Correlation of Reaction Time and Performance in 100 m Sprint Running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reaction time has been denned as the time duration that elapses between the firing of the starter's gun and the moment that the athlete is exerting a pre-determined amount of pressure on the starting blocks. There is a controversy regarding the extent that a short reaction time could provide an advantage in the performance in sprint running. PURPOSE: Aim of this study was the investigation of relationship of reaction time and the time performance in the 100 m. METHODS: Data gathered from nine hundred and seventy two athletes (562 males and 410 female) who participated in the 100 m in the Olympic Games of Atlanta (1996), Sidney (2000) and Athens (2004), and in the IAAF World Championships in Seville (1999), Edmonton (2001), Paris (2003) and Helsinki (2005). In this research were used the results from the official electronic timing systems, in the corresponding organizations, which recorded the reaction time and the final time performance. The timing systems were provided by IAAF. RESULTS: The results of this study showed that there was significant correlation between the reaction time and the final time performance in the 100 m in men (r = 0.334, P < 0.01, n = 562) and in women r = 0.365, P < 0.01, n = 410). For the Olympic Games: Atlanta: men r = 0.348, P < 0.01, n = 105; women r = 0.248, Sidney: men r = 0.276, P < 0.01, n = 95, women r = 0.406, P < 0.01, n = 84; Athens: men r = 0.527, P < 0.01, n= 80, women r = 0.471, P < 0.01, n = 63. For the IAAF World Championships: Seville: men r = 0.409, P < 0.01, n = 74, women r = 0.406, P < 0.01, n = 49; Edmonton: men r = 0.539, P < 0.01, n = 77, women r = 0.711, P < 0.01, n = 53; Paris: men r = 0.250, P < 0.05, n = 73, women r = 0.369, P < 0.01, n = 57; Helsinki: men r = 0.429, P < 0.01, n = 58, women r = 0.597, P < 0.01, n = 55. CONCLUSIONS: So, it could conclude that there was significant correlation between reaction time and final time performance in sprint running in 100 m. The results of this study supported the findings of Martin and Buoncristiani (1995), who found significant correlations between reaction time and final time performance in sprint r running but disagreed with the data of Moravec et al. (1988) who did not found significant correlations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".