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.
