1

Differences Between Upper Limb and Lower Limb

Choice Reaction Time

Upper and lower limb choice reaction time

Name: Kurt Vogel

 2
ABSTRACT

The present study investigates the peripheral component in reaction time and the separation

between upper and lower limb. Four participants (aged M = 19.5, SD = 1.73) were divided into

two groups: those who played more than eight hours of video games per week and exercised

less than two hours per week (Group I), and those who did not play video games frequently but

exercised more than eight hours per week (Group II). Each subject completed twenty reaction

time trials on both upper and lower limbs in a single session. These trials were recorded by film

and analysed using video editing software. Results showed significant differences (p < 0.05)

between groups, with Group I having a much larger difference between upper and lower limb

reaction time, compared with Group II who had similar reaction times for both limbs. It is

concluded that the stress from exercise on the lower body helps develop the myelin sheath

around the lower limb nerve fibres, thereby decreasing reaction time in the lower limb in those

participants who exercised more than eight hours each week. Results indicate the possibility of

separating reaction time into central and peripheral components, as well as peripheral

components of upper and lower limb.

Key Words

Upper limb, lower limb, choice reaction time, peripheral nervous system
 3
INTRODUCTION

Reaction time (RT) is a parameter which has been used to assess information

processing speed. It is the period between the presentation of stimulus and the beginning of the

appropriate movement response which follows, and is not to be confused with movement time,

which is the period between initiation of the appropriate movement to the completion of the

appropriate movement. RT can be further separated into central and peripheral components of

reaction time. The central component is termed Premotor RT and represents the processes

from identifying the presented stimulus to sending a programmed response from the central

nervous system. The peripheral component is deemed the Motor RT and is the point at which

muscles become active but do not yet move.

Reaction time differs with every person and can change as a consequence of factors including,

but not limited to; type of stimulus, age, physical activity, fatigue, arousal and practice. All of

these factors can also be impacted by the confrontation of multiple simultaneous stimuli, which

brings about the separation between simple and choice reaction times.

Simple RT is a measure attained where only one stimulus is presented and one possible

response is required. Choice RT is a measure where more than one stimulus is presented and

an appropriate response of several options is required. Individual differences in choice RT are

due to variations in the white matter underlying the visuospatial attention network. Increased

myelination and axon diameter are physiological properties of white matter that result in such

variations.

Studies have shown activation of transcription factor NF-κB in Schwann cells is an

essential signal required for myelin formation in the peripheral nervous system. This can be

activated by; cytokines, reactive oxygen species, bacterial cell wall products, vasopressors, viral

infection and DNA damage, several of which are effects of exercise. An increased arousal

state, such as exercise, is shown to cause increased acetylcholine concentration in the

ascending reticular system and thalamic nuclei, which will also influence reaction time.
 4
One of the issues being studied is the separation of upper limb and lower limb reaction

times between different populations. Concussion test programs such as ImPACT, test upper

limb reaction and movement time, but do not test any lower limb reaction time. In a recent

study, NFL players were shown catching a cylindrical object to test reaction time post

concussion as an effective measure neurocognitive function even though NFL players make

multiple decisions at a time.

In contrast, video games are now being used to increase reaction times in laparoscopic

surgeons because of the concentrated training of hand-eye coordination and fine motor control.

Recent research shows enhanced reaction times are relative to the amount of time spent

playing video games.

Most RT studies evaluate RT and movement time as a whole, rather than separate

reaction time into the central and peripheral components. The corticospinal tract is the main

spinal tract under investigation, as it controls proximal and distal musculature. This tract ends at

two different spinal levels, depending on whether the upper limb or lower limb is being used. By

evaluating upper and lower limb reaction times, it is possible to determine whether central or

peripheral factors can be separated, and whether the peripheral factors are different between

upper and lower limb.

 5
METHOD

Participants

Four male participants, aged 18 - 22 (M = 19.5, SD = 1.73), without any injuries or

metabolic disorders, were split into two different trial groups. Group I consisted of two subjects

who play more than eight hours of video games, and participate in less than two hours of

structured exercise per week. Group II consisted of two subjects who exercise more than eight

hours per week and whose video gaming history was not considered. Participants were told to

withhold consumption of coffee, tea, energy drinks and/or caffeine-containing foods or drinks for

the 24-hours prior to testing.

