Re: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time (much ado bout nuthin)
> From: Jack Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > High-end track meets put speakers in the blocks. Isn't that primarily for the starter's voice commands, or do they also get the sound of the gun through the speakers? I would think that might create a strange echo. Dan
Re: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time (much ado bout nuthin)
If I read the article correctly it had more to do with the fact that it was louder for the runners nearer the gun. - Original Message - From: "Jack Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 9:46 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time (much ado bout nuthin) They do it from behind at the Drake Relays, with assistant starters watching in front. In the worst case, if a starter stood (off the track, of course) on a line with the starting line, the sound of the gun would reach the runner in lane 1 about 0.025 seconds before it reached the runner in lane 7. High-end track meets put speakers in the blocks. On Jun 21, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Dan Kaplan wrote: From: Jorma Kurry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is there a reason why the starter could not stand behind the runners in the straightaway races at that level? Just venturing a guess... Sounds are more difficult to localize and identify when they come from behind, if I remember correctly. That uncertainty might create more jumps. Also, the starter has to wait for everyone to be still, and that's much more difficult to determine from behind. It would probably require a change of duties for the starting crew. Dan
Re: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time (much ado bout nuthin)
They do it from behind at the Drake Relays, with assistant starters watching in front. In the worst case, if a starter stood (off the track, of course) on a line with the starting line, the sound of the gun would reach the runner in lane 1 about 0.025 seconds before it reached the runner in lane 7. High-end track meets put speakers in the blocks. On Jun 21, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Dan Kaplan wrote: From: Jorma Kurry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is there a reason why the starter could not stand behind the runners in the straightaway races at that level? Just venturing a guess... Sounds are more difficult to localize and identify when they come from behind, if I remember correctly. That uncertainty might create more jumps. Also, the starter has to wait for everyone to be still, and that's much more difficult to determine from behind. It would probably require a change of duties for the starting crew. Dan
Re: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time (much ado bout nuthin)
> From: Jorma Kurry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > is there a reason why the starter could not stand behind the > runners in the straightaway races at that level? Just venturing a guess... Sounds are more difficult to localize and identify when they come from behind, if I remember correctly. That uncertainty might create more jumps. Also, the starter has to wait for everyone to be still, and that's much more difficult to determine from behind. It would probably require a change of duties for the starting crew. Dan
Re: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time (much ado bout nuthin)
Well, I hate to clutter the list when it's already so busy, but I'm going to venture another opinion. Presumably, the meaning of significant here was limited to a statistical conclusion that there is a variation among lanes that is unlikely to be due to chance. Whether that has any practical significance remains up for debate. I would suspect that the frequency of competitions where this discrepancy has a tangible impact on the results is probably not negligible but also not likely to be hugely important, especially when the top seeds are clustered in the middle of the track for finals. However, is there a reason why the starter could not stand behind the runners in the straightaway races at that level? The recall starter could still stand in front. I'm not a starter so maybe that view is not sufficient ... - Original Message - From: "Roger Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cc: "George Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 5:11 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time (much ado bout nuthin) Admittedly, I'm out of my expertise range with this, but if Malmo has the differences calculated correctly, the three "gunshot" volume levels could each average an effect close to .01 seconds. Whether that might result in changes in order of finish might be examined by looking at the finishing times of finalists in the 2004 Olympics 100m. In the 100m finals, no two runners finished with the same time (to .01 second), with the top three registering 9.85, 9.86, 9.87. It seems a difference of .01sec, .007sec, .017sec might have changed any of these times. On the other hand, in a semi-final heat, Obikwelu (POR) and Green (USA) both recorded times of 9.97, but Obikwelu finished second, while Green finished third; so clearly differences of less than .01 second do affect order of finish. In the finals, however, the two runners finished in the same positions, but both ran nearly 1/10 second (not 1/00 second) faster than in the heats, so any effect of starting-pistol volume pales by comparison with other factors. Okay, I'm out of this. But I'll enjoy reading other subscribers' interpretations of the importance of the study findings.
Re: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time (much ado bout nuthin)
On Saturday, June 21, 2008, at 09:26 AM, George Malley wrote: It all depends on what you call "significant" doesn't it? From another Univ Alberta Study on the same topic: If you report the reaction times in milliseconds (133, 143, and 150) my gosh, those numbers look big. If you report the results by actual reaction time differences 0.01s (133-143ms) 0.007s (133-150ms) and 0.017s (133-150ms) it looks like there's no there there. Admittedly, I'm out of my expertise range with this, but if Malmo has the differences calculated correctly, the three "gunshot" volume levels could each average an effect close to .01 seconds. Whether that might result in changes in order of finish might be examined by looking at the finishing times of finalists in the 2004 Olympics 100m. In the 100m finals, no two runners finished with the same time (to .01 second), with the top three registering 9.85, 9.86, 9.87. It seems a difference of .01sec, .007sec, .017sec might have changed any of these times. On the other hand, in a semi-final heat, Obikwelu (POR) and Green (USA) both recorded times of 9.97, but Obikwelu finished second, while Green finished third; so clearly differences of less than .01 second do affect order of finish. In the finals, however, the two runners finished in the same positions, but both ran nearly 1/10 second (not 1/00 second) faster than in the heats, so any effect of starting-pistol volume pales by comparison with other factors. Okay, I'm out of this. But I'll enjoy reading other subscribers' interpretations of the importance of the study findings.
