fumi
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by fumi on Dec 19, 2022 21:20:54 GMT
Hello Community,
I am setting up a task in which people needs to press different numbered keys on their keyboard.
As in the subject, I face one problem when people keep pressing a single key for a long time (more than 3 seconds).
When they hold a key for a long time, the program considers it as repeated keypresses which I do want to avoid.
Would there be a good way to disable this option at least during the experiment.
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Fumi
|
|
|
|
Post by paulwarren on Oct 7, 2023 5:25:12 GMT
Is there a solution to this?
We too are facing this problem, in a self-paced reading task. If a participant holds down the key, then not just the next word but all the words in the sentence will come up. This means that if a participant realises that this is the behaviour of keypresses, then they can just speed through the task skipping from word to word without reading the text, and claim their $$ for no effort. We have tried various if and while loops to prevent a key detection within a certain time limit, but we do not seem to be able to limit this below 200ms. That is, setting a loop as in the code below has the effect of showing the next word but not continuing after that, but it obviously misses RTs below 200ms, and setting the cutoff to less than 200 does not seem to work.
Is there some way to control this behaviour, e.g. by ensuring a key up is detected before the next key down is recognised?
Gijsbert - if you are reading this, it relates to an email our RA Xin Chen sent to you on 8th Sept (but to which she has not had a reply), so you can get the info on the script from that email
while $mycounter <= $nwords
set %newsentence %%array4display remove first
textbox 1 text %newsentence
readkey 1 99999
while RT < 200
readkey 1 99999
while-end
clear -1
set &&reactionTimes append RT
set $mycounter increase
set &&myTT append TT
while-end
|
|
fumi
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by fumi on Mar 11, 2024 14:03:07 GMT
I am still waiting to hear back from the developer. Any work around this?
|
|
