Rakamların arkasındaki çalışmalar
Bu sayfada sitedeki rakamların arkasındaki çalışmalar yer alır. Bir testin sonucunuzu karşılaştırdığı her referans çalışma burada listelenir: kimlerin katıldığı, neyin ölçüldüğü, kullandığımız rakamlar ve onları denetlediğimiz sözler. Onlardan sonra Gerçekler yazılarımızın andığı çalışmalar, rekorlar ve kurallar gelir. Liste, testlerin ve yazıların kullandığı kayıtlardan üretilir; bu yüzden onlarla ayrı düşemez.
Bir çalışma bu sayfaya nasıl girer
- Biri çalışmanın kendisini, ya da kaydı veya kuralları okur ve kullandığımız her rakamı veren sözleri aynen kopyalar.
- Okuma günü ve okunan sayfa, sözlerle birlikte saklanır.
- Rakamları kaynağında okunmamış bir çalışma burada gösterilmez; hiçbir test ya da sayfa da onu kullanamaz.
- Bir çalışma eklendiğinde ya da düzeltildiğinde bu sayfa sitenin bir sonraki güncellemesiyle değişir.
Her kaydın bu sayfada kendi adresi vardır; böylece bir bağlantı doğrudan bir rakamın arkasındaki çalışmaya gidebilir.
Bir test bir çalışmayı nasıl kullanır
Bir sonucun bir çalışmayla ne kadar karşılaştırılabileceği, ikisinin ne kadar uyuştuğuna bağlıdır. Bir çalışma aynı şeyi aynı yolla ölçtüyse, sonuç çalışmadaki insanların arasına konabilir. Tarayıcı, çalışmada olmayan bir gecikme ekliyorsa karşılaştırma bir aralık olarak gösterilir. Bir çalışma yalnızca tipik bir aralık veriyorsa sonuç, o aralığın yanında işaretlerle gösterilir. Bir sitenin ya da topluluğun kendisi hakkında bildirdiği rakam, bildirildiği gibi etiketlenir ve hiçbir zaman insanlar üzerine yapılmış bir çalışma sayılmaz.
Her kayıt, kaynağın türünü söyler: hakemli bir çalışma, kaynağın kendi bildirdiği bir rakam, bir topluluk rakamı, bir rekor ya da bir yönetim kurulunun kuralları. "Akılda tutun" başlığı altında, çalışmanın size söyleyemediği şeyler sıralanır; örneğin kimlerin dışarıda kaldığı ya da yönteminin testten nasıl ayrıldığı. Ölçüm tarafı yöntem sayfasında daha ayrıntılı anlatılır.
Bir kaydı okumak
Önce yazarlar, yıl ve başlık gelir; sonra dergi ya da yayıncı ve kaynağa bir bağlantı. Rakamlar sitenin kullandıklarıdır ve çalışmanın kendi birimindedir. Sondaki alıntı okuduğumuz sözlerdir, tarih de okuduğumuz gündür. Her çalışmanın künyesi ve açıklaması yayımlandığı gibi İngilizce verilir.
Testlerimizin sizi karşılaştırdığı referans çalışmalar
Woods, D. L., Wyma, J. M., Yund, E. W., Herron, T. J., & Reed, B. (2015). Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 131. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131
- Kişi
- 1.469
- Kimler katıldı
- Community volunteers in Rotorua, New Zealand, aged 18 to 65 (mean age 45.8, 40% men)
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; published March 2015
- Ne ölçüldü
- Visual simple reaction time (Experiment 1): a bull's-eye shown left or right of fixation every 1.0 to 1.8 s, answered with a gaming-mouse button; 20 practice and 120 test trials; responses within 110–1000 ms counted; each person's mean latency
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 230,8ms; yayılım (SS) 26,8ms; fare ya da klavye için hesaba katılan gecikme, 44,1ms; ile arası 115,1ms; dokunmatik ekran için hesaba katılan gecikme, 39,8ms; ile arası 52ms
- Kullanan
- Reaksiyon testi
- Unutmayın
- The study measured 17.8 ms of display and mouse delay; corrected for it, the mean is 213 ms.
- Latency rises by about 0.55 ms per year of age; the sample is not split by age here.
- The study averaged 120 trials per person; a median of 5 trials varies more from run to run.
- The delay window comes from two robot-timed studies of everyday devices; no study pressed a mouse, so a mouse takes the keyboard window, wide because computers differ a lot.
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "Experiment 1 examined a community sample of 1469 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 65. Mean SRT latencies were short (231, 213 ms when corrected for hardware delays) and increased significantly with age (0.55 ms/year)". Table 2, column Experiment 1: "N 1469", "SRT 230.8", "SRT SD 26.8".
(2026-10-01, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131/full)
Human Benchmark (2026). Reaction Time Statistics
humanbenchmark.com. Kaynağın kendi bildirdiği. https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/statistics
- Kişi
- 81.000.000
- Kimler katıldı
- Reaction-time clicks by visitors to the site: attempts, not people
- Toplanma zamanı
- Running total since the site was created; figures as shown on 2026-10-01
- Ne ölçüldü
- Browser reaction-time test on any device, phones included; the site notes that scores include computer and display delay
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 284ms; medyan 273ms
- Kullanan
- Reaksiyon testi
- Unutmayın
- Counts clicks, not people, so frequent visitors weigh more.
- Not peer-reviewed and not corrected for device or browser delay.
- Kontrol edildi
"Since this site was created, it's recorded over 81 million reaction time clicks. The median reaction time is 273 milliseconds. The average reaction time is 284 milliseconds."
(2026-10-01, https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/statistics)
Woods, D. L., Wyma, J. M., Yund, E. W., Herron, T. J., & Reed, B. (2015). Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 131. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131
- Kişi
- 1.469
- Kimler katıldı
- Community volunteers in Rotorua, New Zealand, aged 18 to 65 (mean age 45.8, 40% men)
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; published March 2015
- Ne ölçüldü
- Visual simple reaction time (Experiment 1): a bull's-eye shown left or right of fixation every 1.0 to 1.8 s, answered with a gaming-mouse button; 20 practice and 120 test trials; responses within 110–1000 ms counted; each person's mean latency
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 230,8ms
- Kullanan
- F1 reaksiyon testi
- Unutmayın
- The study timed a light coming on, not a row of start lights going out: a different task, so its average is only a mark.
- The study measured 17.8 ms of display and mouse delay; corrected for it, the mean is 213 ms.
- Latency rises by about 0.55 ms per year of age; the sample is not split by age here.
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "Experiment 1 examined a community sample of 1469 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 65. Mean SRT latencies were short (231, 213 ms when corrected for hardware delays) and increased significantly with age (0.55 ms/year)". Table 2, column Experiment 1: "N 1469", "SRT 230.8", "SRT SD 26.8".
(2026-10-01, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131/full)
Shelton, J., & Kumar, G. P. (2010). Comparison between auditory and visual simple reaction times
Neuroscience & Medicine, 1(1), 30–32. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.4236/nm.2010.11004
- Kişi
- 14
- Kimler katıldı
- 14 people, men and women, tested in pairs
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; published 2010
- Ne ölçüldü
- Simple reaction to a sound and to a light, timed by DirectRT software on a laptop; each person's mean, leaving out the first and last tries
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 284ms
- Kullanan
- Sesli reaksiyon testi
- Unutmayın
- A very small study: its average is a mark to look at, not a ranking.
- Laptop speakers and keys add their own delay, as your device does; the study does not say how much.
- The same people reacted to a light in about 331 ms: sound is usually the quicker of the two.
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract, Methodology: "14 subjects were assigned randomly into groups consisting of 2 members. … The tests were taken from the DirectRT software program from a laptop." Results: "the mean visual reaction time is around 331 milliseconds as compared to the mean auditory reaction time of around 284 milliseconds."
(2026-10-06, https://www.scirp.org/html/4-2400003_2689.htm)
cps-check.com (2026). CPS Test
cps-check.com. Topluluk rakamı, norm değil. https://cps-check.com/
- Kimler katıldı
- An ordinary person clicking with one finger, as a click-test site describes it
- Toplanma zamanı
- Not stated; figures as shown on 2026-10-06
- Ne ölçüldü
- Unpublished: the site states the range for runs of 10 to 60 seconds in its copy
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- alt sınır 5cps; üst sınır 7cps
- Kullanan
- Tıklama testi
- Unutmayın
- A community range, not a norm: no peer-reviewed clicking-speed norms exist.
- The site publishes neither its method nor its data.
- Kontrol edildi
Section "What is good CPS?": "An average person can easily click with speed from 5 to 7 CPS for 10-60 seconds. It is very common number and can be achieved with regular clicking technique."
(2026-10-06, https://cps-check.com/)
cpstest.io (2026). CPS Test
cpstest.io. Topluluk rakamı, norm değil. https://cpstest.io/
- Kimler katıldı
- An ordinary person clicking with one finger, as a click-test site describes it
- Toplanma zamanı
- Not stated; figures as shown on 2026-10-06
- Ne ölçüldü
- Unpublished: the site states the range in its questions and answers
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- alt sınır 6cps; üst sınır 7cps
- Kullanan
- Tıklama testi
- Unutmayın
- A community range, not a norm: no peer-reviewed clicking-speed norms exist.
- The site publishes neither its method nor its data.
- Kontrol edildi
FAQ "What Is A Good CPS Score For An Average User?": "A good Clicks Per Second score for an average user is typically between 6 to 7 CPS."
(2026-10-06, https://cpstest.io/)
clickspeedtester.com (2026). Click Speed Test
clickspeedtester.com. Topluluk rakamı, norm değil. https://clickspeedtester.com/
- Kimler katıldı
- Regular Clicking Easy 3-9, as described by a click-test site
- Toplanma zamanı
- Not stated; figures as shown on 2026-10-01
- Ne ölçüldü
- Unpublished: the site presents the range as the average clicks per second for this technique
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- alt sınır 3cps; üst sınır 9cps
- Kullanan
- Tıklama testi
- Unutmayın
- A community range, not a norm: no peer-reviewed clicking-speed norms exist.
- The site publishes neither its method nor its data.
- Kontrol edildi
Section "How Fast Can You Click in Click Speed Test?", table "Average CPS Score" (Clicking Technique, Difficulty, Average CPS): "Regular Clicking Easy 3-9".
(2026-10-01, https://clickspeedtester.com/)
clickspeedtester.com (2026). Click Speed Test
clickspeedtester.com. Topluluk rakamı, norm değil. https://clickspeedtester.com/
- Kimler katıldı
- Jitter Clicking Hard 10-14, as described by a click-test site
- Toplanma zamanı
- Not stated; figures as shown on 2026-10-01
- Ne ölçüldü
- Unpublished: the site presents the range as the average clicks per second for this technique
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- alt sınır 10cps; üst sınır 14cps
- Kullanan
- Tıklama testi
- Unutmayın
- A community range, not a norm: no peer-reviewed clicking-speed norms exist.
- The site publishes neither its method nor its data.
- Kontrol edildi
Section "How Fast Can You Click in Click Speed Test?", table "Average CPS Score" (Clicking Technique, Difficulty, Average CPS): "Jitter Clicking Hard 10-14".
(2026-10-01, https://clickspeedtester.com/)
clickspeedtester.com (2026). Click Speed Test
clickspeedtester.com. Topluluk rakamı, norm değil. https://clickspeedtester.com/
- Kimler katıldı
- Butterfly Clicking Extreme 15-25, as described by a click-test site
- Toplanma zamanı
- Not stated; figures as shown on 2026-10-01
- Ne ölçüldü
- Unpublished: the site presents the range as the average clicks per second for this technique
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- alt sınır 15cps; üst sınır 25cps
- Kullanan
- Tıklama testi
- Unutmayın
- A community range, not a norm: no peer-reviewed clicking-speed norms exist.
- The site publishes neither its method nor its data.
- Kontrol edildi
Section "How Fast Can You Click in Click Speed Test?", table "Average CPS Score" (Clicking Technique, Difficulty, Average CPS): "Butterfly Clicking Extreme 15-25".
(2026-10-01, https://clickspeedtester.com/)
clickspeedtester.com (2026). Click Speed Test
clickspeedtester.com. Topluluk rakamı, norm değil. https://clickspeedtester.com/
- Kimler katıldı
- Drag Clicking Extreme 25-100, as described by a click-test site
- Toplanma zamanı
- Not stated; figures as shown on 2026-10-01
- Ne ölçüldü
- Unpublished: the site presents the range as the average clicks per second for this technique
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- alt sınır 25cps; üst sınır 100cps
- Kullanan
- Tıklama testi
- Unutmayın
- A community range, not a norm: no peer-reviewed clicking-speed norms exist.
- The site publishes neither its method nor its data.
- Kontrol edildi
Section "How Fast Can You Click in Click Speed Test?", table "Average CPS Score" (Clicking Technique, Difficulty, Average CPS): "Drag Clicking Extreme 25-100".
