Comparison of the delay in response of normals and retardates to a choice reaction time task-a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5 normal subjects randomly selected from the entire grade 8 male population at Vancouver Technical Secondary School, and 5 retarded subjects from the special class at the same school were exposed to a series of 5 reaction time experiments involving a button press response to a series of stimulus lights, and varying in complexity from simple reaction time to an 8 choice situation. The object was to test the effect of the decision mechanism involvement on reaction time. It was hypothesized that the retardates would be significantly slower than the normals on the reaction time tasks, and that a linear equation would describe the best fitting line of the normals when the speed of response was plotted against the informational load of the stimulus, while a non-linear equation would best describe the retardates' scores. The result indicated that there was no significant difference between the mean values of the reaction time scores of the retarded and the normal groups, but a probability level of .075 was obtained. There was no statistically significant evidence to indicate which equation was the best fit to the retarded and normal scores; however, visual inspection indicated that the observed trends were in agreement with the prediction. It was concluded that although the evidence presented was not statistically significant, enough evidence has been presented to suggest that retardates do not react to a level of information beyond 2 bits in a linear fashion that typifies the normals, and that further research is required to ascertain the causal factor in the retardates' inability to react at a normal level on a reaction time task.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".