Acceso usuarios
Carlos Arturo Galvis Fajardo, Laura Elizabeth Castro jimenez, Nicolás Luque Aldana
Una dificultad con la medición del tiempo de reacción (TR) es que se define de diferentes formas y no permite una comparación entre diferentes poblaciones. Este es un estudio cuantitativo en donde se busca evaluar la confiabilidad del TR con el instrumento MOY-ART 35600. Participaron 24 estudiantes voluntarios (18- 26 años), que fueron aleatorizados en tres grupos, 1) 30 intentos consecutivos (30TR); 2) 120 intentos consecutivos (120TR); y 3) 120 intentos, divididos en bloques de 30 intentos con 4 minutos de descanso entre bloque (TR120d), La aplicación de los protocolos se realizó en tres diferentes momentos a los mismos participantes. En la primera toma se encontró en 30TR (M = 274,4ms; DS± 60.45ms), 120TR (M = 257,41ms; DS±45.52ms), 120TRd (M = 239,3 ms; DS±50ms). En la segunda toma se encontró en 30TR (M = 274.1 ms; DS±47.26ms), 120TR (M = 244.85; DS±46.06ms), 120TRd (M = 233.22ms; DS±39.07ms). Tercera toma se encontró en 30TR (M = 278.58 ms; DS± 66.17ms), 120TR (M = 239.69; DS± 36.08ms), 120TRd (M = 240.24ms; DS± 84.45s). Se encontró que el protocolo con mejores resultados en la aplicación, por consistencia en las medias, y por la menor varianza en el grupo fue el de 120TRd. Evidenciando que es mejor aplicar un protocolo con un número de intentos muy alto pero que tenga descansos, que son esenciales para evitar el agotamiento nervioso.
Reaction time (RT) is a variable where there is no consensus on the form of measurement, and is also a variable used to measure a person’s processing speed, but as measured in different ways, you cannot buy stocks. This is a quantitative study in which the reliability of TR is sought with the MOYART 35600 instrument. It was performed in 24 volunteer subjects; 12 men and 12 women between 18 and 26 years old, students of the Faculty of Physical Culture, Sports and Recreation of the Santo Tomás University, Bogotá, Colombia. The population was randomized into three groups: 1) 30 consecutive trials (30TR); 2) 120 consecutive trials (120TR); 3) 120 attempts, divided into blocks of 30 trials with 4-minute break between blocks (TR120d). The application of the protocols was carried out in three different moments. First shot was found in 30TR (M = 274.4ms, DS ± 60.45ms), 120TR (M = 257.41ms, DS ± 45.52ms), 120TRd (M = 239.3 ms, DS ± 50ms). Second shot was found in 30TR (M = 274.1 ms, DS ± 47.26ms), 120TR (M = 244.85, DS ± 46.06ms), 120TRd (M = 233.22ms, DS ± 39.07ms). Third shot was found in 30TR (M = 278.58 ms, DS ± 66.17ms), 120TR (M =239.69, DS ± 36.08ms), 120TRd (M =240.24ms, DS ± 84.45s). It was found that the protocol with the best results in the application, for consistency in the means, and for the lowest variance in the group was 120TRd. In conclusion, we show it is more effective to use a protocol with a high number of trials but with breaks, that are essential to avoid nervous fatigue.