(2026-10-01, https://clickspeedtester.com/)
spacebarclicker.org (2026). Spacebar Clicker
spacebarclicker.org. Topluluk rakamı, norm değil. https://spacebarclicker.org/
- Kimler katıldı
- Players of a spacebar-counter site, as the site describes them
- Toplanma zamanı
- Not stated; figures as shown on 2026-10-06
- Ne ölçüldü
- Unpublished: the site states the range in its copy
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- alt sınır 6presses/s; üst sınır 7presses/s
- Kullanan
- Boşluk tuşu testi
- Unutmayın
- A community figure, not a norm: no study has measured how fast people press a key.
- The site publishes neither its method nor its data, nor how long the presses lasted.
- The same page gives an average of 6.27 presses a second "as per the latest data".
- Kontrol edildi
"For instance, the average player's clicking score reaches 6 to 7 CPS. If a player is skilled, they can tap the bar with a CPS of 8 to 11." and "As per the latest data, the average CPS on a spacebar is 6.27."
(2026-10-06, https://spacebarclicker.org/)
cpstest.io (2026). Spacebar Counter
cpstest.io. Topluluk rakamı, norm değil. https://cpstest.io/spacebar-counter/
- Kimler katıldı
- People pressing the spacebar on counter sites, as the site describes them
- Toplanma zamanı
- Not stated; figure as shown on 2026-10-06
- Ne ölçüldü
- Unpublished: "data collected from various sources", in the site's words
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 6,11presses/s
- Kullanan
- Boşluk tuşu testi
- Unutmayın
- A community figure, not a norm: no study has measured how fast people press a key.
- The site names neither its sources nor how long the presses lasted.
- Kontrol edildi
"According to data collected from various sources, the average person's spacebar clicking score is 6.11 cps."
(2026-10-06, https://cpstest.io/spacebar-counter/)
Hammerschmidt, D., Frieler, K., & Wöllner, C. (2021). Spontaneous motor tempo: Investigating psychological, chronobiological, and demographic factors in a large-scale online tapping experiment
Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 677201. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.677201
- Kişi
- 3.576
- Kimler katıldı
- Online participants from 74 countries, most from China, mean age 27.6
- Toplanma zamanı
- An online tapping experiment; dates not reported; published 2021
- Ne ölçüldü
- Tapping at a comfortable, even pace with no music in a web application; each person's mean gap between taps
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- medyan 729ms
- Kullanan
- BPM ölçer
- Unutmayın
- People tapped at their own pace, with no music: the tempo of a song is another thing, so this is a mark, not a score.
- Paces varied widely, from 123 ms to 2,150 ms between taps, and people bunched around several typical paces.
- The average gap was 780 ms; the middle one, shown here, 729 ms.
- Kontrol edildi
Participants: "A total of 5,966 participants took part in the study, out of which data from 3,576 participants were used for further analysis". Results: "Overall, the mean SMT of all participants was 780 ms (SD = 328) and the median ITI was 729 ms, ranging from 123 to 2,150 ms."
(2026-10-06, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.677201/full)
Thompson, J. J., Blair, M. R., Chen, L., & Henrey, A. J. (2013). Video game telemetry as a critical tool in the study of complex skill learning
PLOS ONE, 8(9), e75129. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075129
- Kişi
- 3.360
- Kimler katıldı
- StarCraft 2 players of seven levels, from beginners to full-time professionals
- Toplanma zamanı
- Replays sent in by players through gaming communities and social media; dates not reported; published 2013
- Ne ölçüldü
- Actions per minute as the game counts them, from one recorded game of each player
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 117,05apm
- Kullanan
- APM testi: dakikadaki eylem sayısı
- Unutmayın
- No study has timed this test: the figure is the APM of real games, where every action follows a decision.
- Pressing as fast as you can, with nothing to decide, gives far more actions a minute than playing a game.
- The players in the study chose to send in a game; beginners to professionals took part.
- Kontrol edildi
Methods: "Telemetric data was collected from 3,360 RTS game players from 7 levels of expertise, ranging from novices to full-time professionals." Figure S15: "Histogram of APM (M = 117.05, SD = 51.95)."
(2026-10-06, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075129)
Soukoreff, R. W., & MacKenzie, I. S. (2004). Towards a standard for pointing device evaluation, perspectives on 27 years of Fitts' law research in HCI
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(6), 751–789. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.09.001
- Kimler katıldı
- Participants of five published mouse studies from four research groups
- Toplanma zamanı
- Review; the five mouse results come from earlier studies that follow ISO 9241-9
- Ne ölçüldü
- Fitts throughput as ISO 9241-9 defines it: Shannon formulation, target width adjusted for accuracy, averaged over conditions and participants
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- alt sınır 3,7bits/s; üst sınır 4,9bits/s
- Kullanan
- Aim trainer: nişan alma testi
- Unutmayın
- A range across five study averages, not the spread between individual people.
- Measured with standard pointing tasks and an accuracy adjustment; an aim trainer is a different task, so the range is orientation only.
- Kontrol edildi
Section 4: "consider the mouse throughput values. All of the throughputs fall in the range [3.7–4.9]. So, five different Fitts' law models (representing every publication with a mouse model available to us) from four separate research groups have published results that agree to within 1.2 bits/s (bps)." Table 5: "Mouse 3.7–4.9".
(2026-10-01, https://www.yorku.ca/mack/ijhcs2004.pdf)
Dhakal, V., Feit, A. M., Kristensson, P. O., & Oulasvirta, A. (2018). Observations on Typing from 136 Million Keystrokes
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1145/3173574.3174220
- Kişi
- 168.960
- Kimler katıldı
- Self-selected volunteers from a typing-test site: mean age 24.5, 68% from the US, 85% native English speakers, 72% had taken a typing course
- Toplanma zamanı
- Three months of online collection; dates not reported; published April 2018
- Ne ölçüldü
- Transcribing 15 English sentences, each read and memorised first; WPM is the transcribed length in five-character words divided by the time from first to last keypress
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 51,56wpm; yayılım (SS) 20,2wpm
- Kullanan
- Klavye hız testi
- Unutmayın
- Self-selected: people who look for a typing test, not the general population.
- The distribution is slightly skewed (0.513); a normal model still matches the paper's cut-offs for its slowest and fastest tenth (about 26 and 78 WPM).
- The fastest tenth averaged 89.56 WPM.
- The study counted every transcribed character; net WPM counts only correctly typed words and reads slightly lower.
- Kontrol edildi
Results: "The final dataset includes 136,857,600 keystrokes from 168,960 participants"; "The average WPM value for participants is 51.56 (SD = 20.2)". Table 3, row WPM: "All 51.56 20.20", "Fast 89.56 9.53".
(2026-10-01, https://userinterfaces.aalto.fi/136Mkeystrokes/resources/chi-18-analysis.pdf)
Palin, K., Feit, A. M., Kim, S., Kristensson, P. O., & Oulasvirta, A. (2019). How do People Type on Mobile Devices? Observations from a Study with 37,000 Volunteers
Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '19). Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1145/3338286.3340120
- Kişi
- 37.370
- Kimler katıldı
- Volunteers who took an online typing test on a mobile device; most from the US, 56% native English speakers
- Toplanma zamanı
- September 2018 to January 2019
- Ne ölçüldü
- Transcribing 15 English sentences on the phone's own keyboard, with autocorrect, word prediction and gesture typing allowed; WPM in five-character words, averaged per person
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 36,2wpm
- Kullanan
- Klavye hız testi
- Unutmayın
- Autocorrect, word prediction and gesture typing were allowed in the study.
- English sentences; in other languages the mark is a rough guide.
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "a web-based transcription task performed by 37,370 volunteers. The average typing speed was 36.2 WPM with 2.3% uncorrected errors."
(2026-10-01, https://userinterfaces.aalto.fi/typing37k/resources/Mobile_typing_study.pdf)
Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate
Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104047. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047
- Kişi
- 18.573
- Kimler katıldı
- Adults reading English silently, pooled across 190 studies
- Toplanma zamanı
- Meta-analysis of 190 earlier studies; preprint posted April 2019
- Ne ölçüldü
- Meta-analysis of silent reading rates for non-fiction; the range is where the author says most adults fall
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- alt sınır 175wpm; üst sınır 300wpm
- Kullanan
- Okuma hızı testi
- Unutmayın
- English non-fiction; the average is 238 wpm, and fiction reads faster (260 wpm, range 200 to 320).
- A range the author gives for most adults, not a computed interval.
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "Based on the analysis of 190 studies (18,573 participants), we estimate that the average silent reading rate for adults in English is 238 words per minute (wpm) for non-fiction and 260 wpm for fiction." and "For silent reading of English non-fiction most adults fall in the range of 175 to 300 wpm; for fiction the range is 200 to 320 wpm."
(2026-10-01, https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/xynwg)
Woods, D. L., Kishiyama, M. M., Yund, E. W., Herron, T. J., Edwards, B., Poliva, O., Hink, R. F., & Reed, B. (2011). Improving digit span assessment of short-term verbal memory
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 33(1), 101–111. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1080/13803395.2010.493149
- Kişi
- 763
- Kimler katıldı
- Community volunteers in Rotorua, New Zealand, aged 18 to 65 (mean age 46.5), a random selection of residents
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; published 2011
- Ne ölçüldü
- Computerized forward digit span with spoken digits: lists grew after each list repeated right, testing began at 5 digits, 10 lists; the span is the longest list repeated before two misses at one length
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- alt sınır 5digits; üst sınır 7digits
- Kullanan
- Sayı hafıza testi
- Unutmayın
- The digits were spoken, not shown; seeing them is a little different.
- The range is where 80% of the people in the study fell; the rest were below or above it.
- The average span in the study was 6.35 digits (SD 1.15).
- Kontrol edildi
Experiment 2, Methods: "a 10-list test was administered to 763 community volunteers in Rotorua, New Zealand"; Subjects: "Subjects ranged in age from 18 to 65 yrs (mean age = 46.5 years)". Results: "TE-ML showed a median span of 6 with 80% of subjects showing spans between 5 and 7 digits." Table 6, FS TE-ML: "Mean 6.35", "SD 1.15".
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2978794/)
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information
Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1037/h0043158
- Kimler katıldı
- Adults in the laboratory studies the essay reviews
- Toplanma zamanı
- Review essay; no data collection of its own
- Ne ölçüldü
- Review of immediate-memory span experiments
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- alt sınır 5digits; üst sınır 9digits
- Kullanan
- Sayı hafıza testi
- Unutmayın
- A rule of thumb from a review essay, not a measured sample.
- Span depends on how fast the digits are shown and how answers are scored.
- Kontrol edildi
Title: "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two". Text: "decimal digits are worth 3.3 bits apiece. We can recall about seven of them".
(2026-10-01, https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Miller/)
Brown, L. A., & Wesley, R. W. (2013). Visual working memory is enhanced by mixed strategy use and semantic coding
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 328–338. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.773004
- Kişi
- 40
- Kimler katıldı
- 40 adults aged 18 to 32 (mean age 20.8) in Scotland; the figure is of the half tested without a second task
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; published 2013
- Ne ölçüldü
- Modified Visual Patterns Test on a computer: a chequered pattern with half its cells black, shown for 3 s, then 10 s of a blank screen, then the black cells marked on a paper grid; patterns grow from 4 to 15 black cells, three at each size
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 9,28squares; yayılım (SS) 2,19squares
- Kullanan
- Görsel hafıza testi
- Unutmayın
- A small study: about 20 young adults gave the figure.
- They waited 10 seconds before answering, on paper; here you answer at once on the screen.
- Their patterns filled half the grid; here at most two squares in five light up.
- Kontrol edildi
Experiment 1: "Participants were 40 adults (29 females, 11 males), aged between 18 and 32 years (M = 20.80, SD = 3.89)." Table 1, "Mean visual working memory span (with standard deviations)", row "Control", column "Low": "9.28 (± 2.19)".
(2026-10-06, https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/47979/1/Brown_Wesley_2013_JoCP.pdf)
Woods, D. L., Wyma, J. M., Herron, T. J., & Yund, E. W. (2016). The effects of repeat testing, malingering, and traumatic brain injury on computerized measures of visuospatial memory span
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 690. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00690
- Kişi
- 187
- Kimler katıldı
- Control participants aged 18 to 82 (mean age 41.1), the normative sample of the authors' computerized spatial span test
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; published January 2016
- Ne ölçüldü
- Computerized spatial span: ten squares on a screen, a sequence of them to be clicked back in order, 14 trials with list length adjusted to performance; the Corsi span is the longest sequence repeated before two misses in a row
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 5,15blocks; yayılım (SS) 1,2blocks
- Kullanan
- Sıra hafıza testi
- Unutmayın
- The squares were placed anew on every trial; here the blocks stay where they are.
- Span falls with age; the people in the study were 18 to 82 years old.
- A computer version of the Corsi task, so five rough levels are shown, not a percentile.