Materials

A table of standard height was used with a 50cm high thick MDF board placed in the

middle as a separator. A camera was used and placed on a stable surface to record the

experiment.

Procedure

All participants undertook testing on a single occasion for two different tasks. Testing

included an upper reaction time test, which consisted of twenty trials. Following the twenty trials,

the subjects were to rest until all subjects had completed their first task. Subjects then

undertook a lower limb reaction time test, which also consisted of twenty trials.

Figure 1 Representation of upper body reaction trial setup

 6

The testing station was set up on a table with a separator between tester and subject, as

seen in Figure 1. In the upper body condition, the tester presented one of three stimuli: hand

placed to the right; hand placed to the left; or two hands placed in front of the face. The tester’s

hands began with palms on the table. During the movement between palms on the table to

stimulus position, the tester’s shoulder is required to stay in the same position so only the elbow

joint moves, causing the forearm to move vertically. In the upper limb trials, the subject

responded by mirroring the movements of the tester.

In the lower limb trials, subjects stood with their hands by their side 140cm from the

50cm high separating piece, as detailed in Figure 2. Subjects responded by replicating the

same direction as the tester’s presented stimulus, but by taking a small step to the left, right or

in front of them.

Trials were undertaken between five and ten seconds following the previous trial, until all twenty

trials were completed.

Each trial was recorded on video and replayed later to determine exact RT. The RT

recorded was the difference between when the visual stimulus was presented until the point just

prior to the participant’s movement of the appropriate limb.

 7

Figure 2 Representation of lower body reaction trial setup

 8
RESULTS

RT analyses were performed on responses to twenty trials per participant. This data was

submitted to a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to analyse the interactions of upper and

lower limb reaction time tests between video gamers and athletes. Statistical significance was

accepted at an alpha level of p <0.05. Results for each participant were then collated for each

group to determine means, standard deviations and standard error. IBM Statistical Package for

the Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics was used for ANOVA analysis.

As shown in Table 1, differences exist in RT between all four subjects in relation to their

respective limb. The standard deviation also varies between subjects, and differences similarly

exist in the range between each subject. Where there is a higher range, there is also a higher

standard deviation, and with a lower range, a lower standard deviation is observed. When upper

and limb lower limb reaction times are contrasted, there are more significant statistics.

Table 1 - Descriptive data for participants in Group I and Group II

Reaction Time (ms)

Group I Group II
Subject I Subject II Subject I Subject II
Mean 206.7 146.7 183.3 173.3
Range 400.0 200.0 400.0 200.0
Upper Limb
SD 116.6 55.6 124.0 84.8
SEM 26.0 12.4 24.8 19.0
Mean 430.0 353.3 206.7 190.0
Range 400.0 400.0 200.0 333.3
Lower Limb
SD 142.6 114.7 52.5 84.5
SEM 31.9 25.6 11.7 18.9

Reaction time between upper and lower limb was different in both groups, but Group I

had a larger difference, 215ms (SD = 135.4), in comparison to Group II, 20ms (SD = 56.1).

Within-subjects analysis showed reaction time was significantly different between upper and

lower limb of Group I, F(1,38) = 38.915, p <0.05. Whereas there was no significant difference

between Group II upper and lower limb reaction times, F(1,38) = 0.1522, p>0.05. ANOVA also

showed reaction time is significantly different from upper to lower limb times between groups,
 9
F(1, 38) = 47.603, p<0.05. Mean values and standard error of measurement totals for each

group are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Reaction time between groups of upper and lower limb for video gamers and

athletes. Note: Reaction times are presented in means and standard error of mean for data

obtained in each test.

 10
DISCUSSION

Measurement of RT is usually taken by touching a pad or clicking a button, however, this

also evaluates movement time. When movement time is also tested, the lower limbs tend to

have much higher reaction times due to changes in anticipatory postural shift before movement.

