Science behind reaction time/How do you train?

[gazza99]

Here is a some info I found on reaction , how does this info relate to your training?

What do you do now to train your reactions?

Does anyone know how the brain processes and stores techniques we need to use out of reaction?

Notice the types of reaction times and stimuli, I can see that both "recognition"(should I block that?) and "choice" reactions(If he throws a high right Im going to do X technique) would apply to many techniques, but getting to a "simple" reaction time would be best (if he moves hit him).

here you go....
regards, Gary R.

Kinds of Reaction Time Experiments
Psychologists have named three basic kinds of reaction time experiments (Luce, 1986; Welford, 1980):

In simple reaction time experiments, there is only one stimulus and one response. 'X at a known location,' 'spot the dot,' and 'reaction to sound' all measure simple reaction time.

In recognition reaction time experiments, there are some stimuli that should be responded to (the 'memory set'), and others that should get no response (the 'distractor set'). There is still only one correct response. 'Symbol recognition' and 'tone recognition' are both recognition experiments.

In choice reaction time experiments, the user must give a response that corresponds to the stimulus, such as pressing a key corresponding to a letter if the letter appears on the screen. The Reaction Timeprogram does not use this type of experiment because the response is always pressing the spacebar.

By the way, professional psychologists doing these experiments typically employ about 20 people doing 100-200 reaction times each...per treatment (Luce, 1986, Ch. 6)! Sanders (1998, p. 23) recommends an adequate period of practice, and then collection of 300 reaction times per person. Our experiments of 3 or 4 people doing 10 reaction times each are very small.Back to menu.

Mean Reaction Times

For about 120 years, the accepted figures for mean simple reaction times for college-age individuals have been about 190 ms (0.19 sec) for light stimuli and about 160 ms for sound stimuli (Galton, 1899; Fieandt et al., 1956; Welford, 1980; Brebner and Welford, 1980). Back to menu.

Simple vs. Recognition vs. Choice Reaction Times

The pioneer reaction time study was that of Donders (1868). He showed that a simple reaction time is shorter than a choice reaction time, and that the recognition reaction time is longest of all. Laming (1968) concluded that simple reaction times averaged 220 msec but recognition reaction times averaged 384 msec. This is in line with many studies concluding that a complex stimulus (e.g., several letters in symbol recognition vs. one letter) elicits a slower reaction time (Brebner and Welford, 1980; Teichner and Krebs, 1974; Luce, 1986). An example very much like our experiment was reported by Surwillo (1973), in which reaction was faster when a single tone sounded than when either a high or a low tone sounded and the subject was supposed to react only when the high tone sounded.

Miller and Low (2001) determined that the time for motor preparation (e.g., tensing muscles) and motor response (in this case, pressing the spacebar) was the same in all three types of reaction time test, implying that the differences in reaction time are due to processing time. Back to menu.

Numer of possible valid stimuli. Several investigators have looked at the effect of increasing the number of possible stimuli in recognition and choice experiments. Hick (1952) found that in choice reaction time experiments, response was proportional to log(N), where N is the number of different possible stimuli. In other words, reaction time rises with N, but once N gets large, reaction time no longer increases so much as when N was small. Sternberg (1969) maintained that in recognition experiments, as the number of items in the memory set increases, the reaction time rises proportionately (that is, proportional to N, not to log N). Reaction times ranged from 420 msec for 1 valid stimulus (such as one letter in symbol recognition) to 630 msec for 6 valid stimuli, increasing by about 40 msec every time another item was added to the memory set. Nickerson (1972) reviewed several recognition studies and agreed with these results.Back to menu.