- Kontrol edildi
Table 1, row "Normative": "Control | 187 | 18–82; 41.1 (21.3)". Table 2, row "Normative", column MS: "5.15 (1.20)"; note: "MS, Corsi block span, maximum sequence length reported before missing two successive trials".
(2026-10-06, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00690/full)
Oliveira, J., Fernandes, M., Rosa, P. J., & Gamito, P. (2021). Is Pupil Activity Associated With the Strength of Memory Signal for Words in a Continuous Recognition Memory Paradigm?
Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 686183. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.686183
- Kişi
- 42
- Kimler katıldı
- 42 adults in Portugal, native Portuguese speakers, mean age 26, tested on a university campus
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; published 2021
- Ne ölçüldü
- Continuous recognition of written Portuguese words: 64 words each shown again after 1, 4, 8 or 32 other words, mixed with 43 new words; for each word, seen before or new
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 81%
- Kullanan
- Sözel hafıza testi
- Unutmayın
- A small study: 42 young adults, with Portuguese words.
- Every word there came back once, after at most 32 other words; here a run goes on until the third mistake.
- Kontrol edildi
Participants: "The sample comprised 42 adult Portuguese native speakers who had normal vision or corrected-to-normal vision, mostly women (n = 23) with a mean age of 26 years (SD = 6.79)". Design and Procedure: "The visual word recognition task was based on a continuous recognition memory paradigm originally from Shepard and Teghtsoonian (1961)". Results: "Participants had an average hit rate (correct recognition) of 81% (ranging from 37 to 100%) and a false alarm rate of 11% (ranging from 0 to 29%)."
(2026-10-06, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.686183)
Oliveira, J., Fernandes, M., Rosa, P. J., & Gamito, P. (2021). Is Pupil Activity Associated With the Strength of Memory Signal for Words in a Continuous Recognition Memory Paradigm?
Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 686183. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.686183
- Kişi
- 42
- Kimler katıldı
- 42 adults in Portugal, native Portuguese speakers, mean age 26, tested on a university campus
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; published 2021
- Ne ölçüldü
- Continuous recognition of written Portuguese words: 64 words each shown again after 1, 4, 8 or 32 other words, mixed with 43 new words; for each word, seen before or new
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 11%
- Kullanan
- Sözel hafıza testi
- Unutmayın
- The share of new words that people wrongly called seen; lower is better.
- Kontrol edildi
Participants: "The sample comprised 42 adult Portuguese native speakers who had normal vision or corrected-to-normal vision, mostly women (n = 23) with a mean age of 26 years (SD = 6.79)". Design and Procedure: "The visual word recognition task was based on a continuous recognition memory paradigm originally from Shepard and Teghtsoonian (1961)". Results: "Participants had an average hit rate (correct recognition) of 81% (ranging from 37 to 100%) and a false alarm rate of 11% (ranging from 0 to 29%)."
(2026-10-06, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.686183)
Silberberg, A., & Kearns, D. (2009). Memory for the order of briefly presented numerals in humans as a function of practice
Animal Cognition, 12(2), 405–407 (on Inoue & Matsuzawa 2007, Current Biology, 17(23), R1004–R1005). Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0206-8
- Kişi
- 9
- Kimler katıldı
- Nine university students, each in a single session with no practice
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; the chimpanzee study was published in 2007
- Ne ölçüldü
- Five of the numerals 1 to 9 on a touch screen, masked by white squares after 650, 430 or 210 ms, then touched in order from the smallest; the share of rounds with all five right
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 38%
- Kullanan
- Şempanze hafıza testi
- Unutmayın
- The numbers vanished after 210 ms, a fifth of a second; here they stay until your first click.
- Nine students, each in a single session with no practice; with practice, two adults later matched the chimpanzee.
- The figure is read from the study's chart by the later paper ("a mean of about 38%").
- Kontrol edildi
Silberberg & Kearns 2009, abstract: "with an accuracy of approximately 79%, the juvenile chimpanzee, Ayumu, could recall the position and order of a random subset of five Arabic numerals between one and nine when those numerals were presented for only 210 ms ... None of nine humans working on the same task approached this level of accuracy." Introduction: "when the latency to masking was reduced to 210 ms, Ayumu's performance was largely unchanged, while that of humans dropped to a mean of about 38% (see Figure 2 from their report)."
(2026-10-06, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0206-8)
Silberberg, A., & Kearns, D. (2009). Memory for the order of briefly presented numerals in humans as a function of practice
Animal Cognition, 12(2), 405–407 (on Inoue & Matsuzawa 2007, Current Biology, 17(23), R1004–R1005). Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0206-8
- Kişi
- 1
- Kimler katıldı
- Ayumu, a young chimpanzee with many sessions of practice on the task
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; the chimpanzee study was published in 2007
- Ne ölçüldü
- Five of the numerals 1 to 9 on a touch screen, masked by white squares after 650, 430 or 210 ms, then touched in order from the smallest; the share of rounds with all five right
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 79%
- Kullanan
- Şempanze hafıza testi
- Unutmayın
- One chimpanzee, after many sessions of practice; the numbers vanished after 210 ms.
- Kontrol edildi
Silberberg & Kearns 2009, abstract: "with an accuracy of approximately 79%, the juvenile chimpanzee, Ayumu, could recall the position and order of a random subset of five Arabic numerals between one and nine when those numerals were presented for only 210 ms on a computer touch screen before being masked with white squares."
(2026-10-06, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0206-8)
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166–1186. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1
- Kişi
- 47
- Kimler katıldı
- Undergraduate students aged 18 to 21 in a university lab in the United Kingdom (50 took part, 3 did not return)
- Toplanma zamanı
- Two sessions three weeks apart; dates not reported; published 2018
- Ne ölçüldü
- Colour-word Stroop with four colours, each answered with its own key; 240 congruent, 240 neutral and 240 incongruent trials; the cost is the mean incongruent time less the mean congruent time
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 78ms; yayılım (SS) 38ms
- Kullanan
- Stroop dikkat testi
- Unutmayın
- A small study of students: its average is a mark to look at, not a ranking.
- The study had 720 trials per session; a short test gives a less settled cost.
- The study took the mean time of each kind of word; the test takes the middle (median) time, which a few slow answers move less.
- In the second session, three weeks later, the same students averaged a cost of 61 ms.
- Kontrol edildi
Participants: "Participants in Study 1 were 50 (three male) undergraduate students aged 18–21 years"; Data analysis: "Data were not included if participants did not return for the follow-up session (3,2,2 for the three studies respectively)". Supplementary Table B1, Stroop task, "RT cost", Study 1, Session 1: "78 ms (38)".
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5990556/)
USB Implementers Forum (2001). Device Class Definition for Human Interface Devices (HID), Version 1.11
usb.org. Kaynağın kendi bildirdiği. https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/hid1_11.pdf
- Kimler katıldı
- USB keyboards in the basic (boot) protocol, as the standard defines them
- Toplanma zamanı
- Specification dated 27 June 2001, read on 2026-10-06
- Ne ölçüldü
- The standard's limit on the keys a boot keyboard reports at once
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- değer 6keys
- Kullanan
- Klavye testi
- Unutmayın
- Shift, Ctrl, Alt and the system keys come on top of the six.
- The limit is the basic mode's; a keyboard may report more keys outside it, and some combinations fewer.
- The test counts every key held, modifiers included.
- Kontrol edildi
Appendix F.3, "Boot Keyboard Requirements": "The Boot Keyboard shall report “Keyboard ErrorRollOver” in all array fields when the number of non-modifier keys pressed exceeds the Report Count. The limit is six non-modifier keys for a Boot Keyboard."
(2026-10-06, https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/hid1_11.pdf)
Microsoft (2026). SetDoubleClickTime function (winuser.h)
Microsoft Learn. Kaynağın kendi bildirdiği. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winuser/nf-winuser-setdoubleclicktime
- Kimler katıldı
- Windows computers with the default setting
- Toplanma zamanı
- Reference page as shown on 2026-10-06
- Ne ölçüldü
- The platform's default limit between the two clicks of a double click
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- değer 500ms
- Kullanan
- Mouse testi: düğme ve tekerlek denetimi
- Unutmayın
- Windows only, and only its default: anyone can change it, and other systems choose their own.
- Kontrol edildi
"The number of milliseconds that may occur between the first and second clicks of a double-click. If this parameter is set to 0, the system uses the default double-click time of 500 milliseconds."
(2026-10-06, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winuser/nf-winuser-setdoubleclicktime)
Logitech (2026). Customize G PRO gaming mouse pointer settings with Logitech Gaming Software
Logitech Support. Kaynağın kendi bildirdiği. https://support.logi.com/hc/en-us/articles/360023183294-Customize-G-PRO-gaming-mouse-pointer-settings-with-Logitech-Gaming-Software
- Kimler katıldı
- A gaming mouse and its settings, as the maker describes them
- Toplanma zamanı
- Support article as shown on 2026-10-06
- Ne ölçüldü
- The maker's statement of the report rates its software can set
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- alt sınır 125Hz; üst sınır 1.000Hz
- Kullanan
- Polling rate testi: farenin yoklama hızı
- Unutmayın
- One maker's figures for one gaming mouse: 125 reports a second is its slowest setting, 1000 its fastest and its default.
- Other mice may report less or more often, and a browser cannot always measure a very fast one.
- Kontrol edildi
"Change the Report Rate, if you prefer something other than the default of 1000 reports/second (1ms response time). The Report Rate controls how often your mouse updates its position to the computer. NOTE: The possible range is from 125/sec (8ms response time) to 1000/sec (1ms response time)."
(2026-10-06, https://support.logi.com/hc/en-us/articles/360023183294-Customize-G-PRO-gaming-mouse-pointer-settings-with-Logitech-Gaming-Software)
MDN Web Docs (Mozilla) (2026). Window: requestAnimationFrame() method
MDN Web Docs. Kaynağın kendi bildirdiği. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/requestAnimationFrame
- Kimler katıldı
- Screens that web pages are drawn on, as the reference describes them
- Toplanma zamanı
- Reference page as shown on 2026-10-06
- Ne ölçüldü
- The reference's statement of the most common screen refresh rates
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- alt sınır 60Hz; üst sınır 144Hz
- Kullanan
- Hz testi: ekranınızın yenileme hızı
- Unutmayın
- 60 Hz is the most common rate; 75, 120 and 144 Hz are also widely used, and some screens run faster still.
- A statement of what is common, not a survey of screens.
- Kontrol edildi
"The frequency of calls to the callback function will generally match the display refresh rate. The most common refresh rate is 60hz, (60 cycles/frames per second), though 75hz, 120hz, and 144hz are also widely used."
(2026-10-06, https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/requestAnimationFrame)
Kajonius, P. J., & Johnson, J. A. (2019). Assessing the structure of the Five Factor Model of Personality (IPIP-NEO-120) in the public domain
Europe's Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 260–275. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.5964/ejop.v15i2.1671
- Kişi
- 320.128
- Kimler katıldı
- Volunteers in the United States aged 19 to 69 (mean age 28.1; 60% women) who answered all 120 items on a website
- Toplanma zamanı
- An online survey offering feedback on the Big Five; dates not reported; published June 2019
- Ne ölçüldü
- IPIP-NEO-120 self-report, 1 to 5 per item; a facet is the sum of its four items, a domain the average of its six facets (here: their sum)
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 66,6points; yayılım (SS) 15,96points
- Kullanan
- Big Five kişilik testi
- Unutmayın
- Volunteers who looked for a personality test online, not a random sample of a country.
- The paper averages a domain's six facets; the test adds them up, so its figures are the paper's times six.
- English answers only: a result in another language gets five rough levels.
- Kontrol edildi
Table A1, "Sample Descriptive Statistics of 5 Trait Domains and 30 Facets" (Trait domain, M, SD): "Neuroticism 11.10 2.66", "Extraversion 13.69 2.36", "Openness 13.71 2.06", "Agreeableness 14.87 2.01", "Conscientiousness 14.95 2.34". Note: "N = 320,128. … The facet trait scales ranged from 4 (Min) to 20 (Max)." Method: "Six facet traits in turn are averaged into one trait factor."
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7871748/)
Kajonius, P. J., & Johnson, J. A. (2019). Assessing the structure of the Five Factor Model of Personality (IPIP-NEO-120) in the public domain
Europe's Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 260–275. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.5964/ejop.v15i2.1671
- Kişi
- 320.128
- Kimler katıldı
- Volunteers in the United States aged 19 to 69 (mean age 28.1; 60% women) who answered all 120 items on a website
- Toplanma zamanı
- An online survey offering feedback on the Big Five; dates not reported; published June 2019
- Ne ölçüldü
- IPIP-NEO-120 self-report, 1 to 5 per item; a facet is the sum of its four items, a domain the average of its six facets (here: their sum)
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 82,14points; yayılım (SS) 14,16points
- Kullanan
- Big Five kişilik testi
- Unutmayın
- Volunteers who looked for a personality test online, not a random sample of a country.
