Comparing Reaction Time Testing using Traditional Methods versus a Portable Interactive Light System

Introduction: Neuromuscular training systems for athletes, such as portable interactive light systems (PILS), are used for both training and testing, though recent research has emphasized the former.  Purpose: This study compared a reaction time (RT) test from two different configurations of a PILS system (with subjects front- or side-facing) to the traditional ruler drop test and a color change-based app test. The main hypothesis was that performance times would correlate between all four RT tests, though the PILS times would be greater due to the gross motor movements involved.  Methods: Forty-one subjects participated, split equally between female/male and athlete/non-athlete.  Each subject completed five trials of all four tests, with tests administered in counterbalanced order.  Subjects subjectively evaluated their performance and RT test difficulty after each test and after completing the test battery.  Results: The main hypothesis was only partially supported because all RT tests correlated with each other (Pearson’s R ≥0.44, p≤0.004) except for the ruler drop test.  Average reaction times for all four tests were: PILS-Front 0.61 ± 0.12 s, PILS-Side 0.64 ± 0.12 s, MA 0.44 ± 0.06 s, and RD 0.12 ± 0.05 s.  There were sex differences only for PILS tests (females 0.68 ± 0.12 s vs. males 0.57 ± 0.1 s) but no other tests.  The app-based test was the lone test where athletes were faster.  When asked to report which trials were the fastest or slowest, subjects were accurate only half the time. Conclusion: These results suggest that PILS-based RT test results may correlate to other electronic color-based visual stimulus RT tests despite their different motor demands.