Saudi Journal of Sports Medicine

: 2022  |  Volume : 22  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 113--116

Comparison of reaction time ability for different forms of stimuli among various athletes

Yeasir Arafat1, Joynul Abedin2, Jannatul Ferdaus Rickta3, Fatima Tus Johora Mukta4, Rezaul Islam5,  
1 Department of Physical Education, Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology, Chittagong, Bangladesh
2 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology, Chittagong, Bangladesh
3 Department of Physical Education and Sports Science, Jashore University of Science and Technology, Jashore, Bangladesh
4 Department of Physical Education and Sports Science, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
5 Department of Physical Education, Bangabandhu Textile Engineering College, Tangial, Bangladesh

Correspondence Address:
Yeasir Arafat
Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology, Chittagong


Introduction: Reaction time (RT) is a part of sports psychology. The reaction is a purposeful, voluntary response to various stimuli, including touch, visual, and aural inputs. The present study aims to identify which type of RT appears between visual reaction time (VRT) and auditory RT (ART) among various athletes. Methods: Forty university students both male and female students were randomly chosen as subjects. The average age of all subjects (male and female) was 21.02 years old. The collected data were scanned using Shapiro–Wilk and analyzed by a standard statistical measure (&#;T” value and “P” value for the level of significance). Results: The mean RT for the visual stimulus was 0.155 s and the mean value of the ART was 0.151 s. The result was that there was no statistically significant difference in RT between visual and auditory stimuli for the subjects. Conclusion: The researcher's investigation findings led to the following conclusion that the visible RT appears to be greater than the AR T of both male and female players in various events.

How to cite this article:
Arafat Y, Abedin J, Rickta JF, Johora Mukta FT, Islam R. Comparison of reaction time ability for different forms of stimuli among various athletes.Saudi J Sports Med 2022;22:113-116

How to cite this URL:
Arafat Y, Abedin J, Rickta JF, Johora Mukta FT, Islam R. Comparison of reaction time ability for different forms of stimuli among various athletes. Saudi J Sports Med [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 5 ];22:113-116
Available from:

Full Text



Sports psychology is a mandatory part of sports science, like coaching and training in any game. In psychology, the amount of time that passes between being presented with a stimulus and launching a motor response to that stimulus is known as reaction time (RT). The reaction is a purposeful, voluntary response to a variety of stimuli, including touch, visual, and aural inputs.[1] The period of time between an external signal and a response is known as RT. The RT of an organ is a measurement of how quickly it can respond to a specific stimulus.[2] RT can be divided into three forms, such as (a) simple RT, where one stimulus and one response are present in it, (b) recognition RT: in it, some stimuli are to be responded to and the rest are to be ignored, and (c) RT of choice: multiple responses are required in response to multiple stimuli.[3],[4] Further, it may be broken up into three types. The first factor is perception time, which is the amount of time it takes to apply and observe a stimulus. The second factor is decision time, which refers to the amount of time it takes to respond appropriately to a stimulus. The third factor is motor time, which is the time it takes for the signal to be fulfilled.[5] Donders was the first scientist to analyze response time in a laboratory setting in 1865, and he discovered that simple RT is quicker than recognition RT and that choice RT is the longest of the three RTs.[6] The RT includes the beginning of eye motions, eye movement time, decision time, and muscle contraction time.[7]

RT was influenced by physiological and pharmacological factors.[8],[9] Simple RT stimuli are tactile (90–180 ms), auditory (120–180 ms), and visual (150–200 ms) stimuli in that sequence, with tactile having the best RT ever to the lower one.[10] Males and females have significantly different visual and auditory RTs (ART), and males react to aural and visual inputs more quickly than females do.[11] The right and left hemispheres of the brain operate according to the contra lateral theory. The visual and auditory response times of the left finger were considerably slower than those of the right digit in simple and choice RT tasks.[12] When it comes to neuromuscular mechanisms, cognitive ability, and tactical capacity, an athlete with a quicker RT is more significant than a different athlete with the same neuromuscular systems, brainpower, and tactical prowess.[13],[14] The use of vision (seeing signals and thinking in images) and audition is the visual and auditory stimuli in games and sports (using sounds and voices).[15] Vocalization (spoken) for verbal communication and tone of voice, discourse volume, and intonation for nonverbal communication are examples of auditory stimuli that use sound to transmit and receive information. Body language, facial expressions, postures, movement, and physical appearance with a change of direction are all examples.[16],[17],[18] University students' involvement in sports, perceptions of physical fitness, and commitment to a healthy lifestyle are all on the rise in Bangladesh.[19],[20] When stretching and flexibility exercises are done on a regular basis, mental and physical relaxation improves.[21]

The current study looked at the simple RT of auditory and visual RT in Bangladeshi players of various games. The purpose of the present study was to examine the RT, which is the ability to respond quickly with proper posture and control to a stimulus such as sound or sight. In many instances, in many sports, maximum speed is rarely reached or needed, but an explosive reaction is often necessary. Athletes can improve RT s by training to make the right choices (choice reaction).