- The paper averages a domain's six facets; the test adds them up, so its figures are the paper's times six.
- English answers only: a result in another language gets five rough levels.
- Kontrol edildi
Table A1, "Sample Descriptive Statistics of 5 Trait Domains and 30 Facets" (Trait domain, M, SD): "Neuroticism 11.10 2.66", "Extraversion 13.69 2.36", "Openness 13.71 2.06", "Agreeableness 14.87 2.01", "Conscientiousness 14.95 2.34". Note: "N = 320,128. … The facet trait scales ranged from 4 (Min) to 20 (Max)." Method: "Six facet traits in turn are averaged into one trait factor."
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7871748/)
Kajonius, P. J., & Johnson, J. A. (2019). Assessing the structure of the Five Factor Model of Personality (IPIP-NEO-120) in the public domain
Europe's Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 260–275. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.5964/ejop.v15i2.1671
- Kişi
- 320.128
- Kimler katıldı
- Volunteers in the United States aged 19 to 69 (mean age 28.1; 60% women) who answered all 120 items on a website
- Toplanma zamanı
- An online survey offering feedback on the Big Five; dates not reported; published June 2019
- Ne ölçüldü
- IPIP-NEO-120 self-report, 1 to 5 per item; a facet is the sum of its four items, a domain the average of its six facets (here: their sum)
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 82,26points; yayılım (SS) 12,36points
- Kullanan
- Big Five kişilik testi
- Unutmayın
- Volunteers who looked for a personality test online, not a random sample of a country.
- The paper averages a domain's six facets; the test adds them up, so its figures are the paper's times six.
- English answers only: a result in another language gets five rough levels.
- Kontrol edildi
Table A1, "Sample Descriptive Statistics of 5 Trait Domains and 30 Facets" (Trait domain, M, SD): "Neuroticism 11.10 2.66", "Extraversion 13.69 2.36", "Openness 13.71 2.06", "Agreeableness 14.87 2.01", "Conscientiousness 14.95 2.34". Note: "N = 320,128. … The facet trait scales ranged from 4 (Min) to 20 (Max)." Method: "Six facet traits in turn are averaged into one trait factor."
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7871748/)
Kajonius, P. J., & Johnson, J. A. (2019). Assessing the structure of the Five Factor Model of Personality (IPIP-NEO-120) in the public domain
Europe's Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 260–275. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.5964/ejop.v15i2.1671
- Kişi
- 320.128
- Kimler katıldı
- Volunteers in the United States aged 19 to 69 (mean age 28.1; 60% women) who answered all 120 items on a website
- Toplanma zamanı
- An online survey offering feedback on the Big Five; dates not reported; published June 2019
- Ne ölçüldü
- IPIP-NEO-120 self-report, 1 to 5 per item; a facet is the sum of its four items, a domain the average of its six facets (here: their sum)
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 89,22points; yayılım (SS) 12,06points
- Kullanan
- Big Five kişilik testi
- Unutmayın
- Volunteers who looked for a personality test online, not a random sample of a country.
- The paper averages a domain's six facets; the test adds them up, so its figures are the paper's times six.
- English answers only: a result in another language gets five rough levels.
- Kontrol edildi
Table A1, "Sample Descriptive Statistics of 5 Trait Domains and 30 Facets" (Trait domain, M, SD): "Neuroticism 11.10 2.66", "Extraversion 13.69 2.36", "Openness 13.71 2.06", "Agreeableness 14.87 2.01", "Conscientiousness 14.95 2.34". Note: "N = 320,128. … The facet trait scales ranged from 4 (Min) to 20 (Max)." Method: "Six facet traits in turn are averaged into one trait factor."
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7871748/)
Kajonius, P. J., & Johnson, J. A. (2019). Assessing the structure of the Five Factor Model of Personality (IPIP-NEO-120) in the public domain
Europe's Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 260–275. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.5964/ejop.v15i2.1671
- Kişi
- 320.128
- Kimler katıldı
- Volunteers in the United States aged 19 to 69 (mean age 28.1; 60% women) who answered all 120 items on a website
- Toplanma zamanı
- An online survey offering feedback on the Big Five; dates not reported; published June 2019
- Ne ölçüldü
- IPIP-NEO-120 self-report, 1 to 5 per item; a facet is the sum of its four items, a domain the average of its six facets (here: their sum)
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 89,7points; yayılım (SS) 14,04points
- Kullanan
- Big Five kişilik testi
- Unutmayın
- Volunteers who looked for a personality test online, not a random sample of a country.
- The paper averages a domain's six facets; the test adds them up, so its figures are the paper's times six.
- English answers only: a result in another language gets five rough levels.
- Kontrol edildi
Table A1, "Sample Descriptive Statistics of 5 Trait Domains and 30 Facets" (Trait domain, M, SD): "Neuroticism 11.10 2.66", "Extraversion 13.69 2.36", "Openness 13.71 2.06", "Agreeableness 14.87 2.01", "Conscientiousness 14.95 2.34". Note: "N = 320,128. … The facet trait scales ranged from 4 (Min) to 20 (Max)." Method: "Six facet traits in turn are averaged into one trait factor."
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7871748/)
Cho, H., Chen, Y., & Wallraven, C. (2026). Self-reported binary gender prediction from personality traits: Alignment between machine learning importance and classical effect sizes
PLOS One, 21(8). Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0355193
- Kişi
- 18.062
- Kimler katıldı
- 18,062 online volunteers aged 16 to 90 who took the 50-item IPIP questionnaire on the open-source psychometrics website and gave their gender as female or male; mostly from Western countries
- Toplanma zamanı
- Online, until May 2014 (the open-source psychometrics project); published 2026
- Ne ölçüldü
- IPIP Big-Five factor markers, 50 statements answered on five points; each trait the average of its ten answers, the reverse-keyed ones turned round
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 3,028mean answer (1–5); yayılım (SS) 0,919mean answer (1–5)
- Kullanan
- Kişilik testi
- Unutmayın
- Volunteers on one website, not a sample of any country; people who gave no binary gender were left out.
- Placed only roughly, in five levels: a higher or lower place is no judgement of a person.
- The paper reports neuroticism, the other end of emotional stability, so emotional stability is not compared.
- Kontrol edildi
Datasets: "The Big5 dataset was based on the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) FFM-50 questionnaire, consisting of 50 Likert-type items rated on a five-point scale." Table 1, dataset "Big5 N = 18,062", column "Raw score": "E. Extraversion 3.028 ± 0.919". Rows as printed: "E. Extraversion 3.028 ± 0.919", "A. Agreeableness 3.866 ± 0.705", "C. Conscientiousness 3.370 ± 0.727", "N. Neuroticism 3.078 ± 0.862", "O. Openness 3.913 ± 0.621".
(2026-10-06, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355193)
Cho, H., Chen, Y., & Wallraven, C. (2026). Self-reported binary gender prediction from personality traits: Alignment between machine learning importance and classical effect sizes
PLOS One, 21(8). Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0355193
- Kişi
- 18.062
- Kimler katıldı
- 18,062 online volunteers aged 16 to 90 who took the 50-item IPIP questionnaire on the open-source psychometrics website and gave their gender as female or male; mostly from Western countries
- Toplanma zamanı
- Online, until May 2014 (the open-source psychometrics project); published 2026
- Ne ölçüldü
- IPIP Big-Five factor markers, 50 statements answered on five points; each trait the average of its ten answers, the reverse-keyed ones turned round
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 3,866mean answer (1–5); yayılım (SS) 0,705mean answer (1–5)
- Kullanan
- Kişilik testi
- Unutmayın
- Volunteers on one website, not a sample of any country; people who gave no binary gender were left out.
- Placed only roughly, in five levels: a higher or lower place is no judgement of a person.
- The paper reports neuroticism, the other end of emotional stability, so emotional stability is not compared.
- Kontrol edildi
Datasets: "The Big5 dataset was based on the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) FFM-50 questionnaire, consisting of 50 Likert-type items rated on a five-point scale." Table 1, dataset "Big5 N = 18,062", column "Raw score": "A. Agreeableness 3.866 ± 0.705". Rows as printed: "E. Extraversion 3.028 ± 0.919", "A. Agreeableness 3.866 ± 0.705", "C. Conscientiousness 3.370 ± 0.727", "N. Neuroticism 3.078 ± 0.862", "O. Openness 3.913 ± 0.621".
(2026-10-06, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355193)
Cho, H., Chen, Y., & Wallraven, C. (2026). Self-reported binary gender prediction from personality traits: Alignment between machine learning importance and classical effect sizes
PLOS One, 21(8). Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0355193
- Kişi
- 18.062
- Kimler katıldı
- 18,062 online volunteers aged 16 to 90 who took the 50-item IPIP questionnaire on the open-source psychometrics website and gave their gender as female or male; mostly from Western countries
- Toplanma zamanı
- Online, until May 2014 (the open-source psychometrics project); published 2026
- Ne ölçüldü
- IPIP Big-Five factor markers, 50 statements answered on five points; each trait the average of its ten answers, the reverse-keyed ones turned round
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 3,37mean answer (1–5); yayılım (SS) 0,727mean answer (1–5)
- Kullanan
- Kişilik testi
- Unutmayın
- Volunteers on one website, not a sample of any country; people who gave no binary gender were left out.
- Placed only roughly, in five levels: a higher or lower place is no judgement of a person.
- The paper reports neuroticism, the other end of emotional stability, so emotional stability is not compared.
- Kontrol edildi
Datasets: "The Big5 dataset was based on the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) FFM-50 questionnaire, consisting of 50 Likert-type items rated on a five-point scale." Table 1, dataset "Big5 N = 18,062", column "Raw score": "C. Conscientiousness 3.370 ± 0.727". Rows as printed: "E. Extraversion 3.028 ± 0.919", "A. Agreeableness 3.866 ± 0.705", "C. Conscientiousness 3.370 ± 0.727", "N. Neuroticism 3.078 ± 0.862", "O. Openness 3.913 ± 0.621".
(2026-10-06, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355193)
Cho, H., Chen, Y., & Wallraven, C. (2026). Self-reported binary gender prediction from personality traits: Alignment between machine learning importance and classical effect sizes
PLOS One, 21(8). Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0355193
- Kişi
- 18.062
- Kimler katıldı
- 18,062 online volunteers aged 16 to 90 who took the 50-item IPIP questionnaire on the open-source psychometrics website and gave their gender as female or male; mostly from Western countries
- Toplanma zamanı
- Online, until May 2014 (the open-source psychometrics project); published 2026
- Ne ölçüldü
- IPIP Big-Five factor markers, 50 statements answered on five points; each trait the average of its ten answers, the reverse-keyed ones turned round
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 3,913mean answer (1–5); yayılım (SS) 0,621mean answer (1–5)
- Kullanan
- Kişilik testi
- Unutmayın
- Volunteers on one website, not a sample of any country; people who gave no binary gender were left out.
- Placed only roughly, in five levels: a higher or lower place is no judgement of a person.
- The paper reports neuroticism, the other end of emotional stability, so emotional stability is not compared.
- Kontrol edildi
Datasets: "The Big5 dataset was based on the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) FFM-50 questionnaire, consisting of 50 Likert-type items rated on a five-point scale." Table 1, dataset "Big5 N = 18,062", column "Raw score": "O. Openness 3.913 ± 0.621". Rows as printed: "E. Extraversion 3.028 ± 0.919", "A. Agreeableness 3.866 ± 0.705", "C. Conscientiousness 3.370 ± 0.727", "N. Neuroticism 3.078 ± 0.862", "O. Openness 3.913 ± 0.621".
(2026-10-06, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355193)
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains
Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
- Kişi
- 1.813
- Kimler katıldı
- Undergraduates at the University of Texas at Austin (65% women), tested for course credit
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; published 2003
- Ne ölçüldü
- Ten-Item Personality Inventory, self-report on a 7-point scale; each trait is the mean of two items
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 4,44points; yayılım (SS) 1,45points
- Kullanan
- Hızlı kişilik testi
- Unutmayın
- Students at one US university, not a population norm.
- Scores move in half-point steps, so a percentile is approximate.
- Kontrol edildi
Appendix B, "Normative data for the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI): Self-reported data", whole sample, all ethnicities (N = 1813), columns E, A, C, ES, O: "Mean 4.44 5.23 5.40 4.83 5.38"; "SD 1.45 1.11 1.32 1.42 1.07".
(2026-10-01, https://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/JRP-03-tipi.pdf)
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains
Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
- Kişi
- 1.813
- Kimler katıldı
- Undergraduates at the University of Texas at Austin (65% women), tested for course credit
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; published 2003
- Ne ölçüldü
- Ten-Item Personality Inventory, self-report on a 7-point scale; each trait is the mean of two items
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 5,23points; yayılım (SS) 1,11points
- Kullanan
- Hızlı kişilik testi
- Unutmayın
- Students at one US university, not a population norm.
- Scores move in half-point steps, so a percentile is approximate.