Type of Stimulus

Many researchers have confirmed that reaction to sound is faster than reaction to light, with mean auditory reaction times being 140-160 msec and visual reaction times being 180-200 msec (Galton, 1899; Woodworth and Schlosberg, 1954; Fieandt et al., 1956; Welford, 1980; Brebner and Welford, 1980). Perhaps this is because an auditory stimulus only takes 8-10 msec to reach the brain (Kemp et al., 1973), but a visual stimulus takes 20-40 msec (Marshall et al., 1943). Reaction time to touch is intermediate, at 155 msec (Robinson, 1934). Differences in reaction time between these ypes of stimuli persist whether the subject is asked to make a simple response or a complex response (Sanders, 1998, p. 114).





Stimulus Intensity

Froeberg (1907) found that visual stimuli that are longer in duration elicit faster reaction times, and Wells (1913) got the same result for auditory stimuli.

Piéron (1920) and Luce (1986) reported that the weaker the stimulus (such as a very faint light) is, the longer the reaction time is. However, after the stimulus gets to a certain strength, reaction time becomes constant.



Kohfeld (1971) found that the difference between reaction time to light and sound could be eliminated if a sufficiently high stimulus intensity was used.

Continued.....................

[gazza99]

Other Factors Influencing Reaction Time

If variation caused by the type of reaction time experiment, type of stimulus, and stimulus intensity are ignored, there are still many factors affecting reaction time.

Arousal. One of the most investigated factors affecting reaction time is 'arousal' or state of attention, including muscular tension. Reaction time is fastest with an intermediate level of arousal, and deteriorates when the subject is either too relaxed or too tense (Welford, 1980; Broadbent, 1971; Freeman, 1933).






Age. Reaction time shortens from childhood into the late 20s, then increases slowly until the 50s and 60s, and then lengthens faster as the person gets into his 70s and beyond (Welford, 1977; Jevas and Yan, 2001). An early study (Galton, 1899) reported that for teenagers (15-19) mean reaction times were 187 msec for light stimuli and 158 ms for sound stimuli. Welford (1980) speculates on the reason for slowing reaction time with age. It is not just simple mechanical factors like the speed of nervous conduction. It may be the tendency of older people to be more careful and monitor their responses more thoroughly (Botwinick, 1966).

Gender. At the risk of being politically incorrect, in almost every age group, males have faster reaction times than females, and female disadvantage is not reduced by practice (Nobleet al., 1964; Welford, 1980; Adam et al., 1999). Bellis (1933) reported that mean time to press a key in response to a light was 220 msec for males and 260 msec for females; for sound the difference was 190 msec (males) to 200 msec (females). In comparison, Engel (1972) reported a reaction time to sound of 227 msec (male) to 242 msec (female). Botwinick and Thompson (1966) found that almost all of the male-female difference was accounted for by the lag between the presentation of the stimulus and the beginning of muscle contraction. Muscle contraction times were the same for males and females. Adam et al. (1999) reported that males use a more complex strategy than females. Jevas and Yan (2001) reported that age-related deterioration in reaction time was the same in men and women.

Direct vs. Peripheral Vision.Brebner and Welford (1980) cite literature that shows that visual stimuli perceived by different portions of the eye produce different reaction times. The fastest reaction time comes when a stimulus is seen by the cones (when the person is looking right at the stimulus). If the stimulus is picked up by rods (around the edge of the eye), the reaction is slower.

Practice and Errors. Sanders (1998, p. 21) cited studies showing that when subjects are new to a reaction time task, their reaction times are less consistent than when they've had an adequate amount of practice. Also, if a subject makes an error (like pressing the spacebar before the stimulus is presented), subsequent reaction times are slower, as if the subject is being more cautious.

Fatigue. Welford (1968, 1980) found that reaction time gets slower when the subject is fatigued. Singleton (1953) observed that this deterioration due to fatigue is more marked when the reaction time task is complicated than when it is simple. Mental fatigue, especially sleepiness, has the greatest effect. Kroll (1973) found no effect of purely muscular fatigue on reaction time.

Distraction. Welford (1980) and Broadbent (1971) reviewed studies showing that distractions increase reaction time.

Warnings. Brebner and Welford (1980) report that reaction times are faster when the subject has been warned that a stimulus will arrive soon. In the Reaction Time program, the delay is never more than about 3 sec, but these authors report that even giving 5 minutes of warning helps. Bertelson (1967) found that as long as the warning was longer than about 0.2 sec., the shorter the warning was, the faster reaction time was. This effect probably occurs because attention and muscular tension cannot be maintained at a high level for more than a few seconds (Gottsdanker, 1975).

Order of Presentation. Welford (1980), Laming (1968) and Sanders (1998) observed that when there are several types of stimuli, reaction time will be faster where there is a 'run' of several identical stimuli than when the different types of stimuli appear in mixed order. This is called the "sequential effect."

Breathing Cycle. Buchsbaum and Calloway (1965) found that reaction time was faster when the stimulus occurred during expiration than during inspiration.

Finger Tremors. Brebner and Welford (1980) report that fingers tremble up and down at the rate of 8-10 cycles/sec, and reaction times are faster if the reaction occurs when the finger is already on the 'downswing' part of the tremor.

menu.Personality Type. Brebner (1980) found that extroverted personality types had faster reaction times, and Welford (1980) and Nettelbeck (1973) said that anxious personality types had faster reaction times. Lenzenweger (2001) found that the reaction times of schizophrenics was slower than those of normal people, but their error rates were the same.

Exercise. Exercise can affect reaction time. Welford (1980) found that physically fit subjects had faster reaction times, and both Levitt and Gutin (1971) and Sjoberg (1975) showed that subjects had the fastest reaction times when they were exercising sufficiently to produce a heartrate of 115 beats per minute. On the other hand, McMorriset al. (2000) found no effect of exercise on reaction time in a test of soccer skill.

Punishment. Shocking a subject when he reacts slowly does shorten reaction time (Johanson, 1922; Weiss, 1965).

Stimulant Drugs. Kleemeier et al. (1956) found that administering an amphetamine-like drug to a group of elderly men did not make their reaction times faster, although it did make their physical responses more vigorous.

Intelligence. Serious mental retardation produces slower and more variable reaction times. Among people of normal intelligence, there is a slight tendency for more intelligent people to have faster reaction times, but there is much variation between people of similar intelligence (Nettelbeck, 1980). The speed advantage of more intelligent people is greatest on tests requiring complex responses (Schweitzer, 2001).

[nospam]

I train repetitively. Ingrain a philosopy that is used through pre-determined movement. The body needs to naturally interact in a dynamic condition. The repetitive and varied (hence producing dynamic reaction) practise is what enables predetermined or stylised movement.

Simple stuff really. More people need to practise a progressive system of training - and by this I do not refer to forms training or belt levels.

Ah the science of Chinese gung fu...oh the science of fighting. It truely does take us a rung or two higher than your avg moron.

nospam.
:cool:

[TaoBoy]

At my school, we start by learning standard responses to attacks. Then we practice drills (repetitively) to ingrain the appropriate response. At later stages the practice drills become more free-form and faster (and therefore heavier, more difficult and more dangerous), at this point the student almost instinctively knows how to respond (or at least how not to get hit).

We focus heavily on the science of fighting - especially in this area.

Nice post Gary. Cheers!

[PLCrane]

Cool stuff! The only thing didn't make sense was this:

Warnings. Brebner and Welford (1980) report that reaction times are faster when the subject has been warned that a stimulus will arrive soon. In the Reaction Time program, the delay is never more than about 3 sec, but these authors report that even giving 5 minutes of warning helps. Bertelson (1967) found that as long as the warning was longer than about 0.2 sec., the shorter the warning was, the faster reaction time was. This effect probably occurs because attention and muscular tension cannot be maintained at a high level for more than a few seconds (Gottsdanker, 1975).