Using a video camera to film reaction time before subjecting it to computerised analysis is not

standard RT testing procedure, with tapping drills and electromyography (EMG) being the main

medium for testing. While the camera used here took film at 30 frames per second, a slow

motion camera would have provided more accurate data for analysis, and thus superior quality

results. Furthermore, human error should be considered in the interpretation of results recorded

in this study. It is clear there is a large range of values reported, so while it is possible that the

measurements reflect the genuine differences in reaction time, it is also possible that the

measurements actually reflect inaccuracies inherent in the data collection methods. This

presents a fundamental limitation of the research, and further development of controlled data

collection techniques is important for future studies.

Based on the results available, we can see that the reaction time of the upper limb was

similar between all subjects, however one subject from Group I recorded faster lower limb

reaction times (146.7ms, SD: 55.6) than both subjects in Group II (183.3ms, SD: 124.0 &

173.3ms, SD: 84.8). Subjects from both groups use their upper limbs during their typical weeks,

and they use them in such a fashion which necessitates multiple reaction decisions. Due to the

common decision-making processes involved in the subjects’ respective activities, the

increased arousal state can result in increased acetylcholine concentration in the ascending

reticular system and thalamic nuclei. This is a likely explanation for the slightly higher upper limb

reaction times observed in Group II subjects on average.

Significant differences were seen between lower limb reaction time trials, with mean

results showing a difference of nearly double the reaction time (Group I: 391.67ms, Group II:

198.33). Given Group I participants are not as comprehensively physically active as the

participants in Group II, whole body physical activity could account for this difference. Physical
 11
activity can result in increased levels of cytokines, reactive oxygen species, and DNA damage

all of which are demonstrated precursors to the activation of NF-κB in Schwann cells. This

activating factor is a signal which leads to myelin formation in the peripheral system, therefore

increasing nerve signals; a possible explanation for why lower limb reaction times in Group II

were marginally lower.

There are differences in axon diameter between upper and lower limbs, with larger and

more plentiful Betz Cells in the lower limb section of the primary motor cortex. Results

demonstrate a substantial within group difference in Group I’s participants between lower limb

RT (391.67ms) and upper limb RT (176.7ms). Group II’s participants demonstrated a similar

trend (lower limb RT = 198.33ms, upper limb RT = 178.3ms), however, the difference was not

considered significant in comparison to Group I. Lower limb speed should be faster than upper

limb as a result of larger axon diameter. Consequently, myelin sheath formation can be shown

to be a likely reason for reaction time differences.

RT exercises are commonly used post-concussion with the testing of reaction time post-

concussion using a simple choice test. Given that results demonstrated significant differences,

other tests should be evaluated to test choice reaction time in determining any differences

between upper and lower limb reaction times. ImPACT software is used worldwide, and even

though reaction time is tested, the focus is on the central nervous system (CNS), using memory

skills throughout the test as the basis for results (Collins, & Hawn, 2002). These tests are also

controlled by a finger click on a mouse. Group I, who use their hands to play video games, had

similar upper limb reaction times as Group II, who exercise. It is possible both groups may not

show similar results if they were to perform a concussion test involving the lower limb. Athletes

in many sports make multiple decisions before moving on their feet, so when considering the

significant difference between limbs, it is possible an upper limb CNS-focused test may not

reflect lower limb reaction time.

The separation of the peripheral component of reaction time is either arousal of the

ascending reticular system and thalamic nuclei, or the myelin sheath formation due to exercise.
 12
This can be further evaluated by examining myelin sheath formation of the corticospinal tract

and associated nerve fibres because of the division at different spinal levels. To establish these

differences and possibly establish causality, future studies are needed. More conclusive results

will be evident if there are different athletic and non-athletic participants. For athletic

populations, this could include sports shooters for their fast upper body reaction time, cyclists

for their lower leg-isolated training, and triathletes who use all limbs. For gaming populations

this could include first-person shooter gamers, and real-time strategy gamers, due to the

different mode of game play and reactions required. Another group that should also be

considered for testing is the non-gaming, non-exercising population as a control group. Pre- and

post-test trials of a reaction time training intervention can also considered in order to establish

causality for dissimilarities of reaction time between upper and lower limb RT in the populations

engaging in varying degrees of physical activity.

This research indicates significant differences in upper and lower limb reaction times

between participants as a consequence of the extent of the physical activity they engage in

during a standard week. This suggests that the central and peripheral component of RT can be

evaluated separately, and furthermore, that the peripheral component of reaction time can be

additionally broken up.