- Kontrol edildi
Appendix B, "Normative data for the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI): Self-reported data", whole sample, all ethnicities (N = 1813), columns E, A, C, ES, O: "Mean 4.44 5.23 5.40 4.83 5.38"; "SD 1.45 1.11 1.32 1.42 1.07".
(2026-10-01, https://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/JRP-03-tipi.pdf)
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains
Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
- Kişi
- 1.813
- Kimler katıldı
- Undergraduates at the University of Texas at Austin (65% women), tested for course credit
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; published 2003
- Ne ölçüldü
- Ten-Item Personality Inventory, self-report on a 7-point scale; each trait is the mean of two items
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 4,83points; yayılım (SS) 1,42points
- Kullanan
- Hızlı kişilik testi
- Unutmayın
- Students at one US university, not a population norm.
- Scores move in half-point steps, so a percentile is approximate.
- Kontrol edildi
Appendix B, "Normative data for the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI): Self-reported data", whole sample, all ethnicities (N = 1813), columns E, A, C, ES, O: "Mean 4.44 5.23 5.40 4.83 5.38"; "SD 1.45 1.11 1.32 1.42 1.07".
(2026-10-01, https://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/JRP-03-tipi.pdf)
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains
Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
- Kişi
- 1.813
- Kimler katıldı
- Undergraduates at the University of Texas at Austin (65% women), tested for course credit
- Toplanma zamanı
- Dates not reported; published 2003
- Ne ölçüldü
- Ten-Item Personality Inventory, self-report on a 7-point scale; each trait is the mean of two items
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 5,38points; yayılım (SS) 1,07points
- Kullanan
- Hızlı kişilik testi
- Unutmayın
- Students at one US university, not a population norm.
- Scores move in half-point steps, so a percentile is approximate.
- Kontrol edildi
Appendix B, "Normative data for the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI): Self-reported data", whole sample, all ethnicities (N = 1813), columns E, A, C, ES, O: "Mean 4.44 5.23 5.40 4.83 5.38"; "SD 1.45 1.11 1.32 1.42 1.07".
(2026-10-01, https://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/JRP-03-tipi.pdf)
Pozzebon, J. A., Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2010). Psychometric characteristics of a public-domain self-report measure of vocational interests: The Oregon Vocational Interest Scales
Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(2), 168–174. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1080/00223890903510431
- Kişi
- 665
- Kimler katıldı
- Adults of a community sample in Eugene and Springfield, Oregon (mean age 62; 57% women; over 98% white)
- Toplanma zamanı
- Eugene-Springfield Community Sample; the participants' ages are given for 2006; published 2010
- Ne ölçüldü
- Oregon Vocational Interest Scales, 92 activities rated from 1 (strongly dislike) to 5 (strongly like); each scale is the mean of its items
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 2,78points; yayılım (SS) 0,76points
- Kullanan
- Meslek testi
- Unutmayın
- Older adults of one community in Oregon (mean age 62), not young people choosing a career, so five rough levels are shown, not a percentile.
- Interests are compared with yourself first: which areas you like most matters more than how you stand against others.
- Kontrol edildi
Method: "From Goldberg's (1999) Eugene-Springfield (Oregon) Community Sample (ESCS), 665 participants completed the ORVIS, of whom 379 (57%) were women and 286 (43%) were men. In 2006, the participants' mean age was 62 years". Table 1, Community Sample, Total (Mean, SD): "Leadership 2.78 .76", "Organization 2.52 .79", "Altruism 3.15 .70", "Creativity 3.22 .80", "Analysis 2.60 .87", "Production 3.17 .72", "Adventure 2.50 .77", "Erudition 3.58 .69".
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2822996/)
Pozzebon, J. A., Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2010). Psychometric characteristics of a public-domain self-report measure of vocational interests: The Oregon Vocational Interest Scales
Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(2), 168–174. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1080/00223890903510431
- Kişi
- 665
- Kimler katıldı
- Adults of a community sample in Eugene and Springfield, Oregon (mean age 62; 57% women; over 98% white)
- Toplanma zamanı
- Eugene-Springfield Community Sample; the participants' ages are given for 2006; published 2010
- Ne ölçüldü
- Oregon Vocational Interest Scales, 92 activities rated from 1 (strongly dislike) to 5 (strongly like); each scale is the mean of its items
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 2,52points; yayılım (SS) 0,79points
- Kullanan
- Meslek testi
- Unutmayın
- Older adults of one community in Oregon (mean age 62), not young people choosing a career, so five rough levels are shown, not a percentile.
- Interests are compared with yourself first: which areas you like most matters more than how you stand against others.
- Kontrol edildi
Method: "From Goldberg's (1999) Eugene-Springfield (Oregon) Community Sample (ESCS), 665 participants completed the ORVIS, of whom 379 (57%) were women and 286 (43%) were men. In 2006, the participants' mean age was 62 years". Table 1, Community Sample, Total (Mean, SD): "Leadership 2.78 .76", "Organization 2.52 .79", "Altruism 3.15 .70", "Creativity 3.22 .80", "Analysis 2.60 .87", "Production 3.17 .72", "Adventure 2.50 .77", "Erudition 3.58 .69".
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2822996/)
Pozzebon, J. A., Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2010). Psychometric characteristics of a public-domain self-report measure of vocational interests: The Oregon Vocational Interest Scales
Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(2), 168–174. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1080/00223890903510431
- Kişi
- 665
- Kimler katıldı
- Adults of a community sample in Eugene and Springfield, Oregon (mean age 62; 57% women; over 98% white)
- Toplanma zamanı
- Eugene-Springfield Community Sample; the participants' ages are given for 2006; published 2010
- Ne ölçüldü
- Oregon Vocational Interest Scales, 92 activities rated from 1 (strongly dislike) to 5 (strongly like); each scale is the mean of its items
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 3,15points; yayılım (SS) 0,7points
- Kullanan
- Meslek testi
- Unutmayın
- Older adults of one community in Oregon (mean age 62), not young people choosing a career, so five rough levels are shown, not a percentile.
- Interests are compared with yourself first: which areas you like most matters more than how you stand against others.
- Kontrol edildi
Method: "From Goldberg's (1999) Eugene-Springfield (Oregon) Community Sample (ESCS), 665 participants completed the ORVIS, of whom 379 (57%) were women and 286 (43%) were men. In 2006, the participants' mean age was 62 years". Table 1, Community Sample, Total (Mean, SD): "Leadership 2.78 .76", "Organization 2.52 .79", "Altruism 3.15 .70", "Creativity 3.22 .80", "Analysis 2.60 .87", "Production 3.17 .72", "Adventure 2.50 .77", "Erudition 3.58 .69".
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2822996/)
Pozzebon, J. A., Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2010). Psychometric characteristics of a public-domain self-report measure of vocational interests: The Oregon Vocational Interest Scales
Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(2), 168–174. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1080/00223890903510431
- Kişi
- 665
- Kimler katıldı
- Adults of a community sample in Eugene and Springfield, Oregon (mean age 62; 57% women; over 98% white)
- Toplanma zamanı
- Eugene-Springfield Community Sample; the participants' ages are given for 2006; published 2010
- Ne ölçüldü
- Oregon Vocational Interest Scales, 92 activities rated from 1 (strongly dislike) to 5 (strongly like); each scale is the mean of its items
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 3,22points; yayılım (SS) 0,8points
- Kullanan
- Meslek testi
- Unutmayın
- Older adults of one community in Oregon (mean age 62), not young people choosing a career, so five rough levels are shown, not a percentile.
- Interests are compared with yourself first: which areas you like most matters more than how you stand against others.
- Kontrol edildi
Method: "From Goldberg's (1999) Eugene-Springfield (Oregon) Community Sample (ESCS), 665 participants completed the ORVIS, of whom 379 (57%) were women and 286 (43%) were men. In 2006, the participants' mean age was 62 years". Table 1, Community Sample, Total (Mean, SD): "Leadership 2.78 .76", "Organization 2.52 .79", "Altruism 3.15 .70", "Creativity 3.22 .80", "Analysis 2.60 .87", "Production 3.17 .72", "Adventure 2.50 .77", "Erudition 3.58 .69".
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2822996/)
Pozzebon, J. A., Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2010). Psychometric characteristics of a public-domain self-report measure of vocational interests: The Oregon Vocational Interest Scales
Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(2), 168–174. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1080/00223890903510431
- Kişi
- 665
- Kimler katıldı
- Adults of a community sample in Eugene and Springfield, Oregon (mean age 62; 57% women; over 98% white)
- Toplanma zamanı
- Eugene-Springfield Community Sample; the participants' ages are given for 2006; published 2010
- Ne ölçüldü
- Oregon Vocational Interest Scales, 92 activities rated from 1 (strongly dislike) to 5 (strongly like); each scale is the mean of its items
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 2,6points; yayılım (SS) 0,87points
- Kullanan
- Meslek testi
- Unutmayın
- Older adults of one community in Oregon (mean age 62), not young people choosing a career, so five rough levels are shown, not a percentile.
- Interests are compared with yourself first: which areas you like most matters more than how you stand against others.
- Kontrol edildi
Method: "From Goldberg's (1999) Eugene-Springfield (Oregon) Community Sample (ESCS), 665 participants completed the ORVIS, of whom 379 (57%) were women and 286 (43%) were men. In 2006, the participants' mean age was 62 years". Table 1, Community Sample, Total (Mean, SD): "Leadership 2.78 .76", "Organization 2.52 .79", "Altruism 3.15 .70", "Creativity 3.22 .80", "Analysis 2.60 .87", "Production 3.17 .72", "Adventure 2.50 .77", "Erudition 3.58 .69".
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2822996/)
Pozzebon, J. A., Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2010). Psychometric characteristics of a public-domain self-report measure of vocational interests: The Oregon Vocational Interest Scales
Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(2), 168–174. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1080/00223890903510431
- Kişi
- 665
- Kimler katıldı
- Adults of a community sample in Eugene and Springfield, Oregon (mean age 62; 57% women; over 98% white)
- Toplanma zamanı
- Eugene-Springfield Community Sample; the participants' ages are given for 2006; published 2010
- Ne ölçüldü
- Oregon Vocational Interest Scales, 92 activities rated from 1 (strongly dislike) to 5 (strongly like); each scale is the mean of its items
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 3,17points; yayılım (SS) 0,72points
- Kullanan
- Meslek testi
- Unutmayın
- Older adults of one community in Oregon (mean age 62), not young people choosing a career, so five rough levels are shown, not a percentile.
- Interests are compared with yourself first: which areas you like most matters more than how you stand against others.
- Kontrol edildi
Method: "From Goldberg's (1999) Eugene-Springfield (Oregon) Community Sample (ESCS), 665 participants completed the ORVIS, of whom 379 (57%) were women and 286 (43%) were men. In 2006, the participants' mean age was 62 years". Table 1, Community Sample, Total (Mean, SD): "Leadership 2.78 .76", "Organization 2.52 .79", "Altruism 3.15 .70", "Creativity 3.22 .80", "Analysis 2.60 .87", "Production 3.17 .72", "Adventure 2.50 .77", "Erudition 3.58 .69".
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2822996/)
Pozzebon, J. A., Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2010). Psychometric characteristics of a public-domain self-report measure of vocational interests: The Oregon Vocational Interest Scales
Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(2), 168–174. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1080/00223890903510431
- Kişi
- 665
- Kimler katıldı
- Adults of a community sample in Eugene and Springfield, Oregon (mean age 62; 57% women; over 98% white)
- Toplanma zamanı
- Eugene-Springfield Community Sample; the participants' ages are given for 2006; published 2010
- Ne ölçüldü
- Oregon Vocational Interest Scales, 92 activities rated from 1 (strongly dislike) to 5 (strongly like); each scale is the mean of its items
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 2,5points; yayılım (SS) 0,77points
- Kullanan
- Meslek testi
- Unutmayın
- Older adults of one community in Oregon (mean age 62), not young people choosing a career, so five rough levels are shown, not a percentile.
- Interests are compared with yourself first: which areas you like most matters more than how you stand against others.
- Kontrol edildi
Method: "From Goldberg's (1999) Eugene-Springfield (Oregon) Community Sample (ESCS), 665 participants completed the ORVIS, of whom 379 (57%) were women and 286 (43%) were men. In 2006, the participants' mean age was 62 years". Table 1, Community Sample, Total (Mean, SD): "Leadership 2.78 .76", "Organization 2.52 .79", "Altruism 3.15 .70", "Creativity 3.22 .80", "Analysis 2.60 .87", "Production 3.17 .72", "Adventure 2.50 .77", "Erudition 3.58 .69".
