How choice of mouse may affect response timing in psychological studies



Mice from the early 1990s seemed to offer a cheap and viable alternative to more expensive response boxes, with fairly consistent results being found between studies. However, has anything changed in the intervening decade? Are newer mice technologies necessarily better? Is USB a better mouse interface than the old-fashioned serial interface? With such questions in mind, we outline a method for bench-testing the timing characteristics of mice outside of a PC, in order to predict their contribution to response timing. A sample set of mice was testedunder a visual stimulus—response paradigm, using E-Prime to compare predicted performance with measured response registration. A representative range of mice technologies was tested alongside a standard keyboard and an E-Prime deluxe response box. The implications for using any response device other than a recognized response box are discussed.


Behavior Research Method Transmission Time Response Device Standard Keyboard Optical Mouse 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Beringer, J. (1992). Timing accuracy of mouse response registration on the IBM microcomputer family.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,24, 486–490.Google Scholar
  2. Crosbie, J. (1990). The Microsoft mouse as a multipurpose response device for the IBM PC/XT/AT.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,22, 305–316.Google Scholar
  3. MacInnes, W. J., &Taylor, T. L. (2001). Millisecond timing on PCs and Macs.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,33, 174–178.Google Scholar
  4. Myors, B. (1998). A simple graphical technique for assessing timer accuracy of computer systems.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,30, 454–456.Google Scholar
  5. Myors, B. (1999). Timing accuracy of PC programs running under DOS and Windows.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,31, 322–328.Google Scholar
  6. Plant, R. R., Hammond, N., &Whitehouse, T. (2002). Toward an Experimental Timing Standards Lab: Benchmarking precision in the real world.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,34, 218–226.Google Scholar
  7. Segalowitz, S. J., &Graves, R. E. (1990). Suitability of the IBM XT, AT, and PS/2 keyboard, mouse, and game port as response devices in reaction time paradigms.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,22, 283–289.Google Scholar
  8. Ulrich, R., &Giray, M. (1989). Time resolution of clocks: Effects on reaction time measurement—good news for bad clocks.British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology,42, 1–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard R. Plant
    • 1
  • Nick Hammond
    • 1
  • Tom Whitehouse
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of YorkYorkEngland

Personalised recommendations