This lab disproves the argument that humans are like machines due to the fact that the variation was way too high. Whether the change was due to the fact that my reflexes were getting faster, or my actions were different every time, this change does not exist in computers. Unlike a human being, a computer cannot necessarily improve its reflexes and "learn" how to improve in simple tasks.
penname: popsiclesareyummy I agree that the variation was so great that it was impossible to find a trend in the data. Because humans have multifaceted brains capable of processing information from 5 different senses at the same time, we cannot be compared evenly with machines. The role of our eyes and hands were separated but although my group found that it was easier to catch the ruler based on response, neither had a noticeable trend. If anything, we cannot be seen as machines since they are more often programmed to react to stimuli and would take longer to calculate a response to touch. When i did the experiment, my group found that it was touch that helped us gauge the ruler's presence rather than trying to rely on sending signals from our eyes to our hands. It was faster when the signals were sent directly to our hands.
