<p>I don't know about any MTM standards or benchmarks, but motor response latencies have been assessed in many studies. Importantly, auditory response latencies are smallest, then tactile followed by visual response times. This, because the auditory system is swift, while the visual system is sluggish by comparison (source: <a href="http://www.ceejpublishing.com/Articles/0023.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Packman &amp; Packman</a>).</p>

<p>For example, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Jain <em>et al</em>. (2015)</a> report a mean visual response latency of <strong>247 ms</strong> and an auditory response latency of <strong>228 ms</strong>. Another study reports approximately <strong>144</strong> and <strong>133 ms</strong>, respectively. The lower values are probably because the authors chose the lowest reading as their final measurement <a href="http://medind.nic.in/ice/t13/i6/icet13i6p214.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gavkare <em>et al</em>, 2013)</a>. Other technical differences may also have yielded deviations. Importantly, stimulus intensity affects reaction time (<em>e.g.</em>, louder auditory stimuli decrease reaction time) and other stimulus parameters do so as well (source: <a href="http://www.ceejpublishing.com/Articles/0023.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Packman &amp; Packman</a>). Importantly, age is positively correlated with reaction time <a href="http://www.iaeng.org/publication/IMECS2012/IMECS2012_pp1449-1454.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Ng &amp; Chan, 2012)</a>.     </p>

<p>A large data set where the authors stratified their subject pool in age groups as well as other parameters can be found in <a href="http://www.iaeng.org/publication/IMECS2012/IMECS2012_pp1449-1454.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ng &amp; Chan, 2012</a>. </p>

<p><sub><strong>References</strong><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="http://medind.nic.in/ice/t13/i6/icet13i6p214.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gavkare <em>et al</em>,, Indian Medical Gazette, June 2013</a><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Jain <em>et al</em>., <em>Int J Appl Basic Med Res</em> (2015); <strong>5</strong>(2)</a><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="http://www.iaeng.org/publication/IMECS2012/IMECS2012_pp1449-1454.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ng &amp; Chan, IMECS (2012)</a></sub></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-21T11:58:34.317Z
Although the OP mentions 'response times' I do not believe the response times you mention in this post are the ones he was referring to: _"the shortest possible duration (time) a basic movement can be performed"_.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-21T13:00:28.183Z
Yes then the question becomes whether a neural component is included yes or no. In my answer it is and afaik pretty much all studies take that into account.
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-15T19:30:48.840Z
2017-08-15T19:30:48.840Z
AliceD
<p>Theoretically visual stimuli would be faster than auditory stimuli because of the given speed of light vs sound.  Therefore I <strong><em>personally believe</em></strong> the time from stimuli to recognition would depend on the individual and furthermore the time from recognition to the time of response (ex. Clicking a mouse immediately upon recognition of a sound or sight, followed by [roughly] identifying said object)
With all those variables, in <strong><em>MY OPINION</em></strong> there are  absolute's: 1) light travels faster than sound; 2)visual contains more data than audio</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-20T17:00:31.927Z
Most studies of reaction time are interested in neural processing and not propagation delays. If you wanted, in a typical lab you could introduce a non-negligible propagation delay of maybe 10 ms, but with headphones the propagation delay is on the order of 100s of micro seconds and lost in the measurement noise.
StrongBad
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-16T18:10:09.873Z
Previous answers have citations that refute your belief. Do you have any citations/research to support your answer in the setting proposed?
mflo-ByeSE
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-16T00:16:00.307Z
2017-11-19T09:12:20.863Z
2017-11-19T09:12:20.863Z
sîXXXÏs6
<p>I am looking for a benchmark as a reference regarding the human Kinesiology that specifies the quickest movement a human can do on basic everyday movements like computer mouse clicking. As far as I know, there is an standard called MTM (Measurement Time Methods) in the field of industrial engineering and ergonomics which specifies the required time for each basic movement to be done by human. This MTM standard time is provided on the basis of not putting the human (worker) in an overload or underload working situation. So I assume MTM cannot provide me with the shortest possible duration (time) a basic movement can be performed. 
I am not sure whether we have such a benchmark based on human physiology, Do you have any suggestion in this regard? I recorded response times and have a distribution of these response times for many subjects, however, I would like to estimate the minimum possible response time a human can do in my experiment</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-18T05:15:25.027Z
I'm no expert but i would look to the group of bodily relexes, actions that are automatically taken in response to a stimuli e.g. ducking when a pigeon suddenly flies near your head. As to the fastest of these i would suggest eyeball action when sitting on an underground train whilst looking at adverts or fixtures on the tunnel as the train hurtles by. These eye movements are super-human fast.
Kieran Ryan
<motor><psychophysics><human-factors>
How to specify the quickest movement a human can do based on MTM standards?
Remy
# How to specify the quickest movement a human can do based on MTM standards?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-05-16)

