Key evidence & numbers
| Published task | Sample | Mean measured latency |
|---|---|---|
| Simple visual reaction, Woods Experiment 1 | 1,469 adults, ages 18–65 | 231 ms |
| Visual choice reaction, Woods Experiment 1 | 1,466 adults, ages 18–65 | 550 ms |
| Choice task, age 18–24 group | 86 participants | 472 ms |
| Choice task, age 59–65 group | 246 participants | 590 ms |
The simple-task figures are in its sample summary; the choice-task age groups and means are in Table 2. The studies share a research setting but use different stimuli and task demands. Subtracting their grand means is descriptive arithmetic, not a purified measure of one mental processing stage. Woods et al., 2015 Woods et al., 2015
What changes when a choice is added?
In a simple task, the participant can prepare the same movement before each signal. A choice task requires identifying what appeared and mapping it to an action. Classic experiments by Hick and Hyman relate response time to the information in the alternatives, including the number and probabilities of possible signals. Hick, 1952 Hyman, 1953
This is why a person can respond quickly to a light but need longer to choose the correct move in a game. There is no inconsistency: the tasks ask different questions. The laboratory choice task also controls which alternatives are available, something a real-world game or driving situation does not reduce to one universal reaction-time benchmark. Woods et al., 2015
How should age and sex be interpreted?
The age-group values above come from a cross-sectional sample, not from following the same individuals for decades. They show the task's context but cannot predict how much one person's score will change each year. Nor do they establish age-specific browser percentiles or a fixed adjustment for sex. Those would require the same protocol and appropriate norms. Woods et al., 2015 Woods et al., 2015
What affects it?
Scoring includes errors as well as speed
Guessing quickly can lower response time while increasing errors. A choice task must therefore specify what counts as a correct response, an omission or a premature response. Mean time from correct responses cannot be interpreted without considering whether accuracy changed. The Woods choice study reports several outcomes rather than treating latency as a complete account of performance. Woods et al., 2015
Extremely slow or fast responses and the handling of missed trials can also change the summary. Outlier methodology is part of the score definition; two websites with different rules can produce different values from similar behaviour. Ratcliff, 1993
Why online results differ from the table
Displays, input devices and browser systems contribute their own delays and timing variability. Experimental comparisons show that fine-grained software timestamps do not eliminate those differences. A phone choice task compared with a mouse-based simple task mixes response selection with equipment and movement differences. Anwyl-Irvine et al., 2020 Bridges et al., 2020
For a useful informal comparison, keep equipment fixed and read both tasks' instructions. Expect a task-specific difference rather than treating either number as a general speed rating. Reliability research also cautions that a strong average task effect does not automatically make a person's difference score a stable trait. Hedge et al., 2017
Practice may make stimulus-response mappings more familiar. That can be genuine learning of the task without demonstrating a general improvement in decision-making. The scientifically useful outcome is improved performance on a clearly defined procedure, with its errors and conditions retained. Woods et al., 2015 Hick, 1952
Try the related free test
Reaction time test
Start with the reaction time test to see a simple response task. If you also try a choice-based test such as Stroop, compare its instructions and accuracy requirements before comparing times. The difference is not a validated measure of your intelligence or decision-making ability.
Common questions
Which task is closer to gaming?
Games often require choices, prediction and movement. A controlled choice task captures one aspect, but neither task is a complete gaming-performance test. Woods et al., 2015
Does twice the number of options double reaction time?
The classic findings concern the information in the alternatives, not a universal doubling rule. Mapping, probabilities and task design matter. Hick, 1952 Hyman, 1953
Can I subtract my scores to measure thinking time?
The subtraction mixes task and measurement differences unless a design has controlled them. It is not automatically a pure processing-stage estimate. Woods et al., 2015 Anwyl-Irvine et al., 2020
Sources
- Woods et al. (2015). Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time.
- Woods et al. (2015). Age-related slowing of response selection and production in a visual choice reaction time task.
- Hick (1952). On the Rate of Gain of Information.
- Hyman (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time..
- Ratcliff (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers..
- Anwyl-Irvine et al. (2020). Realistic precision and accuracy of online experiment platforms, web browsers, and devices.
- Bridges et al. (2020). The timing mega-study: comparing a range of experiment generators, both lab-based and online.
- Hedge et al. (2017). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences.
Explore your daily routines in Helibrain
The app has short tests of reaction time, working memory, self-control, reasoning and creativity. Retake them whenever you like, see your trend, and find habits that may help.
Start free in your browser