This conclusion makes no sense. If the high level can't be maintained for more than a few seconds, then why does a 5 minute warning help? OK, I guess Gottsdanker didn't have that information, since it came in a later study. I think that people guage their expectation according to the duration of the warning. A long warning is a slow warning, that translates to, "Ho, hum, a stimulus will be along in a little while," and a short warning is like, "HEY!"

For comparison, how fast is a punch? I seem to recall figures like 400 ms average, and 200 ms for really fast people. But that's from memory. Anybody got any figures in front of them? And how much longer does it take to move your arm into place to block a punch compared to how long it takes to press a space bar? What I've heard is, there are people out there who can punch faster than anyone can react. If they don't telegraph, and you stand within range, you'll get hit. I used to experience this regularly, until I learned not to stand around where I could be reached.

For training reactions, I think drilling techniques over and over again, first slowly, and then gradually increasing the speed is the way to go. If you speed up too quickly, you'll lose too much of the technique. The movements we do are a lot more complex than pressing a space bar, and the whole body needs to be trained to move right.

You can drill simple reactions if you do the same technique over and over again, and you can drill choice reactions by having your opponent lead with different specified attacks. Recognition reactions can be trained by putting a weapon in the attacker's hand (knife, gun or empty hand require different responses). Limit your choices to two different attack/defense combinations at first, then increase the number of possibilities later. For infinite choices, start with slow-motion sparring, then gradually increase the speed.

[{i^(]

Thank you for the write up! Its a keeper. You may have typed them in, but do you have the book/article citation? Not to trouble you....

Well, I'm looking at how this relates to Chi Sao training- it's a median speed stimulus, so you gotta look at how you can shave off miliseconds. The arousal part was the key for me: not too tense, not too relaxed- thats what we want! But we always tell new students: we'd rather have them too relaxed than too tense- you can always fix that, but tense is very hard to correct.

What else? Hmm..I'm considering that 'expecting something' bit...In Chi Sao, you are expecting, but you're not expecting something in particular, so it's hard to say right now.

[Chris McKinley]

Excellent post, Gary. While not as sexy or as convenient to spew as most of the pablum on this forum, this is the kind of post that might still actually make a difference in someone's training in a year's time.

The ramifications of the majority of the research that's been done in this area were lightly referenced by PLCrane. Namely, that it would seem that there's little to nothing that can be done about what are essentially "hard" reaction-time limits (or minima). Maintaining sufficient distance to mitigate reaction minima is about the only practical solution. In simpler terms, stay far enough away from the guy that, no matter what he tries to do, you have time to react to it.

Beyond that, making sure that you respond with the CORRECT reaction puts us once again under the domain of our Kung Fu training. Developing correct reactions with repeated practice gives us the correct response as a choice. Maintaining sufficient distance gives us the precious time necessary physiologically to MAKE that choice.

As I've discussed many times with Gary, I define this minimum distance as no closer than that which requires the opponent to take at least one step toward you in order to reach you with his longest-range weapon. Essentially, under most circumstances and everything else being equal, if he does not have to take a step to hit you, then whoever moves first will make contact with his strike. This is almost regardless of relative skill levels of the combatants. For example, assume you have two opponents facing each other, arms down at their sides, both within striking distace. Let's assume the first guy A is completely untrained and the second guy B has 5+ years of high-quality martial arts training. What the research shows is that if A is the first to move and strikes straight up the middle toward his opponent (thereby minimizing reaction time), he will strike B nearly every single time, regardless of B's overwhelming relative advantage in training skill.

Put simply again, B just doesn't have the sufficient neurophysiological time necessary to bring his 5+ years of training to bear on the situation. While he may still win the ensuing fight handily (assuming he is not incapacitated by the initial strike), he will still receive that initial blow almost every time that same situation is played out. This is worthy of serious consideration, especially in a street fight where the odds favor whoever lands the first telling blow. Additionally, in the street, you may be facing an opponent armed with a weapon, and allowing him to land that first initial blow may prove fatal to you. Put bluntly, if he is allowed to get close enough to land the initial blow of a fight and that blow is a knife cut across your throat, then all your years of martial arts training won't count for squat, even if he's otherwise so much below you in skill level that he could not land another blow in the rest of the fight.

