Visual vs. Tactile Reaction Testing Demonstrates Problems with Online Cognitive Testing

Reaction time is one of the most commonly used measures in online cognitive assessments.  However, there are significant technical problems with the methods that are commonly deployed for obtaining this measure.  Most online cognitive toolkits obtain reaction time measures with a visual cue and some type of mechanical response (keyboard, mouse or touchscreen).  Both the hardware and software involved in the computer systems that these online cognitive tests depend on introduce significant delays and more significantly, variation in these delays.  The variability that is introduced by these systems leads to inaccurate results that health care professionals have come to rely on.  In this report, a comparison is made between the reaction time data collected with a tactile based device that is accurately calibrated to sub-millisecond accuracy (the Brain Gauge) to a visual reaction time test that relies on consumer grade computer systems in a manner that parallels the methods commonly used in online cognitive testing.  Forty healthy controls took both the tactile based and visually based reaction time test, and the results demonstrated a significant difference in both reaction time and reaction time variability.  Most significant was the difference in reaction time variability, which was 16 msec for the tactile test and 81 msec for the visual test.  While the differences could be partially accounted for by tactile vs. visual biological pathways, the variability of the results from the visual task are in the range predicted by error measured from previous reports that performed robotic testing to derive differences between the two modalities of testing.

[1]  Tom Whitehouse,et al.  Toward an Experimental Timing Standards Lab: Benchmarking precision in the real world , 2002, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[2]  Mark Tommerdahl,et al.  An Accurate Measure of Reaction Time can Provide Objective Metrics of Concussion , 2020, The Journal of Science and Medicine.

[3]  Mark Tommerdahl,et al.  Title: Reduced Gabaergic Inhibition and Abnormal Sensory Symptoms in Children with Tourette Syndrome Running Head: Abnormal Gaba Levels and Sensory Processing in Ts Submitted for the Steven Hsiao Special Issue Nicolaas Puts, Phd Author Contributions Introduction , 2022 .

[4]  M. Tommerdahl,et al.  Corticomotor correlates of somatosensory reaction time and variability in individuals with post concussion symptoms , 2019, Somatosensory & motor research.

[5]  M. Tommerdahl,et al.  Tactile processing in children and adolescents with obsessive–compulsive disorder , 2015, Somatosensory & motor research.

[6]  Reproducibility of flutter-range vibrotactile detection and discrimination thresholds , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[7]  P. Reuter-Lorenz,et al.  Neural Dedifferentiation across the Lifespan in the Motor and Somatosensory Systems. , 2020, Cerebral cortex.

[8]  S. Mostofsky,et al.  A vibrotactile behavioral battery for investigating somatosensory processing in children and adults , 2013, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[9]  Mark Tommerdahl,et al.  Quantification of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury via Cortical Metrics: Analytical Methods. , 2019, Military medicine.

[10]  Eric M. Francisco,et al.  Response Time in Somatosensory Discrimination Tasks is Sensitive to Neurological Insult , 2019 .

[11]  Richard R Plant,et al.  Millisecond precision psychological research in a world of commodity computers: New hardware, new problems? , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[12]  Mark Tommerdahl,et al.  Impaired tactile processing in children with autism spectrum disorder. , 2014, Journal of neurophysiology.

[14]  M. Tommerdahl,et al.  Towards Establishing Age-Related Cortical Plasticity on the Basis of Somatosensation , 2019, Neuroscience.

[15]  P. Hume,et al.  Use of the Brain-Gauge Somatosensory Assessment for Monitoring Recovery from Concussion: A Case Study , 2018 .

[16]  Mark Tommerdahl,et al.  Accuracy of different modalities of reaction time testing: Implications for online cognitive assessment tools , 2019, bioRxiv.

[17]  Mark Tommerdahl,et al.  Altered tactile sensitivity in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. , 2017, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  S. Mostofsky,et al.  Reply to Dickinson and Milne. , 2014, Journal of neurophysiology.

[19]  The Role of Attention in Somatosensory Processing: A Multi-trait, Multi-method Analysis , 2016, Journal of autism and developmental disorders.

[20]  Marit F. L. Ruitenberg,et al.  Age-Related Reductions in Tactile and Motor Inhibitory Function Start Early but Are Independent , 2019, Front. Aging Neurosci..

[21]  Eric M. Francisco,et al.  Somatosensory Information Processing in the Aging Population , 2011, Front. Ag. Neurosci.

[22]  M. Tommerdahl,et al.  Neurosensory assessments of migraine , 2013, Brain Research.

[23]  Mark Tommerdahl,et al.  Auditory and tactile frequency representations are co-embedded in modality-defined cortical sensory systems , 2020, NeuroImage.

[24]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Self-validating presentation and response timing in cognitive paradigms: How and why? , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[25]  M. Wallace,et al.  Self-reported Sensory Hypersensitivity Moderates Association Between Tactile Psychophysical Performance and Autism-Related Traits in Neurotypical Adults , 2019, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

[26]  Zheng Zhang,et al.  A novel device for the study of somatosensory information processing , 2012, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[27]  D. C. Houghton,et al.  Increased tactile sensitivity and deficient feed-forward inhibition in pathological hair pulling and skin picking. , 2019, Behaviour research and therapy.

[28]  Mark Tommerdahl,et al.  The Brain Gauge: a novel tool for assessing brain health , 2019, The Journal of Science and Medicine.

[29]  M. Tommerdahl,et al.  Neurophysiological abnormalities in individuals with persistent post-concussion symptoms , 2019, Neuroscience.

[30]  Richard R Plant,et al.  A reminder on millisecond timing accuracy and potential replication failure in computer-based psychology experiments: An open letter , 2016, Behavior research methods.

[31]  Mark Tommerdahl,et al.  Reduced GABA and altered somatosensory function in children with autism spectrum disorder , 2017, Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research.

[32]  Tom Whitehouse,et al.  How choice of mouse may affect response timing in psychological studies , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.