RE: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time (much ado bout nuthin)
It all depends on what you call "significant" doesn't it? >From another Univ Alberta Study on the same topic: If you report the reaction times in milliseconds (133, 143, and 150) my gosh, those numbers look big. If you report the results by actual reaction time differences 0.01s (133-143ms) 0.007s (133-150ms) and 0.017s (133-150ms) it looks like there's no there there. http://www.ssaa.ca/pdf/Maraj%20UA%20SSAA%2004-6.pdf Here's the another Collins Brown study http://www.physorg.com/news133103474.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Ruth Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 12:13 AM To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time Today's edition of the Vancouver edition of Globe and Mail includes an article that's interesting, but without enough information to know how well-founded is that interest. It describes a study undertaken at the University of Alberta in which researchers examined reaction times for the 100m sprint and 110m hurdles at the 2004 Olympic Games and found that runners in the lanes closest to the starting pistol had significantly faster reaction times than those in lanes farther away. This effect was said to be especially strong for runners in lane one. Unfortunately, the dimension of this difference is not given in this report, so whether it would affect an individual's measured time in these events cannot be determined. The article says that a report on the research, by Dave Collins and Alex Brown, is published in the June issue of Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. If any of our subscribers has access to this journal, perhaps she or he can fill us in on the over-all effect of this difference in reaction times.
Re: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time
It would only be mirrored directly if you randomized the lanes beforehand. Seeding fastest in the middle will override the differential in reaction time. The important question is whether the same athlete would run faster in 1 versus 8. - Original Message - From: "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:49 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time Interesting, to say the least. It makes sense on one hand, but then why do the typical overall results not mirror that pattern? Rarely do you see the inside to outside lanes go fast-to-slow. The implication is that reaction time has little to do with overall finish. I could see the 200m being a bit different, where the starter is more toward the center of the pack on the turn, but the research addresses the straight laned races... Dan http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / --- On Sat, 6/21/08, Roger Ruth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Roger Ruth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Date: Saturday, June 21, 2008, 4:13 AM Today's edition of the Vancouver edition of Globe and Mail includes an article that's interesting, but without enough information to know how well-founded is that interest. It describes a study undertaken at the University of Alberta in which researchers examined reaction times for the 100m sprint and 110m hurdles at the 2004 Olympic Games and found that runners in the lanes closest to the starting pistol had significantly faster reaction times than those in lanes farther away. This effect was said to be especially strong for runners in lane one. Unfortunately, the dimension of this difference is not given in this report, so whether it would affect an individual's measured time in these events cannot be determined. The article says that a report on the research, by Dave Collins and Alex Brown, is published in the June issue of Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. If any of our subscribers has access to this journal, perhaps she or he can fill us in on the over-all effect of this difference in reaction times.
Re: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time
Interesting, to say the least. It makes sense on one hand, but then why do the typical overall results not mirror that pattern? Rarely do you see the inside to outside lanes go fast-to-slow. The implication is that reaction time has little to do with overall finish. I could see the 200m being a bit different, where the starter is more toward the center of the pack on the turn, but the research addresses the straight laned races... Dan http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / --- On Sat, 6/21/08, Roger Ruth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Roger Ruth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time > To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu > Date: Saturday, June 21, 2008, 4:13 AM > Today's edition of the Vancouver edition of Globe and > Mail includes an > article that's interesting, but without enough > information to know how > well-founded is that interest. > > It describes a study undertaken at the University of > Alberta in which > researchers examined reaction times for the 100m sprint and > 110m > hurdles at the 2004 Olympic Games and found that runners in > the lanes > closest to the starting pistol had significantly faster > reaction times > than those in lanes farther away. This effect was said to > be especially > strong for runners in lane one. > > Unfortunately, the dimension of this difference is not > given in this > report, so whether it would affect an individual's > measured time in > these events cannot be determined. The article says that a > report on > the research, by Dave Collins and Alex Brown, is published > in the June > issue of Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. If > any of our > subscribers has access to this journal, perhaps she or he > can fill us > in on the over-all effect of this difference in reaction > times.
