Perception speed versus reaction speed

[Vzearr]

The problem​

-----------------------
I've noticed, over the short course of me being a calc group member, that I've had to reject calculations that use this study as a perception speed timeframe, and I've recently begun to ask myself "why?", why do we treat perception blitz timeframes as being the same as reaction blitz timeframes, it's quite well known that human's have a reaction speed varying from 100 ms to 250 ms, with a much higher perception speed. For example, human's are capable of perceiving motorcycles moving at their top speed, which is above subsonic, this particular study suggests that humans can perceive objects moving at 76 m/s (over the course of a meter), so my question is, why don't we use it?​

 

[Vzearr]

Tagging calc group members (sorry): @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Damage3245 @TheRustyOne @DemonGodMitchAubin @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Armorchompy @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Agnaa @Dalesean027 @DemiiPowa @SeijiSetto @SunDaGamer

 

[Vzearr]

After searching, I see this has already been discussed, however, I do believe this should still be discussed again.

Tagging relevant staff that participated in the previous threads: @KingTempest @LephyrTheRevanchist @DarkDragonMedeus @GrathOfLux.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Perception is merely the ability to see speed, but reaction requires actual physical reaction relative to a projectile and what not.

 

[Vzearr]

Perception is merely the ability to see speed, but reaction requires actual physical reaction relative to a projectile and what not.

Your point?

 

[GrathOfLux]

I do remember a thread being made regarding perception speed blitzing in the past that I was involved in.

I'll see to re-reading the thread shortly to refresh myself on the information, and I'll also look into any changes in the area. I recall it was a long time ago, and if I was to support or reject any specific claim in this regard, I would like to be sure that we are working off of the most up-to-date information. But I will note, plainly, that I thought at the time the above issue of perception speed blitzing being conflated with reaction blitz timeframes was a matter of incredulity. There is a substantial amount of empirical research into the time that it takes for visual information to be processed subjectively under numerous conditions that could be used for such a standard, and I remember reading up on this body of research in detail at the time, with the help of my university's academic resources - I also vividly recall it was rejected on the basis of decidedly non-empirical, non-peer reviewed resources, and these resources were preferred for no better reason I could discern than the fact that the more credible method gets results that feel too high. I only ended up leaving the thread in the end because I was busy with my studies and exhausted at how long the replies were/how many were being made each day.

It's not a standard that should be handled carelessly - it should be clearly delineated when something should qualify for a perception speed blitz over reaction speed blitzing, and I don't think that would always be an easy task - but I certainly think both the evidence and basic experience of the world can affirm that there's no good reason to conflate the two if that is how we still treat it.