Benchmark your own reaction-time!

[Phil]

Found this link the other day that allows you to test your own reaction-time with a simple script.

Link: http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/

Would be fun to see what kind of times anyone get.

Some notes to keep in mind:

• the site doesn't seem to messure (simulate) the latency of the script being run on your computer, so the actual reaction time might just be a little lower
• it doesn't seem to work that accurate with mobile devices (the device might be too slow or the touch screen response has too much latency until the program registers it)
• since the script is being run locally, it isn't dependant on your internet connection speed
• using your peripheral vision seems to produce better results

Enjoy!

[Phil]

To start with my own stats;

I'm 31 and my latest average (5 clicks) is 196ms (best 188ms / worst 203ms). Though funnily, a couple of weeks back, I was closer to around 250ms on average.

[turbof1]

I did the 5 tries: first was 350ms, but dropped consistently to 275ms. Average was 309ms. A drop of 75ms is pretty big, and I'm a bit tired, so with a clearer head and a bit more practice I could shave off some more.

The graphic after the test shows a more or less normal distribution. Interestingly there's an outlyer group that peaks around 100ms. The site doesn't register times below 100ms in an attempt to cut out the ones who try to luck into a lower score. Most probably is that that "cheating" group now tries to get as close as possible to 100ms. The site does not omit that group, so the average reaction time will be in reality higher then the current 209ms. To compare: men sprinters on the 100m have an average reaction somewhere between 130ms and 180ms. Having a reaction time below 100ms is considered a fake start.

I'd certainly advice people to do the test! It allows them to have an idea of F1 start reaction times.

[turbof1]

moved to general chat due relevancy to F1

[Andres125sx]

Nice

277, 278, 248, 304, 233
Average 268

my latest average (5 clicks) is 196ms

That´s your monitor, must have a really low latency

[mika vs michael]

249 and I'm 34,5 years old.

[Glyn]

223ms average over 5 hits

24 yrs old

[Shrieker]

29 y/o average 222 ms, all of them were nicely bunched up together with the last one the only exception at 196. And oddly enough, my second attempt averaged at 221 ms But i got 3 in the 180s and 190s but one at 264 so the second attempt was more scattered.

223ms average over 5 hits

24 yrs old

Why sad lol, that's a good reaction time. I'm surprised the test says the median is 215 though. Maybe lots of try hards lowering the average

Also, the sheep version

My sheep scores turn out better. Maybe because i've tried it before (a lot lol) or maybe there are audible clues involved as well.

[FW17]

Michael Schumacher tested

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6gJ2ILP4rY[/youtube]

[CBeck113]

213ms average with 42 years...I guess that's all the gaming

[thedutchguy]

It's a pretty useless test to be honest, which is influenced by many factors including the browser you use, polling speed of your mouse, and input lag, response time and frequency of your monitor. Those combined can easily make a 100ms difference between between two systems.

[Phil]

It's a pretty useless test to be honest, which is influenced by many factors including the browser you use, polling speed of your mouse, and input lag, response time and frequency of your monitor. Those combined can easily make a 100ms difference between between two systems.

This is true. I guess the test is all in good fun and not ment to be too scientific.

On the topic of latency:
To what degree the script factores latency in, is pretty unknown unfortunately. Mouse polling rate would be probably around 8ms (125Hz). Assuming the computer monitor you're using displays at 60Hz, we're looking at a frame being displayed every ~16ms (1/60th of a second). I would think that the typical PC running windows that the mouse polling would be close to instantaneous, given the refresh times. Sure, the monitor itself would have some latency as well, but assuming you're not using a TV set with lots of post processing, I would figure most to be around 10-20ms (display lag database).

Another factor would be the actual script running on the browser; In other words, the script changes the colour of the background and the latency would be how long it takes for the browser to actually display the change. Then how long it takes until the signal of the mouse 'click' gets back to the script.

I think it would be daft if the script didn't factor in the latency involved to some degree - perhaps by minusing off at least 20-30ms of latency (to cover the 60Hz display refresh rate to the typical monitor latency and the latency from the script running on a high level layer on the operating system). All in all, I'd be surprised if the overal latency is close to or more than 100ms. When clicking anything within a browser, the change is pretty instantaneous - at least on my setup.

Of course, if you're using a monitor that already induces a lot of latency - the whole test and its results will of course suffer. So yes, the results are definately dependant on your set-up...

I think mobile devices suffer the worst - also because you are effectively hitting a screen where as on a PC, you can have your finger firm on the button, ready to press.

[turbof1]

It's a pretty useless test to be honest, which is influenced by many factors including the browser you use, polling speed of your mouse, and input lag, response time and frequency of your monitor. Those combined can easily make a 100ms difference between between two systems.

This is true. I guess the test is all in good fun and not ment to be too scientific.

On the topic of latency:
To what degree the script factores latency in, is pretty unknown unfortunately. Mouse polling rate would be probably around 8ms (125Hz). Assuming the computer monitor you're using displays at 60Hz, we're looking at a frame being displayed every ~16ms (1/60th of a second). I would think that the typical PC running windows that the mouse polling would be close to instantaneous, given the refresh times. Sure, the monitor itself would have some latency as well, but assuming you're not using a TV set with lots of post processing, I would figure most to be around 10-20ms (display lag database).

Another factor would be the actual script running on the browser; In other words, the script changes the colour of the background and the latency would be how long it takes for the browser to actually display the change. Then how long it takes until the signal of the mouse 'click' gets back to the script.

I think it would be daft if the script didn't factor in the latency involved to some degree - perhaps by minusing off at least 20-30ms of latency (to cover the 60Hz display refresh rate to the typical monitor latency and the latency from the script running on a high level layer on the operating system). All in all, I'd be surprised if the overal latency is close to or more than 100ms. When clicking anything within a browser, the change is pretty instantaneous - at least on my setup.

Of course, if you're using a monitor that already induces a lot of latency - the whole test and its results will of course suffer. So yes, the results are definately dependant on your set-up...

I think mobile devices suffer the worst - also because you are effectively hitting a screen where as on a PC, you can have your finger firm on the button, ready to press.

The finger on the mouse comes pretty close to holding the clutch on a F1 car. While I do agree thay especially the screen freq. gives inconsistent results, it's all good fun and atleast gives an idea how reacting on a starting light feels. It also shows without any doubt that Hamilton his 50ms in Monza was down to accidently or by wrong reflex pulse dropping the clutch. I did the test again and by impuls I pressed before my mind recorded the change to green, but exactly 107ms before I send a signal through the mouse button it changed. Down to pure luck.

Btw, we are speaking about latency. I assume this can also be applied on a F1 car, however faint it might be? While the clutch paddle is analogue, it gets transferred into a digital signal which has to go through some wiring to the power train.

[Hail22]

Fastest time 97 with an average of 208ms



stopped at 4 as it's sleepy time for me.

[Glyn]

Fastest time 97 with an average of 208ms

http://i.imgur.com/XSLhTYh.png

stopped at 4 as it's sleepy time for me.

Last time I tried. Bit of Michael Schumacher inspiration for you