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2822996/)
Davis, A. C., Vaillancourt, T., & Arnocky, S. (2026). The Dark Tetrad Traits Differentially Predict Gossip Frequency and Motives
Behavioral Sciences, 16(9), 1556. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3390/bs16091556
- Kişi
- 516
- Kimler katıldı
- 516 adults in North America aged 18 to 61 (mean age 37.9), recruited and paid through Amazon Mechanical Turk
- Toplanma zamanı
- Online survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk; dates not reported; published 2026
- Ne ölçüldü
- Short Dark Tetrad (SD4), 28 English statements, answered from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); each scale the mean of its seven answers
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 3,39mean score (1–5); yayılım (SS) 0,77mean score (1–5)
- Kullanan
- Karanlık üçlü testi
- Unutmayın
- One online sample of paid survey takers in North America, not a norm.
- Placed only roughly, in five levels: a higher or lower score is no judgement of a person.
- Kontrol edildi
2.1: "the final analytic sample included 516 adults". Table 2, column 2 (Machiavellianism): N 516, M 3.39, SD 0.77. Table 2 rows as printed, columns 1 to 4 (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy, Sadism): "M 2.88 3.39 2.17 2.54" and "SD 0.93 0.77 1.01 1.00".
(2026-10-06, https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16091556)
Davis, A. C., Vaillancourt, T., & Arnocky, S. (2026). The Dark Tetrad Traits Differentially Predict Gossip Frequency and Motives
Behavioral Sciences, 16(9), 1556. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3390/bs16091556
- Kişi
- 516
- Kimler katıldı
- 516 adults in North America aged 18 to 61 (mean age 37.9), recruited and paid through Amazon Mechanical Turk
- Toplanma zamanı
- Online survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk; dates not reported; published 2026
- Ne ölçüldü
- Short Dark Tetrad (SD4), 28 English statements, answered from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); each scale the mean of its seven answers
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 2,88mean score (1–5); yayılım (SS) 0,93mean score (1–5)
- Kullanan
- Karanlık üçlü testi
- Unutmayın
- One online sample of paid survey takers in North America, not a norm.
- Placed only roughly, in five levels: a higher or lower score is no judgement of a person.
- Kontrol edildi
2.1: "the final analytic sample included 516 adults". Table 2, column 1 (Narcissism): N 516, M 2.88, SD 0.93. Table 2 rows as printed, columns 1 to 4 (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy, Sadism): "M 2.88 3.39 2.17 2.54" and "SD 0.93 0.77 1.01 1.00".
(2026-10-06, https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16091556)
Davis, A. C., Vaillancourt, T., & Arnocky, S. (2026). The Dark Tetrad Traits Differentially Predict Gossip Frequency and Motives
Behavioral Sciences, 16(9), 1556. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3390/bs16091556
- Kişi
- 516
- Kimler katıldı
- 516 adults in North America aged 18 to 61 (mean age 37.9), recruited and paid through Amazon Mechanical Turk
- Toplanma zamanı
- Online survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk; dates not reported; published 2026
- Ne ölçüldü
- Short Dark Tetrad (SD4), 28 English statements, answered from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); each scale the mean of its seven answers
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 2,17mean score (1–5); yayılım (SS) 1,01mean score (1–5)
- Kullanan
- Karanlık üçlü testi
- Unutmayın
- One online sample of paid survey takers in North America, not a norm.
- Placed only roughly, in five levels: a higher or lower score is no judgement of a person.
- Kontrol edildi
2.1: "the final analytic sample included 516 adults". Table 2, column 3 (Psychopathy): N 516, M 2.17, SD 1.01. Table 2 rows as printed, columns 1 to 4 (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy, Sadism): "M 2.88 3.39 2.17 2.54" and "SD 0.93 0.77 1.01 1.00".
(2026-10-06, https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16091556)
Davis, A. C., Vaillancourt, T., & Arnocky, S. (2026). The Dark Tetrad Traits Differentially Predict Gossip Frequency and Motives
Behavioral Sciences, 16(9), 1556. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3390/bs16091556
- Kişi
- 516
- Kimler katıldı
- 516 adults in North America aged 18 to 61 (mean age 37.9), recruited and paid through Amazon Mechanical Turk
- Toplanma zamanı
- Online survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk; dates not reported; published 2026
- Ne ölçüldü
- Short Dark Tetrad (SD4), 28 English statements, answered from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); each scale the mean of its seven answers
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 2,54mean score (1–5); yayılım (SS) 1mean score (1–5)
- Kullanan
- Karanlık üçlü testi
- Unutmayın
- One online sample of paid survey takers in North America, not a norm.
- Placed only roughly, in five levels: a higher or lower score is no judgement of a person.
- Kontrol edildi
2.1: "the final analytic sample included 516 adults". Table 2, column 4 (Sadism): N 516, M 2.54, SD 1.00. Table 2 rows as printed, columns 1 to 4 (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy, Sadism): "M 2.88 3.39 2.17 2.54" and "SD 0.93 0.77 1.01 1.00".
(2026-10-06, https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16091556)
Moksnes, U. K., Espnes, G. A., Eilertsen, M. E. B., Bjørnsen, H. N., Ringdal, R., & Haugan, G. (2024). Validation of Rosenberg self-esteem scale among Norwegian adolescents – psychometric properties across samples
BMC Psychology, 12. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1186/s40359-024-02004-0
- Kişi
- 727
- Kimler katıldı
- Secondary-school students aged 14 to 20 in Trøndelag, Mid Norway, answering in Norwegian
- Toplanma zamanı
- 2016 (sample 1); published 2024
- Ne ölçüldü
- Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: ten statements answered from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), summed to a total of 10 to 40
- Sitenin kullandığı rakamlar
- ortalama 28,14Rosenberg total (10–40); yayılım (SS) 5,51Rosenberg total (10–40)
- Kullanan
- Özgüven testi
- Unutmayın
- A different ten-question self-esteem scale (Rosenberg), on four points and summed: only a rough guide, and your score is not placed on it.
- Teenagers in one part of Norway, answering in Norwegian.
- Kontrol edildi
Measures: "The total score, obtained by summing the items, ranges from 10 to 40, with higher scores indicating elevated levels of global self-esteem." Table 2, "Means (M), standard deviation (SD) ... in sample 1 (sample 2 in parenthesis)", row "Self-esteem: 10 items", Sample 1: "28.14 (5.51)", "727"; Sample 2: "28.16 (6.40)", "1641".
(2026-10-06, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02004-0)
Bilgiler yazılarının kaynakları
Woods, D. L., Wyma, J. M., Yund, E. W., Herron, T. J., & Reed, B. (2015). Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 131. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "SRTs were first measured by Francis Galton in the 19th century, who reported visual SRT latencies below 190 ms in young subjects." "Experiment 1 examined a community sample of 1469 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 65. Mean SRT latencies were short (231, 213 ms when corrected for hardware delays) and increased significantly with age (0.55 ms/year), but were unaffected by sex or education." "SDT latencies averaged 131 ms and were unaffected by age. Experiment 2 tested 189 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 82 years in a different laboratory" "age-related increases in SRT latencies are due primarily to slowed motor output."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25859198/)
Fozard, J. L., Vercruyssen, M., Reynolds, S. L., Hancock, P. A., & Quilter, R. E. (1994). Age differences and changes in reaction time: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging
Journal of Gerontology, 49(4), P179–P189. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1093/geronj/49.4.p179
- Kişi
- 1.265
- Kimler katıldı
- Community volunteers in Baltimore aged 17 to 96
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "This study analyzed auditory reaction time (RT) data from 1,265 community-dwelling volunteers (833 males and 432 females) who ranged in age from 17 to 96." "Repeated testing within participants (longitudinal analyses) over eight years showed consistent slowing and increased variability with age." "Beginning at about age 20, RTs increased at a rate of approximately 0.5 msec/yr for SRT and 1.6 msec/yr for DRT."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8014399/)
Jaworski, J., Kosiba, G., & Madejski, E. (2014). An assessment of reaction time development in females using polynomial regression analysis
Human Movement, 15(2), 80–85. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.2478/humo-2014-0007
- Kişi
- 550
- Kimler katıldı
- Girls and young women aged 7 to 20 in Poland
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "The study involved 550 females between the ages of 7 and 20 years. Participants completed a computer test measuring simple reaction times to visual and auditory stimuli and choice reaction time during the ontogenetic developmental period." "Best reaction times to visual and auditory stimuli were approximately at the age of 17 years. In turn, quickest choice reaction time was approximately one year earlier in life. The most dynamic increase in the results of both simple reaction times was between the age of 7 and 8 years"
(2026-10-06, https://hummov.awf.wroc.pl/An-assessment-of-reaction-time-development-in-females-using-polynomial-regression,183300,0,2.html)
Talboom, J. S., De Both, M. D., Naymik, M. A., et al. (2021). Two separate, large cohorts reveal potential modifiers of age-associated variation in visual reaction time performance
npj Aging and Mechanisms of Disease, 7, 14. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1038/s41514-021-00067-6
- Kişi
- 75.666
- Kimler katıldı
- Visitors to a web-based reaction test (MindCrowd) aged 18 to 85
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "MindCrowd is a cross-sectional web-based assessment of simple visual (sv) reaction time (RT) and paired-associate learning (PAL)." "(ntotal = 75,666, nwomen = 47,700, nmen = 27,966; ages 18-85 years old, mean (M)Age = 46.54, standard deviation (SD)Age = 18.40)"
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34210964/)
Hartshorne, J. K., & Germine, L. T. (2015). When does cognitive functioning peak? The asynchronous rise and fall of different cognitive abilities across the life span
Psychological Science, 26(4), 433–443. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1177/0956797614567339
- Kimler katıldı
- Visitors to TestMyBrain.org aged 10 to 69, and the norming samples of two adult test batteries
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "some abilities peak and begin to decline around high school graduation; some abilities plateau in early adulthood, beginning to decline in the 30s; still others do not peak until the 40s or later." Experiment 2: "Participants in Experiment 2 (N=10,394, 10–69 years-old) were visitors to TestMyBrain.org" Results: "the two working memory tasks peaked at around 30 years, significantly later than processing speed (ps<.01) and significantly earlier than vocabulary (ps<.0001)" Experiment 1: "The WAIS-III sample consisted of 2,450 healthy, cognitively-unimpaired Americans"
(2026-10-06, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4441622/)
Pain, M. T. G., & Hibbs, A. (2007). Sprint starts and the minimum auditory reaction time
Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(1), 79–86. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1080/02640410600718004
- Kimler katıldı
- Nine sprinters starting from instrumented blocks
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "The simple auditory reaction time is one of the fastest reaction times and is thought to be rarely less than 100 ms." "Reaction time in nine athletes performing sprint starts in four conditions was measured using starting blocks instrumented with piezoelectric force transducers" "Five of the athletes had mean reaction times of less than 100 ms in at least one condition and 20% of all starts in the first two conditions had a reaction time of less than 100 ms. The results demonstrate that the neuromuscular-physiological component of simple auditory reaction times can be under 85 ms and that EMG latencies can be under 60 ms."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17127583/)
World Athletics (2026). Book C, C2.1 Technical Rules, Rule 16 (The start), version in force from 1 July 2026
World Athletics Book of Rules. Bir kuruluşun kuralları. https://worldathletics.org/about-iaaf/documents/book-of-rules
- Kontrol edildi
C2.1 Technical Rules (document "C1.1 & C2.1 - Competition Rules & Technical Rules", dated 01 JUL 2026): "When a World Athletics certified Start Information System is in use, the Starter and/or an assigned Recaller shall wear headphones in order to clearly hear the acoustic signal emitted when the System indicates a possible false start (i.e. when the reaction time is less than 0.100 second)."
(2026-10-06, https://worldathletics.org/about-iaaf/documents/book-of-rules)
Thorpe, S., Fize, D., & Marlot, C. (1996). Speed of processing in the human visual system
Nature, 381(6582), 520–522. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1038/381520a0
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "Here we use a go/no-go categorization task in which subjects have to decide whether a previously unseen photograph, flashed on for just 20 ms, contains an animal. ERP analysis revealed a frontal negativity specific to no-go trials that develops roughly 150 ms after stimulus onset. We conclude that the visual processing needed to perform this highly demanding task can be achieved in under 150 ms."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8632824/)
Jain, A., Bansal, R., Kumar, A., & Singh, K. D. (2015). A comparative study of visual and auditory reaction times on the basis of gender and physical activity levels of medical first year students
International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research, 5(2), 124–127. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.4103/2229-516X.157168
- Kişi
- 120
- Kimler katıldı
- Medical students aged 18 to 20 in Patiala, India
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "The present cross-sectional study was conducted on 120 healthy medical students in age group of 18-20 years. RT for target stimulus that is, for the beep tone for measuring ART, and red circle for measuring VRT was determined using Inquisit 4.0 (Computer Software) in the laptop. The task was to press the spacebar as soon as the stimulus is presented. Five readings of each stimulus were taken, and their respective fastest RT's for each stimuli were recorded." "In both the sexes' RT to the auditory stimulus was significantly less (P < 0.001) as compared to the visual stimulus."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26097821/)
Yoshida, K. T., Kiernan, J. X., Okamura, A. M., & Nunez, C. M. (2023). Exploring human response times to combinations of audio, haptic, and visual stimuli from a mobile device
IEEE World Haptics Conference 2023 (arXiv:2305.17180). Hakemli yayın. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17180
- Kişi
- 20
- Kimler katıldı
- Adults aged 20 to 29 holding an iPhone 11
- Kontrol edildi
"Our user study included 20 participants (13 female, 6 male, 1 non-binary; aged 20-29)." "Participants had the shortest response time for the high audio stimulus (405 ± 50 ms) and longest response time for the low visual stimulus (528 ± 105 ms)." "The mean response time is the fastest in the condition with high levels of all three stimuli (mean ± standard deviation, 320 ± 43 ms)" "The fastest mean response time recorded for a particular subject was 250 ms, and the slowest was 819 ms." "The overall mean response time across all conditions was (380 ± 52 ms)."
