So, how fast is that finger?

yoyoboy wrote in post #2605538
Here's a paintball one- http://www.planeteclip​se.com …efault.asp?swf=​EgoBps.swf
My current record is 29 BPS!

29, Thats insane. I got to 18 and my fingers seized up. I know have claws.

I'm another 'old guy' almost...I guess to you guy's under 20 that anyone over 50 is indeed old!


0.218 average, as fast as 0.182 and as slow as 0.233 (the first one)

BTW, let's apply this to driving...at 70 mph you are travelling 102.6 ft/sec. If it takes 0.2 sec to react, then you have to lift your foot and move it over to the brake pedal (more time!), then you start to slow down. So in 0.2 seconds to simply react (to start to move your foot off the gas) you will have travelled 20', and you will travel more distance until your foot is on the brake. Yet I see people tailgating at 70+ mph all the time, with 1-2 car length between them and the next car...you HIT the car before your foot even is on the brake, when you do that!!!

I did the test again, and was as fast as 0.12! OK, I ready to take you kids on in PC gaming!

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

haha, i am slow too, but i blame it on my computer..lol

Got my best time down to .176

What's interesting is that the trained martial artists can see, and then punch in under .2 seconds.

We, photo-girliemen are really lagging behind.

gjl711 wrote in post #2604282
I would have guessed that it would be movement. I am an avid hiker and we run up to deer all the time. Sometimes we get within 20 yards and still do not see them. One head tilt though and the whole heard just pops out of the woods. I think it's because we compress data in our noggins. Nothing changes, so we use the same data over and over again just like a mpeg. It would be an interesting experiment to do the same with color and movement and see the results. Any students out there need a science project? Maybe I'll get ambitions and program something up real quick

I think deer see in black and white (hence hunters can get away with wearing neon orange jackets)....so yes, movement would be their most sensitive visual attribute. For many other species, particularly any animal that eats other animals or bugs, will likely have colour perception. For these animals, colour perception is a matter of life and death.

I work in a couple psychology labs, and we use RSVP (Rapid Serial Visual Presentation) as a paradigm for many experiments. RSVP presents one word at a time very quickly in rapid succession on a screen (typically, 100ms per word). In a typical AB (attentional blink), the subject is responsible for identifying the one red word out of the stream of black words. However, the subject is also responsible for detecting the presence or absence of another word (e.g, "Report") showing up in black, some time after the red word. Interestingly, the closer the word "report" follows after the red word, the less often it is even noticed. In essence, the red coloured word grabs our attention enough that we totally miss the next few words. In this way our attention seems to "blink" and we miss it, even though we're looking straight at it.
The reason we use red, is that colour is the most quickly identified feature of a stimulus....especially compared to other words.

For anybody who actually read that, that's just my little academic rant...but hopefully it provides some scientific evidence for what I was saying earlier.

Here's a link to the pioneering paper on the paradigm to those who are interested....

Avg .176, slowest .19, fastest .157 second time (i missed the dot the first time I played ), which I guess means I shouldn't miss much but it always seems like that perfect shot is over just a bit quicker than I can hit the shutter release. I have heard that reaction times are quicker based on where we see the movement, ie a quicker reaction based on movement in our peripheral vision than movement right in front of us? Anyone know if this is true.

Just fer fun.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Another old guy...ranged from .182 to .200 with a .189 average.

some points of interest
TFT charge times and is your mouse corded or cordless? cordless will be slower, i'm on cordless and a TFT.

My son (10) just tried it and got a considerably slower score than mine, I'm 37 maybe reaction times improve with age to a certain point?

JCR wrote in post #2607750
My son (10) just tried it and got a considerably slower score than mine, I'm 37 maybe reaction times improve with age to a certain point?

Motor skills certainly improve as you grow up, and hand-eye coordination improves, too. I don't know that reaction times do, I wouldn't think so because that is simply the wiring of your brain. But it has been shown via MRI that the brain really does change its wiring until early 20's, which is why you have the odd and erratic behavior of youth until you have finished 'growing up'. So maybe there is an optimum wiring, that improves reaction times to maybe peak in your mid 20's, too. Then it is downhill from there as you continue to lose brain cells for the rest of your life!

Here was my tech. for this test that seemed to yield the best results. Take a screen shot open in CS2 and cheat.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I can do that!

I tried a few more times, and I seem to average around .22 on multiple attempts. Interestingly I once posted a 0.09 time for one click and a 0.06 time on another! No doubt flukes or terrific anticipation, not the speed of the Flash!