measure of binocular interaction in human vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1980 Aug; 19(8): 930-41. [PubMed]
31. Jiménez JR, Medina JM, Jiménez del Barco L, Díaz JA. Binocular summation of chromatic changes as measured by visual reaction time. Percept Psychophys. 2002 Jan; 64(1): 140-47. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194563 [DOI] [PubMed]
32. Bunce D, Haynes BI, Lord SR, Gschwind YJ, Kochan NA, Reppermund S, et al. Intraindividual Stepping Reaction Time Variability Predicts Falls in Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2017 Jun; 72(6): 832-37. DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glw164 [DOI] [PubMed]
33. Der G, Deary IJ. The relationship between intelligence and reaction time varies with age: Results from three representative narrow-age age cohorts at 30, 50 and 69 years. Intelligence. 2017 Sep; 64: 89-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2017.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed]
34. Chojnacki MR, Raine LB, Drollette ES, Scudder MR, Kramer AF, Hillman CH, et al. The Negative Influence of Adiposity Extends to Intraindividual Variability in Cognitive Control Among Preadolescent Children. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2018 Feb; 26(2): 405-11. DOI: 10.1002/oby.22053 [DOI] [PubMed]
Send email to the article author

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Fayaz M, Amiri Resketi M, Tajari V, Hosseini S M. Intraindividual Reaction Time Variability to Visual Stimulus in Binocular and Dominant or Non-Dominant Monocular Vision. J Gorgan Univ Med Sci 2022; 24 (3) :99-108
URL: http://goums.ac.ir/journal/article-1-4103-en.html
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 24, Issue 3 (10-2022) Back to browse issues page
مجله دانشگاه علوم پزشکی گرگان Journal of Gorgan University of Medical Sciences
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.04 seconds with 36 queries by YEKTAWEB 4660
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)