Minimum neurophysiological reaction times are nature's way of keeping even the most highly skilled martial artist humble. ;)

[Braden]

Reaction Time literature is HUGE. You could spend your lifetime reading this stuff. I've usually approached it as a methodology for studying other topics (eg. implicit processes, attention, etc.), but it's just as easily a topic in and of itself.

"how does this info relate to your training?"

Not too much. The science is interesting, but it doesn't inform my training much. Perhaps it should... it could be I'm too stupid, or simply too inexperienced, or perhaps just uninspired.

"Does anyone know how the brain processes and stores techniques we need to use out of reaction?"

Very simple, routine, and natural movements seem to be 'stored' in the spinal column. I'm unsure as to whether or not you could train a martial technique to this level; I would guess off-hand that you couldn't. It seems like most trained motor behaviors are 'stored' in the cerebellum. How? The spinal cord stuff is mostly genetic, and usually discussed as very localized; like there is a neural net HERE that controls complex movement X. The cerebellum stuff is the mystery of the brain; generally, it seems like often-used neural pathways become metabolically superior (in the sense that they will activate more easily, more strongly, more quickly), a process which begins with transient chemical changes, and ultimately results in physical change (in the sense of the 'machinary' the neuron has to do it's work, and, more imporantly, how it's connected to other neurons), so long as the pathway remains 'oft-used.' Somehow this 'relatively' simple process seems to beget wondrously complex and stable 'mental' formations - complex, trained movements, as practiced in the martial arts, and represented in the connections of the cerebellum being one example. The nature of how these circuits (both those in the spinal cord and cerebellum) process is related to complex behaviors. Shock a muscle, and it will contract; but most behaviors we think of, and most certainly a trained martial technique, require an amazing coordination of countless such shocks. The neural circuits represent a 'map' of just how this coordination is done. While one neuron may 'shock' one muscle for one contraction, this movement 'maps' are like directors, telling these neurons to all fire now, these a second later, these constantly at a certain frequency, while there other ones get inhibited from firing. The 'nuts and bolts' of it is pretty interesting, if you're into mechanics. The nervous system is, at least at a certain level, binary; you have to go from one ON signal to this huge spectrum of signals, and that's what the map does. There's all sorts of complications, as, for example, usually what you'll want on one side of the body is the opposite of what you'll want on the other; and there's antagonistic muscles, etc.

"Miller and Low (2001) determined that the time for motor preparation (e.g., tensing muscles) and motor response (in this case, pressing the spacebar) was the same in all three types of reaction time test, implying that the differences in reaction time are due to processing time."

It's important to note, though, that purely motor responses (eg. post-processing) can be variable, and most likely trainable. Different muscle fibers will vary on a variety of different levels, with respect to motor reponses. This includes both reasons why a muscle fiber will contract faster or slower (metabolic, structural), as well as issues of nerve transmission speed, and the specifics of innervation (muscle-to-nerve connections). For any movement, a variety of different assortments of muscle fibers will be recruited for the task. This is likely effected by training. It is also possible to specifically train certain kinds of motor units (muscles and nerves).

"It is not just simple mechanical factors like the speed of nervous conduction. It may be the tendency of older people to be more careful and monitor their responses more thoroughly (Botwinick, 1966)."

There's fairly good evidence for this sort of thing coming out, well... now. fMRI studies have shown that RT (reaction time) and similar measures are much more complicated than previously assumed (although, this study from '66 seems to have been on track - nice!). With fMRI we can actually see that it's not so much a matter of neural regions not becoming activated strongly or quickly enough (eg. in the elderly), but in many cases, entirely different neural regions become activated - suggesting, rather than slower processing, an entirely different processing is occurring. Given the nature of the nervous system, it's very plausible to believe this different kind has it's own strengths. Similar ideas have come out in studies of performance of all kinds (eg. mathematical); with regards to different processes taking place for the same act; preventing us from interpreting RTs bluntly.

