Reaction Time Differences Before and After Anaerobic Respiration Between Athletes And

REACTION TIME DIFFERENCES BEFORE AND AFTER ANAEROBIC RESPIRATION BETWEEN ATHLETES AND NON-ATHLETES(Title is all caps)

Will Fraker and Maile Mattingely

Department of Biological Science

SaddlebackCollege

Mission Viejo, CA92692

Sensory reaction is influenced by many variables including, health, surrounding stimulus(stimuli) and other visual and auditory inputs(define sensory reaction, vague). In this study researchers looked at the differences in reaction times between athletes and non athletes. The athletes and non-athletes groups were tested in the same way (what was the test) and in the same controlled setting; averages from each test were then calculated.The hypothesis was that the reaction times would exhibit a more significant increase after aerobic exercise in the athletes group, rather than those in the non-athletic group. (Consider revising- The hypothesis was that reaction times for athletes would increase significantly after aerobic exercise. Reaction times for non-athletes were not expected to increase). This hypothesis was confirmed(by)when an ANOVA analysis (redundant- ANOVA stands for Analysis of Variance)was run on the two groups.It showed a significant difference between both groups and their reaction times, with P-value’sat 1.84E-05, 9.27E-05, and 4.16E-05 respectively(you do not define the order of groups or whether it is pre or post exercise, confusing. What was you sample size, n=?). This showed that reaction times increase after a mild amount for physical exertion. Why the font change?

Introduction

Reaction time differences between athletes and people who get less than 1 hour of physical exercise a week was being tested. The goal was to observe change, if any, in the reaction time of athletes and people who do not exercise, before any physical exertion, after a jog, and after a sprint. This came to the researchers’ attention when and turn it into an appropriate project(?, doesn’t make sense). According to Welford in a 1980 study, athletes had a more significantly faster reaction time than those who did not exercise. The1980 study was done testing tested simple reaction times, as was the hypothesis the investigators were testing with their experiment (Consider revising- …as did the experiment carried out in this study). In a simple reaction times study, it was determined that there was one stimulus and one response (Buchsbaum and Callaway 2008). The stimulus that was used was a visual response(how can the stimulus be a response? The dropping of the ruler would be the stimulus.) to the dropping of a reaction time ruler which either investigator conducted(Consider Revising- wording is confusing). The subjects attempted to catch the ruler as it fellas swiftly as possible. Welfordstated that the reaction time was fastest with an intermediate level of arousal, and deteriorates when the subject was either too relaxed or too tense. It was for this reason that the investigators believed that the reaction times will exhibit a morewould be significantly fasterafter aerobic exercise. Like-wise, individuals who dodid not work-out would be far too tense to show a significant difference in reaction time comparatively.

Materials and Methods

A reaction time study was done using sixteen college students between the ages of nineteen and twenty-seven over the course of 4 weeks from October 14 and November 12, 2009. We assigned two groups of students, those who workout and those who do not. The first group contained 8 students who worked out on a regular basis of at least 2-3 times a week; the latter group consisted of 8 students who exerted themselves less than one hour a week. Both groups participated in the same process, and where (were) tested the same way(repetitive, the description of the test explains this). Both groups would take a set of reaction tests using a manufactured reaction time ruler(what is a reaction time ruler? Explain how the test works.). The ruler was held above eye level and out of sight of the individual, as to gain a true test of their reaction timing. Each student was asked to take ten initial reaction tests prior to any physical exertion, after which therethey were asked to lightly jog a quarter mile. Upon returning from thatthe quarter mile, they immediately took a second round(set) of reaction tests. After eachten reaction measurementswaswere taken, they then were asked to sprint anothera quarter mile. TheAll data was taken on the saddleback college campus track;all were taken in the late afternoon, in about the samesimilar weather conditions. No outside factors played a role in the skew of our testing(I would omit this sentence since you don’t know for sure if other factors were involved.).An ANOVA test was run comparing the athletes and non-athleteon theworkout and non-workout groups, and was also run on the data collected within the two groups comparing reaction times after varying levels of exertion for both groups. (There was a significant difference in the non-workout group with a p-value (=).629E-05, but in our workout group no difference was found with a p-value (=).425. Then within the two groups there was a difference found in the initial, after jog, and after sprint reaction times; with the initial p-value (=)9.27E-05, after jog p-value(=)1.84E-05, and the after sprint p-value (=)4.16E-05)You have a good amount of data here that needs to be clarified. What reaction time was used comparing the two groups, pre-exercise? Also when you compared the different exertion levels you only gave one p-value for each. Did you combine the data for the students who worked out and didn’t work out? Font changes again.

Results

The averagevalue for the initial reaction time for athletes was 104.875 ±17.06127 m/sec (±SEM,N=8)before exercise, (Font change)The average for the same group after jogging was 69.625±14.64696 m/sec (±SEM,N=8)after jogging, andThe average for the same group after sprinting was 89.875±17.48207 m/sec (±SEM,N=8)after sprinting. The average value for the initial reaction time for non-athletes before exertion was 211.25±9.808433 m/sec (±SEM,N=8), . The average for the same group after jogging was 169.625±5.882594 m/sec (±SEM,N=8) after jogging, and. The average for the same group after sprinting was 210.75±10.96382 m/sec (±SEM,N=8)after sprinting. When the groups are(were) compared by their initial tests a significant difference was shown(p = 9.27 x 10-05). When compared by their jogging results a significant difference was shown( p = 1.84 x 10-05). When compared by their sprinting results a significant difference was shown ( p = 4.16 x 10-05).(Previously you talked about exertion levels affecting reaction times but you are only comparing the two groups to each other, rather than comparing the reaction times at different exertion levels within groups. This only shows a difference in reaction times between athletes and non-athletes.)