(2026-10-06, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.17180)
Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) (2026). 2026 Formula 1 Regulations, Section B: Sporting, Issue 07, Article B5.7.2
FIA, 25 June 2026. Bir kuruluşun kuralları. https://api.fia.com/system/files/documents/fia_2026_f1_regulations_-_section_b_sporting_-_iss_07_-_2026-06-25.pdf
- Kontrol edildi
Article B5.7.2: "There will be a standing start, the signal to start the TTCS being given by means of five red lights on the start gantry" "The time interval between the illumination of each of the five red lights in the sequence described above shall be one (1) second." "The time interval between the illumination of the fifth light and all lights being extinguished, to signal the start of the TTCS, is at the sole discretion of the permanent starter."
(2026-10-06, https://api.fia.com/system/files/documents/fia_2026_f1_regulations_-_section_b_sporting_-_iss_07_-_2026-06-25.pdf)
Baur, H., Müller, S., Hirschmüller, A., Huber, G., & Mayer, F. (2006). Reactivity, stability, and strength performance capacity in motor sports
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 40, 906–910. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2006.025783
- Kimler katıldı
- Eight élite racing drivers and ten physically active people of the same age and weight
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "Eight élite racing drivers and 10 physically active controls matched for age and weight were tested in reaction and determination tests." "Racing drivers demonstrated significantly faster reaction times than controls (p = 0.004). However, no significant differences were found for postural stability, leg extensor strength, or arm strength and endurance."
(2026-10-06, https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/search?query=PMCID:PMC2465029&format=json&resultType=core)
Der, G., & Deary, I. J. (2006). Age and sex differences in reaction time in adulthood: Results from the United Kingdom Health and Lifestyle Survey
Psychology and Aging, 21(1), 62–73. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.62
- Kişi
- 7.130
- Kimler katıldı
- Adults in the United Kingdom Health and Lifestyle Survey
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "The authors reanalyzed data for 7,130 adult participants in the United Kingdom Health and Lifestyle Survey" "The authors modeled the age differences in simple and 4-choice reaction time means and variabilities" "Simple RT shows little slowing until around 50, whereas choice RT slows throughout the adult age range."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16594792/)
Dhakal, V., Feit, A. M., Kristensson, P. O., & Oulasvirta, A. (2018). Observations on Typing from 136 Million Keystrokes
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1145/3173574.3174220
- Kontrol edildi
"The final dataset includes 136,857,600 keystrokes from 168,960 participants" "The average WPM value for participants is 51.56 (SD = 20.2). The fastest typists in the dataset reach speeds of even 120 WPM or more." "Fast Typists are the typists with speeds higher than that of 90% of participants (above approx. 78 WPM in our data), Slow Typists are those whose performance is among the slowest 10% (less than approx. 26 WPM in our data)" "Trained typists in our sample type, on average, 5 WPM faster than untrained typists" "For fast typists, the average IKI is ∼120 ms, with a standard deviation of only 11 ms, while slow typists have an IKI of over 480 ms" "the average keypress duration is only 116.24 ms (SD = 23.88)" "The average uncorrected error rate of participants is 1.167% (SD = 1.43%)." Table 3, columns all (mean, SD), r, fast (mean, SD), slow (mean, SD): "WPM 51.56 20.20 – 89.56 9.53 20.91 4.05"; "Numb. fingers 6.95 2.95 0.34 8.40 2.20 5.30 3.20"; "Rollover ratio (%) 25.00 17.00 0.73 49.90 14.00 7.60 6.40"
(2026-10-06, https://userinterfaces.aalto.fi/136Mkeystrokes/resources/chi-18-analysis.pdf)
Palin, K., Feit, A. M., Kim, S., Kristensson, P. O., & Oulasvirta, A. (2019). How do People Type on Mobile Devices? Observations from a Study with 37,000 Volunteers
Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '19). Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1145/3338286.3340120
- Kontrol edildi
"On average, participants typed at 36.17 WPM (SD = 13.22) with 75% of participants having a performance below 43.98 WPM. The fastest typists reached over 80 WPM." "Average performance is about 15 WPM slower in mobile typing. Participants left more errors uncorrected on mobile devices (2.34% versus 1.17% [11])." Table 4, WPM all, Age: "10-19 39.6", "20-29 36.5", "30-39 32.2", "40-49 28.9", "50-59 26.3"; Posture: "both, thumbs 38.0", "right, index 26.7". "Over 82% of participants typed using two thumbs."
(2026-10-06, https://userinterfaces.aalto.fi/typing37k/resources/Mobile_typing_study.pdf)
National Court Reporters Association (2026). Registered Professional Reporter (RPR)
ncra.org, certification requirements. Bir kuruluşun kuralları. https://www.ncra.org/certification/NCRA-Certifications/registered-professional-reporter
- Kontrol edildi
The RPR skills test: "Literary at 180 wpm", "Jury Charge at 200 wpm", "Testimony/Q&A at 225 wpm". "You must have 95 percent accuracy on each leg to pass."
(2026-10-06, https://www.ncra.org/certification/NCRA-Certifications/registered-professional-reporter)
Guinness World Records (2024). Fastest time to type the alphabet
guinnessworldrecords.com. Rekor. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-time-to-type-the-alphabet
- Kontrol edildi
"The fastest time to type the alphabet is 3.25 seconds and was achieved by Shashank (India) in Chittapur, Karnataka, India, on 25 February 2024."
(2026-10-06, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-time-to-type-the-alphabet)
Guinness World Records (2026). Most mouse clicks in one minute (case study: Logitech Türkiye)
guinnessworldrecords.com. Rekor. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/business-solutions/case-studies/logitech-turkiye-en
- Kontrol edildi
"Most mouse clicks in one minute" "Logitech G attempted to break the Guinness World Records title by teaming up with a popular esports champion, Yiğit Arslan, known as Yigox, a young professional gamer only 18 years old." "[Fact alert: This was a brand-new record category. The minimum to achieve was set at 750 clicks.]" "On 10 February 2026 in Istanbul, Türkiye, Yiğit sat down with the PRO X2 SUPERSTRIKE mouse." "When the timer stopped, the final count was clear. 760 clicks. And A new Guinness World Records title was achieved for Most mouse clicks in one minute."
(2026-10-06, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/business-solutions/case-studies/logitech-turkiye-en)
Kuboyama, N., Nabetani, T., Shibuya, K., Machida, K., & Ogaki, T. (2004). The effect of maximal finger tapping on cerebral activation
Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human Science, 23(4), 105–110. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.2114/jpa.23.105
- Kimler katıldı
- Nine right-handed healthy adults (mean age 27.4)
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "Nine right-handed healthy subjects [age: 27.4±4.8 yr, ...] participated in this study." "An auditory-cued, repetitive flexion movement of the right index finger against a button was performed as the finger-tapping task at maximal effort (ME), at 25% of maximal effort (25% ME) and at 50% of maximal effort (50% ME)." "The frequency of finger-tapping was 1.61±0.18 Hz (25% ME trial), 3.23±0.36 Hz (50% ME trial), and 6.46±0.72 Hz (ME trial)."
(2026-10-06, https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpa/23/4/23_4_105/_article)
Ekşioğlu, M., & İşeri, A. (2015). An estimation of finger-tapping rates and load capacities and the effects of various factors
Human Factors, 57(4), 634–648. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1177/0018720814563976
- Kişi
- 148
- Kimler katıldı
- Healthy adults tapping keys of a standard keyboard
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "A 1-min tapping task was performed by 148 participants with maximum volitional tempo for each of eight fingers. For each of the tapping tasks, the participant with the corresponding finger tapped the associated key in the standard position on the home row of a conventional keyboard for touch typing." "The index and middle fingers were the fastest fingers for both hands, and little fingers the slowest." "Tapping rate decreased with age and smokers tapped faster than nonsmokers. Tapping duration and exercise had also significant effect on tapping rate." (the aim: "to estimate the finger-tapping rates and finger load capacities of eight fingers (excluding thumbs) for a healthy adult population")
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25850109/)
Inoue, S., & Matsuzawa, T. (2007). Working memory of numerals in chimpanzees
Current Biology, 17(23), R1004–R1005. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.027
- Kimler katıldı
- Six chimpanzees of the Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, and nine university students
- Kontrol edildi
"Our subjects were six chimpanzees, three mother–offspring pairs." "In 2004, when the three young reached the age of four years, we began to teach the mother–offspring pairs the sequence of Arabic numerals from 1 to 9" "It must be noted that the chance level of this task is very low: p= 1/24 with four numerals, 1/120 with five numerals" "Three different hold duration conditions were tested: 650, 430 and 210 milliseconds." "The shortest duration, 210 milliseconds, is close to the frequency of occurrence of human saccadic eye movement" "We compared Ai, the best mother performer, Ayumu, the best young performer, and human subjects (n = 9, all university students) in this task." "The number of numerals was limited to five items." "Ayumu outperformed all of the human subjects both in speed and accuracy." "Our results may be reminiscent of the phenomenon known as 'eidetic imagery' found by Jaensch" "It is known to be present in a relatively high percentage of normal children, and then the ability declines with age." Figure 2: "Each session consists of 50 trials. Each chimpanzee received 10 sessions and each of 9 humans received a single test session."
(2026-10-06, https://www.gwern.net/docs/www/www.cell.com/566764ff1ec0be394841f7c1ef51d8604468abe4.pdf)
Silberberg, A., & Kearns, D. (2009). Memory for the order of briefly presented numerals in humans as a function of practice
Animal Cognition, 12, 405–407. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0206-8
- Kimler katıldı
- The two authors, aged 63 and 33
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "Inoue and Matsuzawa (Curr Biol 17: R1004–R1005, 2007) showed that with an accuracy of approximately 79%, the juvenile chimpanzee, Ayumu, could recall the position and order of a random subset of five Arabic numerals between one and nine when those numerals were presented for only 210 ms" "None of nine humans working on the same task approached this level of accuracy." "The present report shows that when two humans are given practice in the Inoue and Matsuzawa (2007) memory task, their accuracy levels match those of Ayumu." Introduction: "when the latency to masking was reduced to 210 ms, Ayumu's performance was largely unchanged, while that of humans dropped to a mean of about 38%". Methods: "Alan Silberberg, a 63-year-old male and David Kearns, a 33-year-old male". Figure 1: "David completed 84 sessions"
(2026-10-06, https://www.gwern.net/doc/algernon/2009-silberberg.pdf)
Cook, P., & Wilson, M. (2010). Do young chimpanzees have extraordinary working memory?
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(4), 599–600. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.4.599
- Kimler katıldı
- Two undergraduate research assistants
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "Here we report that, after adequate practice, 2 university students substantially outperformed the chimpanzee. There is no evidence for a superior or qualitatively different spatial memory system in chimpanzees." "Training involved approximately 200 trials per day, 5 or 6 days a week, and began in 2005." "Performance on the second block was 46% and 38% percent for subjects J.S. and T.E., respectively" "the chimpanzee exposure times during training were approximately 650 msec" "Subjects ran 4 blocks of 50 trials per day, 5 days a week, until a total of 300 blocks was reached." "Performance on the posttest was 94% for T.E. and 96% for J.S., substantially better than Inoue and Matsuzawa's human subjects and better than Ayumu" "Performance in the pattern-mask condition was 77% for T.E. and 81.5% for J.S., significantly lower than in the basic posttest" Discussion: "results with a pattern mask indicate that performance on this task relies substantially on ordinary processes of iconic memory or retinal afterimages." "Incidentally, the existence of eidetic imagery is itself controversial"
(2026-10-06, https://www.gwern.net/doc/algernon/2010-cook.pdf)
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01003922
- Kontrol edildi
Title: "The magical number 4 in short-term memory". Abstract: "Miller (1956) summarized evidence that people can remember about seven chunks in short-term memory (STM) tasks." "Others have since suggested that there is a more precise capacity limit, but that it is only three to five chunks." "A single, central capacity limit averaging about four chunks is implicated along with other, noncapacity-limited sources."
