Print Сite this

Memory Drum Theory’s Projection

The Goal of the Research

The goal of the study was to look into memory drum theory’s projection that the increase in simple reaction time (SRT) was proportional to the complexity of the response to be instigated (Anson, 1982).

We will write a
custom essay
specifically for you

for only $16.05 $11/page
308 certified writers online
Learn More

How the Goal Relates to My Research

The author hypothesized that multifaceted reactions elicited by lengthy programs required a substantial storage space on the memory drum (Anson, 1982). As a result, more time would be needed to read out the instructions before initiating movement. These predictions were corroborated by the memory drum test experiments by Henry and Rogers (Anson, 1982). Producing different types of motions in various sport activities requires different sets of instructions, which vary in complexity. Going by the findings of Anson (1982), it would be expected that the attentional focus would differ based on the complexity of instructions thus affecting the reaction times of these activities. Therefore, there was a need to investigate the impact of instruction complexity on reaction times as this would help commentators to simplify key instructions to obtain optimal starts in races.

Summary

Nine participants were subjected to SRT conditions described by Henry and Rogers to examine the effect of complexity of response on SRT. The second experimental conditions involving 11 participants analyzed the impact of anatomical unit, degree, and target size on SRT, premotor time, as well as motor time. It was observed that maintaining the same level of complexity and increasing the anatomical unit led to an increase in SRT. However, this increase was only realized in the motor time component. This observation was attributed to electromechanical program delays. Peripheral events, for example, the length of time that agonist muscles were required to exert the maximum activity to initiate rapid movement, could account for the observed increase in motor time. Reducing the target size increased the SRT, premotor, and motor times. Extent did not affect the SRT. The study concluded that SRT could be explained by different dynamics.

References

Anson, J. G. (1982). Memory drum theory: Alternative tests and explanations for the complexity effects on simple reaction time. Journal of Motor Behavior, 14(3), 228-246.

Anson, J. G. (1989). Effects of moment of inertia on simple reaction time. Journal of Motor Behavior, 21(1), 60-71.

Christina, R. W., & Rose, D. J. (1985). Premotor and motor reaction time as a function of response complexity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56(4), 306-315.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 16). Memory Drum Theory’s Projection. Retrieved from https://studycorgi.com/memory-drum-theorys-projection/

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 16). Memory Drum Theory’s Projection. https://studycorgi.com/memory-drum-theorys-projection/

Work Cited

"Memory Drum Theory’s Projection." StudyCorgi, 16 Jan. 2022, studycorgi.com/memory-drum-theorys-projection/.

1. StudyCorgi. "Memory Drum Theory’s Projection." January 16, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/memory-drum-theorys-projection/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "Memory Drum Theory’s Projection." January 16, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/memory-drum-theorys-projection/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2022. "Memory Drum Theory’s Projection." January 16, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/memory-drum-theorys-projection/.

References

StudyCorgi. (2022) 'Memory Drum Theory’s Projection'. 16 January.

This paper was written and submitted to our database by a student to assist your with your own studies. You are free to use it to write your own assignment, however you must reference it properly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal.