不同反應形式與刺激－反應相容性對桌球接發球之反應時間和動作時間的影響

Effects of Different Response Sets and Stimulus-Response Compatibility on the Reaction Time and Movement Time of Returning Serve for Table Tennis

10.6497/BSEPT.20061101_(9).0005

蘇韋丞(Wei-Cheng Su)；林耀豐(Yaw-Feng Lin)

反應形式 ； 刺激－反應相容性 ； 反應時間 ； 動作時間 ； response set ； stimulus-response compatibility ； reaction time ； movement time

臺灣運動心理學報

9期（2006 / 11 / 01）

85 - 107

繁體中文

本研究目的乃透過桌球「真實運動情境」設計，探討接發球者以感覺形式和動作形式來接左右方向發球時反應時間和動作時間之差異情形。先進行「預備性研究」，以挑選「實證性研究」的發球示範者。在「實證性研究」中，實驗參與者為國立屏東教育大學體育系正在修習桌球課程之男生30人，使用慣用右手重覆接受反應形式與刺激－反應相容性下反應時間和動作時間試做，包括：2（不同反應形式：感覺形式、動作形式）×2（有無相容性：發球方向右、發球方向左）×5（不同反應形式與有無相容性下呈現次數）＝20次。蒐集所有實驗數據後，進行重複量數二因子變異數分析考驗，以驗證其差異性。經討論研究結果後，所得的結論如下：一、不同反應形式與有無相容性兩者對反應時間(RT)影響有交互作用存在。「在發球方向右」和「在發球方向左」情境中，實驗參與者以感覺形式接發球所產生的RT皆快於以動作形式接發球所產生的RT；「在感覺形式」和「在動作形式」情境中，實驗參與者處理發球方向右的RT皆快於處理發球方向左的RT。二、不同反應形式與有無相容性兩者對動作時間(MT)影響無交互作用存在。面對左邊和右邊發球，實驗參與者以動作形式接發球所產生的MT皆快於以感覺形式接發球所產生的MT；無論是以感覺形式或動作形式來接發球，實驗參與者處理發球方向右的MT和處理發球方向左的MT沒有差別。

The main idea of the research is to take the ”real sport” as the measure to figure out the different reaction time (RT) and movement time (MT) of returning serve for the table tennis player while using sensory set or motor set to catch the serving ball from left side or right side. Do the ”pilot study” first to select a ball server of the ”practical research”. The participants of the ”practical research” are 30 male physical education major students of National PingTung University of Education who are practicing and studying the table tennis. The right-handed participants will repeatedly accept trials of the RT and MT under response sets and stimulus-response compatibility, including: 2 (response sets: sensory set or motor set) x 2 (stimulus-response compatibility: ball serving directions (right or left)) x 5 (the presenting times under response sets and stimulus-response compatibility)=20. After the statistics of the study is obtained, two-way ANOVA repeated measures will be examined. After discussing the outcomes of the study, the conclusions are as follow: 1. The interaction does exist between the influence of response sets and stimulus-response compatibility on the RT. In the circumstance of ball serving directions (right and left), the RT of the participants using sensory set to catch the ball is faster than the RT of the ones using motor set. In the circumstance of sensory set and motor set, the RT of the participants dealing with the ball coming from the right side is faster than the RT of the ones dealing with the ball coming from the left side. 2. The interaction doesn't exist between the influence of response sets and stimulus-response compatibility on the MT. When the participants are dealing with the ball coming from left side and right side, the MT of the participants using motor set to catch the ball is faster than the MT of the ones using sensory set. No matter which way the participants choose to catch the ball (sensory set or motor set), there is no difference between the MT of the participants dealing with the ball coming from the right side and the MT of the ones dealing with the ball coming from the left side.

