Abstract
Introduction
Legislation systems of most countries prohibited using the handheld mobile phone while driving due to the fact that it disturbs concentration and causes hand involvement. Every phone owner is accustomed to the ringtone of his phone and almost involuntarily endeavors to pick it up or check who calls. This engages one’s psychomotor skills, which in our opinion contributes to the attenuation of reaction time needed for performing other crucial functions.
Objectives
The aim of the study was: (1) to evaluate the influence of the sound of a ringing mobile phone on the complex reaction time (RT) score in healthy subjects (owners), and (2) to check if there are any differences in RT when a landline phone and mobile phone ring.
Methods
To assess RT we used our system and protocol of examination, previously validated. The examination conditions were standardized. All tests were performed in the same room with the same light and general acoustic conditions. The test group consisted of 23 women and 24 men, aged 19–24 years. The examination comprised 4 sessions: Training Session (TS) during which the subjects were accustomed with the application and sample stimuli, Control Session (CS) with no telephone ringing, Landline Session (LS) with landline phone ringing, Mobile Session (MS) with mobile phone ringing.
Results
The median RT in the study population was significantly elongated (p < 0.001) in MS. In women and in men RTs were significantly longer in MS than in CS and non-significantly longer than in LS. Reaction times in CS, LS and MS were longer in women, however the differences were not significant (p > 0.05).
Conclusions
We think that the specific ‘bond’ between a person and their private phone can significantly disrupt their attention and thus affect the attention-demanding activities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Törnros J. Effect of driving speed on reaction time during motorway driving. Accid Anal Prev 1995;27(4):435–442.
Miettinen I, Tiitinen H, Alku P, May PJ. Sensitivity of the human auditory cortex to acoustic degradation of speech and non-speech sounds. BMC Neurosci 2010;11:24.
Cavanagh P, Alvarez GA. Tracking multiple targets with multifocal attention. Trends Cogn Sci 2005;9(7):349–354.
Zajdel R, Nowak D. Simple and complex reaction time measurement. A preliminary evaluation of new approach and diagnostic tool. Comput Biol Med 2007;37(12):1724–1730.
Zajdel R, Zajdel J, Zwolińska A, Śmigielski J, Beling P, Cegliński T, et al. The sound of a mobile phone ringing affects the complex reaction time of its owner. Arch Med Sci. In Press 2012. DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2012.28891.
Najwyższa Izba Kontroli (NIK), Departament Komunikacji i Systemów Transportowych. Information about the results of traffic safety control in Poland. Reg. No. 5/2011/P/10/061/ KKT. Warszawa: NIK; 2011 [cited 2011 Dec 20]. Available from URL: http://www.patronat.pl/aktualnosci/2011/jpg/nik%202011%20o%20brd.pdf [in Polish].
Irwin M, Fitzgerald C, Berg WP. Effect of the intensity of wireless telephone conversations on reaction time in a braking response. Percept Mot Skills 2000;90(3 Pt 2):1130–1134.
Consiglio W, Driscoll P, Witte M, Berg WP. Effect of cellular telephone conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a braking response. Accid Anal Prev 2003;35(4):495–500.
Barkana Y, Zadok D, Morad Y, Avni I. Visual field attention is reduced by concomitant hands-free conversation on a cellular telephone. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;138(3):347–353.
Ishigami Y, Klein RM. Is a hands-free phone safer than a handheld phone? J Safety Res 2009;40(2):157–164.
Stalans L, Wedding D. Superiority of the left hemisphere in the recognition of emotional faces. Int J Neurosci 1985;25(3–4):219–223.
Davidson H, Cave KR, Sellner D. Differences in visual attention and task interference between males and females reflect differences in brain laterality. Neuropsychologia 2000;38(4):508–519.
Watson NV, Kimura D. Right-hand superiority for throwing but not for intercepting. Neuropsychologia 1989;27(11–12):1399–1414.
Bell EC, Willson MC, Wilman AH, Dave S, Silverstone PH. Males and females differ in brain activation during cognitive tasks. Neuroimage 2006;30(2):529–538.
Papageorgiou CC, Nanou ED, Tsiafakis VG, Kapareliotis E, Kontoangelos KA, Capsalis CN, et al. Acute mobile phone effects on pre-attentive operation. Neurosci Lett 2006;397(1–2):99–103.
Bąk M, Śliwińska-Kowalska M, Zmyślony M, Dudarewicz A. No effects of acute exposure to the electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phones on brainstem auditory potentials in young volunteers. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2003;16(3):201–208.
Parazzini M, Lutman ME, Moulin A, Barnel C, Śliwińska-Kowalska M, Zmyślony M, et al. Absence of short-term effects of UMTS exposure on the human auditory system. Radiat Res 2010;173(1):91–97.
Suied C, Susin, P, McAdams S. Evaluating warning sound urgency with reaction times. J Exp Psychol 2008;14:201–212.
Edworthy J, Loxle, S, Dennis I. Improving auditory warning design: Relationship between warning sound parameters and perceived urgency. Hum Factors 1991;33:205–231.
Graham R. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. Ergonomics 1999;42(9):1233–1248.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Zajdel, R., Zajdel, J., Śmigielski, J. et al. Cell phone ringtone, but not landline phone ringtone, affects complex reaction time. IJOMEH 26, 102–112 (2013). https://doi.org/10.2478/S13382-013-0080-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/S13382-013-0080-8