Figure 1.Average results for the intial, after jog and after sprint(p = .425). (What is this p-value comparing? What statistical test was performed?)(You should leave off the word “average” for the x-axis labels. You should mention that these are mean values in the figure caption).

Figure 2. These individuals who get less than an hour of physical exertion a week did show a significant change in reaction times with a (p = 1.629 x 10-05).(Again what test was performed? What is being compared, all three categories?) Leave off the word “average” for the x-axis labels.

Figure 3. Average initial resultsreaction time for both groups (p = 9.27 x 10-05)(Two- tailed unpaired t-test) You should leave off the word “ave” for the x-axis labels.

Figure 4. Average resultsreaction time after jogging (p = 1.84 x 10-05)(Two- tailed unpaired t-test) Again leave out “ave” for x-axis label

Figure 5.Average resultsreaction time after sprinting (p = 4.16 x 10-05)(Two- tailed unpaired t-test) Leave out “ave”

Discussion

Reaction time is the elapsed time between the presentation of a sensory stimulus and the subsequent behavioral response(this sentence would be helpful in the beginning, it is crucial to your introduce your topic). This behavioral response was the (topic) subject of our study and the basis for our hypothesis. Reaction times are subject to direct and indirect stimuli (Welford, 2000)(Explain what direct and indirect stimuli are). With these stimuli under control, we were able to test the effect of different levels of intensity(ies) ofrespirationexertion on reaction time. Lactate production can also have a significant effect on reaction time (Kashihara, 2005)(This is irrelevant. You haven’t mentioned lactate once in the previous sections.). Our stated hypothesis was that increased aerobic respiration, through jogging, would increase the subject’s reaction time and significantly differ from his/her initial reaction time test. Along with this,thesecondary hypothesis was that individuals who play a sport and or participate in physical activity would also have a betterfaster reaction times than those individuals that are not as physically fit. After obtaining the results between the two groups, both initial and secondary hypothesis were confirmed. Individuals in the athletic group showed a quicker reaction time than those in the non-athletic group. Furthermore, individuals within each group showed increased differences(increased differences does not explain whether reaction times got faster or slower) after their first quarter mile run. All participating subjects (participants) showed an increase (in reaction times after running) thus supporting the hypothesis. Non-athletes also showed a significant difference (Again, simply saying there was a difference does not specify direction. The times could have been significantly slower) in their reaction times after their first test. Following the first test, individuals in both groups were asked to sprint the same distance.andThe results that followed showed a decrease in from theirjogging reaction times, seemingly close toapproaching their initial times taken. The researchers(keep voice the same, you use “we” earlier in the discussion) believe the reasons for these results are because after brief aerobic respiration the body produces endorphins that allow for heightened sensory states. Increased blood flow to the extremities, dilated pupils, and the brains raised awareness are all factors when testing reaction time (how do these affect reaction time). The results gathered by the researchers assimilate bodily reactions. Contrary to the latter(?), after a sustained amount of intense physical activity the body goes into anaerobic respiration, in where the body does not have enough oxygen to allow pyruvate to enter the mitochondria. When this happens lactate is produced and can have a negative effect on the body including painful muscle contraction(This information needs to be introduced earlier in the paper. It seems out of place). This fact correlates well with the results recorded by the researchers (How). Future experiments should test the time it would take for the body, during intense physical activity, to turn lactate production into useful energy production,. This process is commonly referred to as a runners high. I believe that these results would similarly relate to our results gathered after jogging. (How would they relate.)

Figure 6. This shows how the researchers conducted this experiment, minus the chair.

Acknowledgements
We would like to give a special thanks to all of those who were involved in our project; the Saddleback Biology department for providing the reaction ruler, and those of our friends and colleagues who were gracious enough to be our subjects.

You did not reference any of you figures!

No Literature Cited?

Review Form

Department of Biological Sciences

SaddlebackCollege, Mission Viejo, CA92692

Author (s):_Will Fraker and Maile Mattingely______

Title:__Reaction Time Differences Before and After Anaerobic Respiration in Athletes and Non-athletes

Summary

Summarize the paper succinctly and dispassionately. Do not criticize here, just show that you understood the paper.

They tested the reaction times of athletes and non-athletes using a reaction time ruler. They gave subjects the initial reaction test at rest, a second after they jogged a quarter mile and finally after sprinting a quarter mile. They compared the reaction times for varying exertion levels within each group. They also compared the athletes’ and non-athletes’ reaction times for each exertion level. They concluded that after an athlete jogs, their reaction time would significantly decrease compared to at rest. They also found that non-athletes’ times did not significantly decrease after a jog. When athletes were compared to non-athletes, the athlete group has significantly faster reaction times for all exertion levels.

General Comments

Generally explain the paper’s strengths and weaknesses and whether they are serious, or important to our current state of knowledge.

The data is there, but poorly explained. Since they compare so many reaction times, the details need to be thoroughly explained as to not confuse the reader. They compare athletes v non-athletes for three different exertion levels, and also compare each exertion level to the others within the athletes and non-athletes. That’s five tests run! It needs to be represented better to make it clear the first time reading through. It is relevant information that is interesting to know, however, they can re-organize a few paragraphs to really introduce the topic. I had to re-read a few sentences that didn’t seem to flow. All in all, the hypothesis is well supported with data. With a little revision the paper will become stronger and much clearer.

Technical Criticism

Review technical issues, organization and clarity. Provide a table of typographical errors, grammatical errors, and minor textual problems. It's not the reviewer's job to copy Edit the paper, mark the manuscript.

This paper was a final versionThis paper was a rough draft