Forty university students, both male and female, were randomly chosen as subjects. Of those, thirty were male and the rest ten were female. All subjects were different sports events (basketball, handball, volleyball, football, and cricket). All athletes were competing at interuniversity and junior national levels in their prestigious sporting competitions. The subjects were between the ages of 18 and 24 years, and the data were collected at a prestigious university in Bangladesh.

Auditory reaction time (ART) and visual reaction time (VRT) data were recorded using the audiovisual reaction timer[22] Quality Management System, which is certified to ISO 9001:2015 standards. The test administrator sat on the operator side of the table, while the subjects sat on the trainer side. When seated, the participants kept both the hands on the table with their chosen finger resting on the AVR timer switch. VRT was recorded using illuminating bulbs, while ART listened to the sounds that served as individual stimuli. Both the dominant and nondominant hands were tested for VRT and ART. The researchers used light and sound stimuli 1–3 s after the ready call in both the tests. The subjects were told to react quickly to the action and turn off the switch as soon as possible. The same tasks were repeated by all of the participants. Ten times auditory and 10 times visual reaction time are recorded, all of the data excluding only the two fastest and two slowest values. The experimental RT data were taken as the average score.

Using the Shapiro–Wilk test to scan the data, the researcher noted a general distribution [Figure 1]. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, mean, and standard deviation (SD). An inferential statistics-paired and independent t-test was applied to check the level of significance. The significance level was set at P < 0.01.[23],[24],[25],[26],[27]{Figure 1}

The mean was calculated as a measure of central tendency using the formula:


The SD was calculated as the measure of variability using the formula:


Significance of the difference between two mean values was tested using σ t-test. The formula used for t-test is as follows:



In [Table 1], and the graphic presentation [Figure 2], it clearly showed that the mean RT for the visual stimulus was 0.155 s and the mean value of the ART was 0.151 s. At the same time, the SD in visual RT was ± 25.08, and in auditory, it was ± 23.07. Hence, it was clear that the RT for auditory stimuli was slightly less than that of visual stimuli.{Table 1}{Figure 2}

From [Table 2], it clearly showed that the calculated value of “t” (1.68) and “p” (0.050476) and the significant level is 0.05 level. It was understood that there was no statistically significant difference in RT between visual and auditory stimuli for the subjects.{Table 2}


RT is used to be well in not only sports but also daily life work. A person's visual RT should ideally be faster than their ART or same as ART should ideally be faster than their visual reaction. [Table 1] shows that ART was lower than VRT in this study, indicating that VRT was slower than ART. This outcome is consistent with a previous research,[28] which shows that ART is faster than visual RT in a simple RT task. It only takes 8–10 ms for an auditory signal to reach the brain,[29] yet it takes 20–40 ms for a visual stimulus.[30] According to another study,[31] visual stimuli last longer than auditory stimuli. A researchers[32] examined 104 top-level male soccer players and found that the RT of auditory and visual stimuli differed significantly, where ART outperforming than the VRT. Hence, the present study was designed to find a result about RT ability for different forms of stimuli among various athletes. Another research[1] found that for male basketball players, ART was superior to VRT. According to a research,[33] VRT was slower than ART in medical students. All conclusions of pervious research are consistent with those of the current study.

Our findings confirm previous research and suggest that ART is faster than VRT. In [Table 2], we found that the mean difference is 0.004. This result was measured by the “t” scale and “p” scale; the result was not significant. Finally, we found that ART is faster than visual RT (VRT). The research's restriction was that only forty university students were chosen, of which thirty were male and the remaining ten were female. For this analysis, there were both time and financial constraints. We scanned the data using the Shapiro–Wilk test, and the researcher found a general distribution. A future study can include more participants, people from different age groups, and modern tools for data collection and analysis.


Researchers draw the following conclusion from the investigation's findings that the visual RT appears to be greater than the ART for both male and female players in various events. The difference between visual and ART is not significant.