(2026-10-06, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/magical-number-4-in-shortterm-memory-a-reconsideration-of-mental-storage-capacity/44023F1147D4A1D44BDC0AD226838496)
Ericsson, K. A., Chase, W. G., & Faloon, S. (1980). Acquisition of a memory skill
Science, 208(4448), 1181–1182. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1126/science.7375930
- Kimler katıldı
- One student, trained in the laboratory
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "After more than 230 hours of practice in the laboratory, a subject was able to increase his memory span from 7 to 79 digits. His performance on other memory tests with digits equaled that of memory experts with lifelong training. With an appropriate mnemonic system, there is seemingly no limit to memory performance with practice."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7375930/)
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1037/h0054651
- Kimler katıldı
- College students in the United States
- Kontrol edildi
Experiment 1: "Seventy college undergraduates (14 males and 56 females)". Experiment 2: "One hundred students (88 college undergraduates, 29 males and 59 females, and 12 graduate students, all females)"; mean times, NC "63.3 seconds", NCWd "110.3 seconds". Summary: the interference of conflicting word stimuli upon naming colors caused an increase of "47.0 seconds or 74.3 percent of the normal time for naming colors printed in squares." "The interference of conflicting color stimuli upon the time for reading 100 words ... caused an increase of only 2.3 seconds or 5.6 percent over the normal time for reading the same words printed in black."
(2026-10-06, https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Stroop/)
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166–1186. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "In three studies, we assessed test-retest reliability of seven classic tasks: Eriksen Flanker, Stroop, stop-signal, go/no-go, Posner cueing, Navon, and Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Code (SNARC). Reliabilities ranged from 0 to .82, being surprisingly low for most tasks given their common use." "Experimental effects become well established - and thus those tasks become popular - when between-subject variability is low." Table 1, Stroop, "RT cost": Study 1 ".60 (.31–.78)", Study 2 ".66 (.26–.83)". Participants: Study 1 "50 (three male) undergraduate students", Study 2 "62 (12 male) undergraduate students"; sessions "3 weeks apart".
(2026-10-06, https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC5990556/fullTextXML)
Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate
Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104047. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "Based on the analysis of 190 studies (18,573 participants), we estimate that the average silent reading rate for adults in English is 238 words per minute (wpm) for non-fiction and 260 wpm for fiction. The difference can be predicted by taking into account the length of the words, with longer words in non-fiction than in fiction. The estimates are lower than the numbers often cited in scientific and popular writings." "The average oral reading rate (based on 77 studies and 5,965 participants) is 183 wpm. Reading rates are lower for children, old adults, and readers with English as second language. The reading rates are in line with maximum listening speed and do not require the assumption of reading-specific language processing." "For silent reading of English non-fiction most adults fall in the range of 175 to 300 wpm; for fiction the range is 200 to 320 wpm. Reading rates in other languages can be predicted reasonably well by taking into account the number of words these languages require to convey the same message as in English."
(2026-10-06, https://api.osf.io/v2/preprints/xynwg/)
Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., Masson, M. E. J., Potter, M. C., & Treiman, R. (2016). So much to read, so little time: How do we read, and can speed reading help?
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(1), 4–34. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1177/1529100615623267
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "Speed reading has been an intriguing concept for decades, at least since Evelyn Wood introduced her Reading Dynamics training program in 1959." "The research shows that there is a trade-off between speed and accuracy. It is unlikely that readers will be able to double or triple their reading speeds (e.g., from around 250 to 500-750 words per minute) while still being able to understand the text as well as if they read at normal speed. If a thorough understanding of the text is not the reader's goal, then speed reading or skimming the text will allow the reader to get through it faster with moderate comprehension. The way to maintain high comprehension and get through text faster is to practice reading and to become a more skilled language user (e.g., through increased vocabulary). This is because language skill is at the heart of reading speed."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26769745/)
Spjut, J., Boudaoud, B., Binaee, K., Kim, J., Majercik, A., McGuire, M., Luebke, D., & Kim, J. (2019). Latency of 30 ms benefits first person targeting tasks more than refresh rate above 60 Hz
SIGGRAPH Asia 2019 Technical Briefs. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1145/3355088.3365170
- Kimler katıldı
- Eight skilled esports players aged 27 to 36
- Kontrol edildi
Title: "Latency of 30 ms Benefits First Person Targeting Tasks More Than Refresh Rate Above 60 Hz". Abstract: "we isolate latency and refresh rate by artificially increasing latency when operating at high refresh rates. Eight skilled esports athletes then perform gaming-inspired first person targeting tasks under varying conditions of refresh rate and latency" "We show that reduced latency has a clear benefit in task completion time while increased refresh rate has relatively minor effects on performance when the inherent latency reduction present at high refresh rates is removed." "Subjects. Eight subjects (aged 27-36)" "The selected refresh rates were: 60 Hz (today's baseline), 120 Hz (today's gamer), 240 Hz (gaming enthusiast) and 360 Hz (experimental)." Table 1, click to photon latency at 60 Hz: "22 (6.0) 55 (5.9) 88 (5.8)". Figure 1: "For the 1-hit tasks, latency has a significant effect on task completion times while the effect of refresh rate is not statistically significant."
(2026-10-06, https://research.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/pubs/2019-11_Latency-of-30/FPS_Tasks_sa2019_AuthorVersion.pdf)
Pronk, T., Wiers, R. W., Molenkamp, B., & Murre, J. (2020). Mental chronometry in the pocket? Timing accuracy of web applications on touchscreen and keyboard devices
Behavior Research Methods, 52(3), 1371–1382. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3758/s13428-019-01321-2
- Kimler katıldı
- Four devices from 2015 and 2016: a MacBook Pro, an ASUS laptop, a Samsung Galaxy S7 and an iPhone 6S, pressed by a robot
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "In controlled circumstances, as can be realized in a lab setting, very accurate stimulus timing and moderately accurate RT measurements could be achieved on both touchscreen and keyboard devices, though RTs were consistently overestimated." Table 4 "Descriptives of RT overestimations (in milliseconds) per device and browser" (OS, Web Browser, Minimum, Maximum, Mean, SD): "Android Chrome 46.0 103.5 69.8 7.4", "iOS Safari 48.3 96.3 57.6 6.5", "MacOS Safari 93.0 163.7 132.9 8.1", "Windows Chrome 64.7 70.6 68.5 1.7", "Windows Firefox 49.8 84.9 61.9 5.7".
(2026-10-06, https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC7280355/fullTextXML)
Anwyl-Irvine, A., Dalmaijer, E. S., Hodges, N., & Evershed, J. K. (2021). Realistic precision and accuracy of online experiment platforms, web browsers, and devices
Behavior Research Methods, 53(4), 1407–1425. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01501-5
- Kimler katıldı
- Desktop and laptop computers with Windows 10 and macOS, pressed by a robot; and the equipment of 202,600 online participants
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "We then employed a robot actuator in realistic set-ups to measure response recording across the aforementioned platforms, and between different keyboard types (desktop and integrated laptop)." "We found that modern web platforms provide reasonable accuracy and precision for display duration and manual response time". Table 2 "RT delay is calculated as the difference between known and recorded RT." Browser means: "Chrome 78.81", "Edge 80.10", "Firefox 82.30", "Safari 76.50"; device means: "macOS-Desktop 85.35", "Windows-Desktop 76.24", "Windows-Laptop 73.65". Results: "We found that 77% of these devices were desktop or laptop computers, whereas only 20% were mobile devices" "Based on a sample of 202,600 participants."
(2026-10-06, https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC8367876/fullTextXML)
Bridges, D., Pitiot, A., MacAskill, M. R., & Peirce, J. W. (2020). The timing mega-study: comparing a range of experiment generators, both lab-based and online
PeerJ, 8, e9414. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.7717/peerj.9414
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "Among the lab-based experiments, Psychtoolbox, PsychoPy, Presentation and E-Prime provided the best timing, all with mean precision under 1 millisecond across the visual, audio and response measures." "Online studies did not deliver the same level of precision as lab-based systems, with slightly more variability in all measurements." "For response times (measured using a high-performance button box), most of the packages achieved precision at least under 10 ms in all browsers, with PsychoPy achieving a precision under 3.5 ms in all." "The results, from over 110,000 trials, highlight the wide range of timing qualities that can occur even in these dedicated software packages for the task."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33005482/)
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "In the 45 years since Cattell used English trait terms to begin the formulation of his \"description of personality,\" a number of investigators have proposed an alternative structure based on 5 orthogonal factors." "In the first of 3 studies, 1,431 trait adjectives grouped into 75 clusters were analyzed; virtually identical structures emerged in 10 replications, each based on a different factor-analytic procedure." "None of the factors beyond the 5th generalized across the samples."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2283588/)
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
- Kimler katıldı
- Adults rated by themselves and by people who knew them
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "adjective factors of neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness-antagonism, and conscientiousness-undirectedness were identified in an analysis of 738 peer ratings of 275 adult subjects. Intraclass correlations among raters, ranging from .30 to .65, and correlations between mean peer ratings and self-reports, from .25 to .62, showed substantial cross-observer agreement on all five adjective factors."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3820081/)
McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer's perspective: Data from 50 cultures
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 547–561. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "To test hypotheses about the universality of personality traits, college students in 50 cultures identified an adult or college-aged man or woman whom they knew well and rated the 11,985 targets using the 3rd-person version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Factor analyses within cultures showed that the normative American self-report structure was clearly replicated in most cultures and was recognizable in all." "Cross-sectional age differences for 3 factors followed the pattern identified in self-reports, with moderate rates of change during college age and slower changes after age 40."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15740445/)
Vukasović, T., & Bratko, D. (2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior genetic studies
Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 769–785. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1037/bul0000017
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "the final sample included 62 independent effect sizes, representing more than 100,000 participants of both genders and all ages." "The average effect size was .40, indicating that 40% of individual differences in personality were due to genetic, while 60% are due to environmental influences." "study design was a significant moderator with twin studies showing higher estimates, .47, compared to family and adoption studies, .22."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25961374/)
Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies
Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "From 152 longitudinal studies, 3,217 test-retest correlation coefficients were compiled. Meta-analytic estimates of mean population test-retest correlation coefficients showed that trait consistency increased from .31 in childhood to .54 during the college years, to .64 at age 30, and then reached a plateau around .74 between ages 50 and 70 when time interval was held constant at 6.7 years."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10668348/)
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies
Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "The present study used meta-analytic techniques (number of samples = 92) to determine the patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course. Results showed that people increase in measures of social dominance (a facet of extraversion), conscientiousness, and emotional stability, especially in young adulthood (age 20 to 40). In contrast, people increase on measures of social vitality (a 2nd facet of extraversion) and openness in adolescence but then decrease in both of these domains in old age. Agreeableness changed only in old age."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16435954/)
Soto, C. J. (2019). How replicable are links between personality traits and consequential life outcomes? The Life Outcomes of Personality Replication Project
Psychological Science, 30(5), 711–727. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1177/0956797619831612
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "I conducted preregistered, high-powered (median N = 1,504) replications of 78 previously published trait-outcome associations. Overall, 87% of the replication attempts were statistically significant in the expected direction. The replication effects were typically 77% as strong as the corresponding original effects, which represents a significant decline in effect size."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30950321/)
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality
Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17–40. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x
- Kimler katıldı
- Men and women aged 19 to 93
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "Data were provided by 267 men and 201 women ages 19 to 93. Consistent with earlier research and evaluations, there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types; instead, the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions." "However, correlational analyses showed that the four MBTI indices did measure aspects of four of the five major dimensions of normal personality."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2709300/)
Bess, T. L., & Harvey, R. J. (2002). Bimodal score distributions and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Fact or artifact?
Journal of Personality Assessment, 78(1), 176–186. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7801_11
- Kontrol edildi
Abstract: "Using the BILOG IRT program to score a sample of approximately 12,000 individuals who participated in leadership development programs, theta score distributions for the 4 dimensions of the MBTI computed using 10 (the BILOG default) versus 50 quadrature points were compared. Results indicated that past reports of bimodality were artifacts caused by BILOG's default use of a small number of quadrature points; when larger numbers of points were used, score distributions became strongly center-weighted."
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11936208/)
Gerlach, M., Farb, B., Revelle, W., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2018). A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets
Nature Human Behaviour, 2(10), 735–742. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0419-z
- Kontrol edildi
Title: "A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets". Abstract: "In contrast to personality traits, the existence of personality types remains extremely controversial4." "Here we develop an alternative approach to the identification of personality types, which we apply to four large data sets comprising more than 1.5 million participants. We find robust evidence for at least four distinct personality types"
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31406291/)
Freudenstein, J.-P., Strauch, C., Mussel, P., & Ziegler, M. (2019). Four personality types may be neither robust nor exhaustive
Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1045–1046. Hakemli yayın. doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0721-4
- Kontrol edildi
PubMed record: "Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;3(10):1045-1046." "Four personality types may be neither robust nor exhaustive." "Comment on Nat Hum Behav. 2018 Oct;2(10):735-742." (a comment without an abstract)
(2026-10-06, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31527680/)