Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Stimulus intensity and experimental design effects on motor response processing.

P J Beehler1, G Kamen, H H Morris

  • 1Department of Exercise, Sport, and Health Studies, University of Texas at Arlington 76019.

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
|September 1, 1991
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Treatment of empyema by aspiration and chemotherapy.

Chinese medical journal (Peking, China : 1932)·2010
Same author

Predictors of outcome after temporal lobectomy for the treatment of intractable epilepsy.

Neurology·2006
Same author

Superficial motor units are larger than deeper motor units in human vastus lateralis muscle.

Muscle & nerve·2004
Same author

Pharmacokinetics of new anticonvulsants in psychiatry.

Cleveland Clinic journal of medicine·2002
Same author

Assessment of motoneuron excitability using recurrent inhibition and paired reflex depression protocols: a test of reliability.

Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology·2002
Same author

The effects of lamotrigine on sleep in patients with epilepsy.

Epilepsia·2002
Same journal

Variations in Isometric Strength and Rate of Force Development Across the Menstrual and Hormonal Contraceptive Cycle in Elite Female Football Players.

Research quarterly for exercise and sport·2026
Same journal

A One-Year Longitudinal Impact Tracking Study of Participation in Physical Education on Academic Achievements of Chinese High School Students From the Perspective of Development Trajectory Visualization.

Research quarterly for exercise and sport·2026
Same journal

Perceived, but Not Neuromuscular, Fatigue Demonstrated After Doubles Pickleball Competitions.

Research quarterly for exercise and sport·2026
Same journal

In- and Out-of-Possession Running and Technical-Tactical Performance in Soccer.

Research quarterly for exercise and sport·2026
Same journal

Effect of Visual Illusion on Motor Skills Learning in Boys With Developmental Coordination Disorder: A School-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.

Research quarterly for exercise and sport·2026
Same journal

Challenge Under Pressure Contextual Interference or Differential Learning.

Research quarterly for exercise and sport·2026
See all related articles

Increasing stimulus intensity inversely affects motor response processing. This study clarifies that experimental design and stimulus range do not bias these neuromotor responses, suggesting true physiological effects.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Neuroscience
  • Experimental Psychology

Background:

  • Previous motor response processing studies may be influenced by experimental design and range effects.
  • A robust analysis of variance (ANOVA) model is needed to differentiate true effects from artifacts.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine if experimental design (between-subjects vs. within-subjects) biases motor response processing.
  • To assess the impact of stimulus intensity and experimental design on motor response processing across different auditory stimulus ranges.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized Erlebacher's (1977) analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.
  • Tested the independent variable (stimulus intensity), experimental design effect, and their interaction.
  • Compared motor response processing across different ranges of auditory stimuli.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Motor response processing was inversely affected by increasing stimulus intensity.
  • Experimental design (between-subjects vs. within-subjects) did not bias motor response processing.
  • Range effects did not appear to bias motor response processing.

Conclusions:

  • Stimulus intensity effects on motor response processing are attributed to genuine neuromotor functioning.
  • Artifacts from experimental design or range effects do not explain stimulus intensity impacts.
  • Findings clarify the nature of stimulus intensity's influence on motor response processing.