"The fastest reaction time comes when a stimulus is seen by the cones (when the person is looking right at the stimulus). If the stimulus is picked up by rods (around the edge of the eye), the reaction is slower."

Actually, it depends on the stimulus. The periphery has the superior sensitivity for some stimuli, such as movement, and also tends to detect less intense stimuli more readily. The fovea has, by far, a greater proportion of neurons/area, and thus has greater acuity and will respond more accurately for almost any task, but also quicker for many, as noted.

"Reaction time is fastest with an intermediate level of arousal, and deteriorates when the subject is either too relaxed or too tense (Welford, 1980; Broadbent, 1971; Freeman, 1933)."

Related literature suggests this isn't simply (or isn't only) a matter of arousal, but that trained reactions will perform quickest when executed in similar 'mental states' as they were trained in. This certainly speaks directly to the notion of people's training collapsing under pressure they are not used to; and probably has some interesting relations to 'sung' for neijia people.

"What do you do now to train your reactions?"

Everything. I dunno... there's so much. This is what we train! One of the things I like are 'foolproof' reactions, of which there's alot in bagua. By 'foolproof' I mean, even if you bugger the movement up pretty bad, it's still doing something useful. This has alot of implications, generally, martially; but bouncing off things Chris and Gary said regarding reactions specifically, it has alot of utility. For example, in bagua often we will get the attack out of the way (eg. parry), move our body out of the way entirely, push our opponent off balance, and rotate our body as if absorbing the angle of the strike - simultaneously. This is 'foolproof' and related to reactions in the sense that, if you react to slow, there's still a good chance of getting something useful out of the movement. For instance, you might not stop the strike, but you've moved out of the way; you might not move out of the way, but you're rolling with the strike. All this said, I think there's alot of truth in the concept Chris discussed, regarding 'safe distance'. Even with well-done, very 'foolproof' reactions, an attack from standing around at 'unsafe distance' is extraordinarily hard to defend against. Getting a sense of safe distance, which is a dynamic thing (and certainly may relate to your environment, how many people there are, your condition, etc), as well as learning to naturally adapt to and maintain this distance, while maintaining a solid but mobile footing (eg. never getting caught 'flat-footed' if you'll pardon what is probably a poor metaphor for many people) as well as a solid structure (eg. not closing off your armpits, keeping a guard, etc)... well, all that is, I think, very, very important. Getting into self-defense, and strategies people with serious intent to harm you and/or those you are with; this idea of safe-distance takes on a new dimension, certainly a mental dimension, in a way which is difficult to describe to someone unfamiliar with it. Once the fight is on, the reaction game may become quite different, depending on how you may be fighting. Many people have a variety of ways of keeping someone off-balance (which can itself mean a variety of things!), such that they cannot react properly. At this point, 'reaction time' may become very unrelated to actual speed of movement, so much as integrity of this sort of a strategy. With this in mind, it's probably a good idea for us to get comfortable with close-range fighting, where this kind of a strategy is prevalent and extremely effective. Being able to maintain your own integrity in spite of being in 'percussive' close-contact, while impairing your opponent from doing the same, is certainly a very desirable skill. The internal arts, so I am told, have a variety of training methods for this. Probably the most important, and the least useful to read about, are the foundations of standing (or perhaps circlewalking and such). More obvious and interesting are the contact exercises like pushing-hands where one can feel, learn to feel, exert, learn to exert, and experiment with the various variations in pressure and reaction at close-range. Or, again, so I am told.

[gazza99]

Direct Vs Peripheral

I needed to dig more, becuase I didnt think the former was correct concerning movement. But I have always thought peripheral vision was a better motion detector. It was confirmed looking through some research on vision and driving....