1. 洪聰敏、豐東洋(2003)。運動員與非運動員訊息處理之研究。中華民國體育學會體育學報，35，117-126。
   連結：
2. Aglioti, S.,Tomaiuolo, F.(2000).Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and coding of tactile motor evens: Influence of distance between stimulated and responding body parts, spatial complexity of the task and sex of subject.Perceptual and Motor Skills,91,3-14.
3. Anzola, G. P.,Bertoloni, G.,Buchtel, H. A.,Rizzolatti, G.(1977).Spatial compatibility and anatomical factors in simple and choice reaction time.Neuropsychologia,15(2),295-302.
4. Bauer, D. W.,Miller, J.(1982).Stimulus-response compatibility and the motor system.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,34(3),367-380.
5. Brown, R. M.,Delong, D.,Brown, N. L.,Reld, K.(1995).Stimulus-response compatibility and videogame performance.Perceptual and Motor Skills,80,691-698.
6. Christina, R. W.(1973).Influence of enforced motor and sensory set on reaction latency and movement speed.Research Quarterly,44,483-487.
7. Dornier, L. A.,Reeve, T. G.(1990).Evaluation of compatibility effects in the precuing of arm and direction parameters.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,61(1),37-49.
8. Frowein, H. W.(1981).Selective effects of barbiturate and amphetamine on information processing and response execution.Acta Psychologica,47(2),105-115.
9. Ghozlan, A.(1998).Stimulus-response compatibility and position of the hands: nonadditive effects.Perceptual and Motor Skills,86,843-850.
10. Henry, F. M.(1961).Reaction time-movement time correlations.Perceptual and Motor Skills,12,63-66.
11. Kato, Y.,Asami, T.(1998).Difference in stimulus-response compatibility effect in premotor and motor time between upper and lower limbs.Perceptual and Motor Skills,87,939-946.
12. Kato, Y.,Kizuka, T.,Endo, H.(2004).Response preparation and stimulus-response congruence to fractionating reaction time of upper and lower limbs.Perceptual and Motor Skills,99,19-26.
13. LeGare, M.,Wolak, C.,Doyle, B.(1994).Stimulus-response compatibility in a small sample of cerebral palsied.Perceptual and Motor Skills,79,1459-1474.
14. Magill, R. A.(1993).Motor learning: Concepts and applications.Dubuque, IA:Wm. C. Brown.
15. Reed, S. K.(1988).Cognition: Theory and application
16. Schmidt, R. A.(1988).Motor control and learning: A behavior emphasis.Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.
17. Schroeder-Heister, P.,Heister, G.,Ehrenstein, W. H.(1988).Spatial S-R compatibility under head tilt.Acta Psychologica,69,35-44.
18. 何榮桂、姚漢禱(1994)。桌球發長球效標參照測驗之編製。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，41，109-122。
19. 林清和(2001)。教練心理學。台北市:文史哲出版社。
20. 林清和(1996)。運動學習程式學。台北市:文史哲出版社。
21. 林耀豐(1996)。運動對反應時間影響之探討。中華體育，10(2)，113-121。
22. 林耀豐、林清和(1996)。不同網球接發球反應前期與方向對其反應及動作時間的影響。中華民國體育學會體育學報，21，195-206。
23. 徐文冠(1997)。注意目標形式、反應前期對RT、MT之影響－以仁德國中足球隊爲對象。華醫學報，7，377-397。
24. 劉鎮國(2001)。應用虛擬實境探討我國大專足球運動員反應時間。大專體育學刊，3(2)，35-46。
25. 劉鎮國(2002)。應用虛擬實境探討我國大專女排運動員反應時間。成大體育研究集刊，7，1-17。
26. 蘇韋丞、林耀豐(2004)。運動項目差異下刺激與反應相容性及不同反應部位對反應時間之影響。屏師運動科學學刊，1，136-148。

1. 林耀豐,林彥男,林如瀚(2019)。網球選手在回擊球時的視覺行為分析。臺灣運動心理學報，19(2)，1-21。
2. 湯鳴遠、張智惠(2011)。知覺桌球正拍攻擊落點方向之關鍵時間、空間訊息。體育學報，44(2)，193-206。
3. 楊梓楣、湯鳴遠、張智惠(2017)。視覺訊息和知覺─行動配連方式在判斷桌球落點方向之應用。臺灣運動心理學報，17(1)，77-90。