I am looking for a benchmark as a reference regarding the human Kinesiology that specifies the quickest movement a human can do on basic everyday movements like computer mouse clicking. As far as I know, there is an standard called MTM (Measurement Time Methods) in the field of industrial engineering and ergonomics which specifies the required time for each basic movement to be done by human. This MTM standard time is provided on the basis of not putting the human (worker) in an overload or underload working situation. So I assume MTM cannot provide me with the shortest possible duration (time) a basic movement can be performed.
I am not sure whether we have such a benchmark based on human physiology, Do you have any suggestion in this regard? I recorded response times and have a distribution of these response times for many subjects, however, I would like to estimate the minimum possible response time a human can do in my experiment

**Tags:** motor, psychophysics, human-factors

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I'm no expert but i would look to the group of bodily relexes, actions that are automatically taken in response to a stimuli e.g. ducking when a pigeon suddenly flies near your head. As to the fastest of these i would suggest eyeball action when sitting on an underground train whilst looking at adverts or fixtures on the tunnel as the train hurtles by. These eye movements are super-human fast.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-08-15. Score: 3

I don't know about any MTM standards or benchmarks, but motor response latencies have been assessed in many studies. Importantly, auditory response latencies are smallest, then tactile followed by visual response times. This, because the auditory system is swift, while the visual system is sluggish by comparison (source: [Packman & Packman](http://www.ceejpublishing.com/Articles/0023.htm)).

For example, [Jain *et al*. (2015)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/) report a mean visual response latency of **247 ms** and an auditory response latency of **228 ms**. Another study reports approximately **144** and **133 ms**, respectively. The lower values are probably because the authors chose the lowest reading as their final measurement [Gavkare *et al*, 2013)](http://medind.nic.in/ice/t13/i6/icet13i6p214.pdf). Other technical differences may also have yielded deviations. Importantly, stimulus intensity affects reaction time (*e.g.*, louder auditory stimuli decrease reaction time) and other stimulus parameters do so as well (source: [Packman & Packman](http://www.ceejpublishing.com/Articles/0023.htm)). Importantly, age is positively correlated with reaction time [(Ng & Chan, 2012)](http://www.iaeng.org/publication/IMECS2012/IMECS2012_pp1449-1454.pdf).

A large data set where the authors stratified their subject pool in age groups as well as other parameters can be found in [Ng & Chan, 2012](http://www.iaeng.org/publication/IMECS2012/IMECS2012_pp1449-1454.pdf).

**References**  
**-** [Gavkare *et al*,, Indian Medical Gazette, June 2013](http://medind.nic.in/ice/t13/i6/icet13i6p214.pdf)  
**-** [Jain *et al*., *Int J Appl Basic Med Res* (2015); **5**(2)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/)  
**-** [Ng & Chan, IMECS (2012)](http://www.iaeng.org/publication/IMECS2012/IMECS2012_pp1449-1454.pdf)

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Although the OP mentions 'response times' I do not believe the response times you mention in this post are the ones he was referring to: _"the shortest possible duration (time) a basic movement can be performed"_.  
> **username_2**: Yes then the question becomes whether a neural component is included yes or no. In my answer it is and afaik pretty much all studies take that into account.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-09-16. Score: -3

Theoretically visual stimuli would be faster than auditory stimuli because of the given speed of light vs sound. Therefore I ***personally believe*** the time from stimuli to recognition would depend on the individual and furthermore the time from recognition to the time of response (ex. Clicking a mouse immediately upon recognition of a sound or sight, followed by [roughly] identifying said object)
With all those variables, in ***MY OPINION*** there are absolute's: 1) light travels faster than sound; 2)visual contains more data than audio

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: Previous answers have citations that refute your belief. Do you have any citations/research to support your answer in the setting proposed?  
> **username_5**: Most studies of reaction time are interested in neural processing and not propagation delays. If you wanted, in a typical lab you could introduce a non-negligible propagation delay of maybe 10 ms, but with headphones the propagation delay is on the order of 100s of micro seconds and lost in the measurement noise.  

---

