213 average, range from 13 low end to 323 high end.

a lot of time is lost in the clicking action, I can tell. What I find interesting is that average is around a quarter second, which I've heard something that martial artist tout all the time as being a good figure for some reason. Fighter piolots are supposedly around 1/10th of a second and that's WAY faster by comparison...

shiroiusagi

SoCal, USA3955 Posts

March 29 2015 00:43 GMT

#62

1st try 261 (with over 46 clicks)
2nd try 246 (5 clicks)

Not pro enough.

Boucot

France15997 Posts

March 29 2015 00:47 GMT

#63

268ms

RIP

DarkPlasmaBall

United States45521 Posts

March 29 2015 05:50 GMT

#64

Around 260 for my first average, 240 for my second.

Neo7

United States922 Posts

March 29 2015 06:30 GMT

#65

247ms was my best. 290ms was my average.

JieXian

Malaysia4677 Posts

March 29 2015 08:11 GMT

#66

i find that I'm slower when I'm looking at the rhythmic blinking in the middle. When I cover it I perform better

SetGuitarsToKill

Canada28396 Posts

March 29 2015 08:42 GMT

#67

average of 301.... I think I might have some issues, a normal human being shouldn't be that slow

Motlu

Australia884 Posts

March 29 2015 08:42 GMT

#68

ARRGGHHH Who would have thought that a few ms would make me feel so inadequate!? :/

246ms average

I suppose its not that bad, just shattered any illusions I had of being above average.

opisska

Poland8852 Posts

March 29 2015 08:49 GMT

#69

More than a decade ago we used to observe occultations of stars by the Moon visually. Suitable digital recording equipment was still expensive back then and recording faint stars next to the bright Moon with high time resolution was difficult, so a human observer with a button in his hand looking into an eyepiece was still the best device to cover many events. The data was supposedly used to improve knowledge of small variations in Earth rotation and Moon orbit, but towards the end, it was probably just taken by the experts with a friendly smile and then secretly discarded because more precise data was already available.

Anyway, the point is that you had to calibrate your response time. However being a good observer was not about the speed but the consistency. There was one guy who did this for many years and during the tests (with fake moon, and fake star) he would consistently hit something like 0.31 s 0.30 s 0.29 s 0.30 s and then, before knowing the numbers, comment that the first felt a little slow and the third a little fast ...

TheBloodyDwarf

Finland7524 Posts

March 29 2015 09:17 GMT

#70

Avarage 240

Pursuit_

United States1330 Posts

March 29 2015 09:46 GMT

#71

Just tried the memory test, got 45k on my first try and I think I could have done a lot better but I zoned out a bit during one of the screens and basically had to guess >.<

edit: 186 average on the reaction this time, I think this is about where I'm stuck. My 'good' times are 160-180 but I keep getting a 240 >.<