"The few existing data suggest that reaction time sharply increases as the rods become the primary photoreceptor"

Ok just saw Bradens post! Thanks!

In training I have always practiced/taught to look either over the shoulder of the attacker, or to the side of him, so that his whole body is in your peripheral vision.

I find this allows me to detect any body motion quicker than either focusing on a part of him, or as many do-centering the eyes on him and blurring outwards if you do this what I think is missed is the main torso movement, and you get tunnel vision with that attacker. Looking to the side of him or over the shoulder forces you to use the peripheral only and be more aware of your surroundings.

Gary

[gazza99]

I think this type of research has an immense impact on how/what we should train. Here is the short list....

1. Self defense, or self-offense? For example as Chris basically stated- toe to toe even the most trained guy is most likely to get hit or stabbed. This should be of great concern, both legally, and In how we approach situations. This is basically the reason I strike first if I cannot keep the person from entering that range , he persists in closing the gap and I cannot safely retreat.

But to a judge this type of pre-emptive strike could be percieved not as self-defense, especially in the case of a well-trained individual. But knowing a bit about probable reaction time may save us legally by giving us good enough reason to fear and react accordingly in defense of our lives.

2. How many techniques we memorize and practice- "as the number of items in the memory set increases, the reaction time rises proportionately (that is, proportional to N, not to log N). Reaction times ranged from 420 msec for 1 valid stimulus (such as one letter in symbol recognition) to 630 msec for 6 valid stimuli, increasing by about 40 msec every time another item was added to the memory set."

I may be misunderstanding so please correct me, but I think the more things we introduce into our mental library directly affects the reaction time. Now perhaps time and repitition can counter act this. But It should make someone think twice about being a "technique collector" and just find good variables that work for anything without going overboard.

I find that even if you learn 1000 different techniques, they may all share a core principle/movement, why vary on that principle 975 more times than you need to and clutter that mental library? Perhaps you need that number of variations to extract the right principle? But once you do -I think Less is more.

3.How we learn- "but that trained reactions will perform quickest when executed in similar 'mental states' as they were trained in. This certainly speaks directly to the notion of people's training collapsing under pressure"
Simply what mind frame we are in, What scenarios we practice, how we spar,as Quoted above Braden hinted about state-induced learning.

All of these things affect how to best learn and train in our arts so that we may best handle ourselves in a real encounter. If we play spar perhaps those techniques were stored in the mental state of "play" mode, and will not be manifested well under duress?


4. What we learn- Fine motor movements along with gross motor movements that work without the fine ones? This could produce a more fool-proof, or perhaps better stated, reaction proof, or duress proof technique. Some adhere to the theory that if you train complex reactions and can perform them well in trainining, the simple ones will be easier to pull off. I personally like to do both, I prefer the more fool proof methods, but enjoy, and of course teaching have to learn them all regardless of simplicity. I only have a handfull of teachnique I really like and train the crap out of them, but doing the more complex things gives me more insight on the simple stuff. Also jin refinment, and structure in simple movment is a big player for all you Neija fans.

What does everyone else think? Some questions to answer.

Who here adopts that idea (mixing gross and fine movements)?

How many of you only do more complex things?

Or focus on them more?

What is your experiance with the gross reporduction of that movement under stress and reaction?

5. Where we look- I addressed this in my last post, but it definately is a main factor in the reaction we are able to produce.

It may also be a player of how our brain stores and access the information/techniques or reactions we use. Perhaps the peripheral vision bypasses certain cognitive processes and enables us to react more swiftly and with the correct technique without really "thinking" about it. Knowing exactly how we could process/learn and react in the most optimal fashion would obviously be of great benifit.

