Recovery of Motor Performance following Startle

The present study was designed to provide information concerning the extent to which startle disrupts motor performance, the rate of recovery, and characteristics of Ss who differ in susceptibility to startle. 30 Ss were trained on both reaction time and tracking tasks. Continuous recordings were taken of heart rate and skin conductance. During a subsequent period of continuous tracking, “startle” stimuli (115 db random noise) were unexpectedly presented. Results showed the recovery of tracking performance following startle to be quite rapid; performance returned to pre-stimulus levels within 15 sec. following stimulation. Contrary to several previous studies, reaction times to the startle stimuli decreased relative to nonstartle reaction times. Ss with the greatest increase in tracking error following startle were least proficient prior to startle. There was also an indication that these Ss reacted more strongly to startle, in terms of both their subjective response and heart-rate acceleration, than those Ss whose tracking was least impaired by startle. An apparent covariation between recovery curves for heart rate and tracking error was found following startle.

[1]  J. L. Kennedy,et al.  An Electromyographic Technique for Recording the Startle Pattern , 1951 .

[2]  B. C. Lacey,et al.  The relationship of resting autonomic activity to motor impulsivity. , 1958, Research publications - Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease.

[3]  A. P. Purohit.  Effect of unexpected increase in stimulus intensity on reaction time of hand withdrawal , 1966 .

[4]  A. P. Purohit.  Some correlates of inhibition-facilitation effect on reaction-time due to unexpected increase in stimulus intensity , 1966 .

[5]  M. Vlasak.  Effect of startle stimuli on performance. , 1969, Aerospace medicine.

[6]  A. R. Lauer,et al.  A Quantitative Study of the Relation between Pulse and Breathing Changes and Electro-Biochemical Responses , 1932 .

[7]  E. B. Skaggs.  Changes in pulse, breathing, and steadiness under conditions of startledness and excited expectancy. , 1926 .

[8]  R. Davis.  Motor effects of strong auditory stimuli. , 1948, Journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  Muriel M. Woodhead,et al.  Effect of Brief Loud Noise on Decision Making , 1959 .

[10]  N. Shock,et al.  Pulse rate response of adolescents to auditory stimuli , 1942 .

[11]  J. Lacey.  Psychophysiological approaches to the evaluation of psychotherapeutic process and outcome. , 1959 .

[12]  P. Obrist,et al.  Autonomic Levels and Lability, and Performance Time on a Perceptual Task and a Sensory-Motor Task , 1964, Perceptual and Motor Skills.

[13]  R. L. Berg,et al.  Cardiac startle in man , 1941 .

[14]  R. Sternbach.  Correlates of Differences in Time to Recover from Startle , 1960, Psychosomatic medicine.

[15]  William A. Hunt,et al.  The startle pattern , 1939 .

[16]  M. Woodhead,et al.  The Effects of Bursts of Loud Noise on a Continuous Visual Task , 1958, British journal of industrial medicine.

[17]  R I Thackray,et al.  Correlates of Reaction Time to Startle1 , 1965, Human factors.

[18]  J. Lacey.  Somatic response patterning and stress : some revisions of activation theory , 1967 .

[19]  R. G. Pearson.  Performance tasks for operator-skills research. , 1966 .