The researchers are grateful to the all subjects who have participated in this research on an unpaid basis.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


1Ghuntla TP, Mehta HB, Gokhale PA, Shah CJ. A comparison and importance of auditory and visual reaction time in basketball players. Saudi J Sports Med 2014;14:35-8.
2Batra A, Vyas S, Gupta J, Gupta K, Hada R. A comparative study between young and elderly Indian males on audio-visual reaction time. Indian J Sci Res Tech 2014;2:25-9.
3Luce RD. Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
4Keramati M, Dezfouli A, Piray P. Speed/accuracy trade-off between the habitual and the goal-directed processes. PLoS Comput Biol 2011;7:e1002055.
5Yuhas, D. Speedy Science: How Fast Can You React. Sci Am 2012. Available from: https://www. scientific american. com/article/bring-science-home-reaction-time. [Last accessed on 2022 Sep 12].
6Donders FC. On the speed of mental processes. Translated by W. G. Koster, 1969. Acta Psychol 1868;30:412-31.
7Singer RN, Murphey M, Tennant LK. Handbook of Research on Sport Psychology. New York: Macmillan; 1993.
8Mohan M, Thombre DP, Das AK, Subramanian N, Chandrasekar S. Reaction time in clinical diabetes mellitus. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 1984;28:311-4.
9Malathi A, Parulkar VG, Dhavale HS, Pinto C. A preliminary study of reaction time in schizophrenics. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 1990;34:54-6.
10Hoyes Beehler PJ, Kamen G. Fractionated reaction time responses to auditory and Electrocutaneous Stimuli. Res Q Exerc Sport 1986;57:298-307.
11Devi BS, Madhuri NK. Comparative study of visual and auditory reaction times on the basis of gender and physical activity levels of medical students. MedPulse Int J Physiol 2017;4:4-6.
12Ng AW, Chan AH. Finger response times to visual, auditory and tactile modality stimuli. In: Proceedings of the international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists. Vol. 2. 2012. p. 1449-54.
13Fozard JL, Vercryssen M, Reynolds SL, Hancock PA, Quilter RE. Age differences and changes in reaction time: The Baltimore longitudinal study of aging. J Gerontol 1994;49:P179-89.
14Collardeau M, Brisswalter J, Audiffren M. Effects of a prolonged run on simple reaction time of well trained runners. Percept Mot Skills 2001;93:679-89.
15Zamfir MV. Verbal and non-verbal communication in sport environment. Marathon 2017;9:99-106.
16Pedersen PM, Miloch KS, Laucella PC. Strategic Sports Communication. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2007.
17Islam MS, Kundu B. Association of dribbling with linear and non-linear sprints in young soccer players of Bangladesh. Int J Med Public Health 2020;10:100-3.
18Islam MS. Relationship of abdominal muscle endurance with selected anthropometric measurements in soccer players. Int J Physiol Nutr Phys Educ 2018;3:1088-90.
19Rahman MH, Chanda S, Reza MN. Comparison of simple choice visual reaction time between athlete and sedentary university women students. Eur J Phys Educ Sport Sci 2020;6:1-8.
20Rahman HM, Islam MS. Investigation of audio-visual simple reaction time of university athletes and non-athletes. J Adv Sport Phys Educ 2021;4:24-9.
21Rahman MH, Islam MS. Stretching and flexibility: A range of motion for games and sports. Eur J Phys Educ Sport Sci 2020;6:22-36.
22Medisystems Medical Eqipements. (n.d.). Available from: [Last retrieved on 2020 Oct 20].
23Arafat Y, Rickta JF, Mukta FT. A comparative study of motor fitness between sprinter and long-distance runner in Bangladesh. Int J Yoga Physiother Phys Educ 2020;22:18-20.
24Arafat Y, Rickta JF, Mukta FT. Difference between selected movement parameters in Straight and Curve path among national level players in Bangladesh. Int J Phys Educ Sports Health 2020;7:357-9.
25Arafat MY, Rickta JF, Mukta FT. Analysis of ball velocity for different groups of positional soccer players. Int J Phys Educ Sports Manage Yogic Sci 2020;10:19-24.
26Rickta JF, Arafat MY, Mukta FT. A study on correlation among physique, motor fitness and performance of soccer player. Int J Phys Educ Sports Manage Yogic Sci 2021;11:28-33.
27Arafat Y, Rickta JF, Mukta FT, Islam R. Physical and motor fitness level of secondary school-going boys. Int J Sports Sci Phys Educ 2022;7:59-63.
28Shelton J, Kumar GP. Comparison between auditory and visual simple reaction time. Neurosci Med 2010;1:30-2.
29Kemp BJ. Reaction time of young and elderly subjects in relation to perceptual deprivation and signal-on versus signal-off condition. Dev Psychol 1973;8:268-72.
30Marshall WH, Talbot SA, Ades HW. Cortical response of the anaesthesized cat to gross photic and electrical afferent stimulation. J Nerophysiol 1943;6:1-15.
31Pain MT, Hibbs A. Sprint starts and the minimum auditory reaction time. J Sports Sci 2007;25:79-86.
32Şenel Ö, Eroğlu H. Correlation between reaction time and speed in elite soccer players. J Exerc Sci Fit 2006;4:126-30.
33Jain A, Bansal R, Kumar A, Singh KD. A comparative study of visual and auditory reaction times on the basis of gender and physical activity levels of medical first year students. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2015;5:124-7.