Regards,
Gary R.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

"What I've heard is, there are people out there who can punch faster than anyone can react. If they don't telegraph, and you stand within range, you'll get hit. I used to experience this regularly, until I learned not to stand around where I could be reached. "

"Namely, that it would seem that there's little to nothing that can be done about what are essentially "hard" reaction-time limits (or minima). Maintaining sufficient distance to mitigate reaction minima is about the only practical solution. In simpler terms, stay far enough away from the guy that, no matter what he tries to do, you have time to react to it."

i disagree here. it is a solution, but at 5'5'' i dont think it's the only one or the most practical one for me. to quote the article . ..

"Reaction time to touch is intermediate, at 155 msec (Robinson, 1934). "

. .. .but i'm a short dude studying a system that is largely focused on getting in and staying in.

[PLCrane]

GDA, you and I are the same height. When I get close enough to do anything, I try to maintain some control over the other guy's limbs. By control, I don't necessarily mean chin na, but some contact with the limbs. This allows for monitoring any motion, covering and redirecting. If I just face off with someone within reach, if they're fast, I'm hit.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

plcrane . .. your style sounds a lot like mine actually. we also train the movement slow until its perfected. getting your entire body behind every movement is something my sifu probably stresses more than anything else.

maintaining contact with the opponent as much as possible is also something i try to do. it's neat to watch some of the advanced students really get into it when doing this as they will look like a grappler standing up . .. . their arms just swimming over their frustrated oponent who can barely move an inch.

what style do you do? some type of crane i imagine.

wudang, pukulan, and various other tidbits here.

[TaoBoy]

The dangerous thing about this thread is that people may actually learn something!

Thanks guys, this has been a good read. Gary's points regarding legalities are very interesting - I have never thought about reaction times etc. in that fashion.

Cheers, Adam

[gazza99]

Thanks Taoboy! I hope people will learn something, I know I have! Ive spent some time gathering info and writing on this one. So im going to eventually turn it into a more coherent article and make it avaible on my site as such.

So if anyone has any info (references please) that contradics my current findings, or can add something of practical value to the info presented it would be much appreciated, and credit will be given in the article.

Other than that I have posed many questions at the end of my last post, and made many points. Does anyone have any experiance or knowledge, or even opinion to share on the points and questions raised?

Thanks in advance,
Gary R.

[gazza99]

TTT

[PLCrane]

Gary,

Regarding the peripheral vs. central vision reaction times, it might be interesting to look at the instructions the subjects were given. I think whether you focus on your central vision or peripheral would have an effect on the reflex time.

For instance, if you're expecting to see a recognizable symbol, like a letter, I'd expect that you'd focus all your attention on central vision and pretty much ignore the peripheral. If you were told to respond as soon as you saw something move, you might be more aware of the periphery.

Do you have any of these studies full-text in electronic format?


PLC

[gazza99]

Nope, dont have them in full. But I dont think the study was that specific, I think Its widely accepted that the periphreal is better for motion detection.

Perhaps such a specific study would be good to see what the reaction time is of someone attacked while reading a book, or unaware until the periphreal picks it up from nowhere. Either than That I can only conclude that if something is anticipated the periphreal should be used right away and the person should not try and use direct vision on the person due to them detecting their motions at a slower rate. Is this what you meant? Does that help?

Gary

[gazza99]

TTT (on the first page)

Also many unanswered questions in my last longwinded post..

Gary

[PLCrane]

Originally posted by gazza99
Nope, dont have them in full. But I dont think the study was that specific, I think Its widely accepted that the periphreal is better for motion detection.

Perhaps such a specific study would be good to see what the reaction time is of someone attacked while reading a book, or unaware until the periphreal picks it up from nowhere. Either than That I can only conclude that if something is anticipated the periphreal should be used right away and the person should not try and use direct vision on the person due to them detecting their motions at a slower rate. Is this what you meant? Does that help?

Gary


Yeah, something like that. I thought it was odd that the one study said central vision was faster, and was curious to see exactly how that study was different. Usually, there are extra tidbits of useful information within the study that don't make it into the abstract or into any news reports.

PLC