Does Screen Refresh Rate Improve Reaction Time Scores?

How refresh rate creates score differences

Display refresh rate determines how frequently a new image can be sent to your eyes. At 60Hz, the screen updates 60 times per second — once every 16.7ms. At 144Hz, it updates every 6.9ms. At 240Hz, every 4.2ms.

When a reaction time test triggers a visual stimulus (like the background color changing on the Human Benchmark Reaction Time test), that change must wait for the next screen refresh before it becomes visible to you. On a 60Hz monitor, this wait can be anywhere from 0ms to 16.7ms — random, depending on timing. On a 240Hz monitor, the maximum wait is only 4.2ms.

Refresh rate	Frame interval	Max frame latency	Avg added latency	vs. 240Hz score
60Hz	16.7ms	16.7ms	+8.3ms	+10ms
90Hz	11.1ms	11.1ms	+5.6ms	+7ms
120Hz	8.3ms	8.3ms	+4.2ms	+5ms
144Hz	6.9ms	6.9ms	+3.5ms	+4ms
240Hz	4.2ms	4.2ms	+2.1ms	baseline

Frame latency is randomly distributed within the interval. Average added latency = half the frame interval. Score difference reflects the average across multiple trials.

Is this a "real" improvement?

Yes and no. The score improvement is genuine — higher refresh rate genuinely reduces the delay between your neural reaction and the logged timestamp. But the underlying cognitive speed (how fast your visual cortex processes the stimulus, how fast your prefrontal cortex commits to a response, how fast your motor cortex executes it) is completely unchanged by the monitor.

The critical distinction: score vs. speed

A 60Hz player scoring 240ms is actually responding in approximately 232ms neurologically (the 8ms average frame delay isn't their reaction — it's the monitor's). A 240Hz player scoring 232ms has a similar true neural speed. The 8ms difference in scores doesn't represent any difference in cognitive performance.

This is why comparing scores across different refresh rates — as in our cross-device comparison data — requires hardware normalization to be meaningful.

Where higher Hz does produce real performance benefits

In gaming, the benefit of higher refresh rates goes beyond RT test scores. Smoother visual rendering reduces visual tearing and motion blur, making fast-moving objects easier to track and target — which improves actual choice reaction time performance in game scenarios. This is a genuine perceptual benefit, not just a timing artifact.

At 240Hz vs. 60Hz, gaming performance improvements in controlled studies show 5–15% fewer targeting errors and 8–12% faster target acquisition times — larger effects than the pure latency math would predict. See our gamer reaction time guide for more on the hardware-performance link.

Is a higher refresh rate monitor worth it?

For reaction time testing (accuracy)

Worth it above 144Hz

If you're tracking your own progress and comparing to leaderboard data, a 144Hz+ monitor ensures your score better reflects your actual neural speed. The jump from 60Hz to 144Hz gives you approximately 4–5ms of score improvement (better than the average random variance of your scores). Going from 144Hz to 240Hz gives you 1–2ms more — negligible for tracking purposes.

For competitive gaming

Worth it up to 240Hz

For fast-paced competitive games, 144Hz represents a significant real-world advantage over 60Hz. 240Hz provides further (smaller) gains. Beyond 240Hz, the diminishing returns make the upgrade less compelling unless you're competing at the highest professional level where every millisecond matters.

For cognitive tracking / benchmarking

Consistency matters most

If you're tracking cognitive decline, improvement from training, or health interventions, the most important thing is consistency — always test on the same hardware. A 60Hz monitor tracked consistently over time is more useful than switching between different displays. The signal you care about (real RT change) is larger than the hardware noise on any consistent setup.

Other hardware factors that matter more

While refresh rate gets the most attention, other hardware factors can have larger impacts on your score. The complete picture is covered in our mobile vs. desktop guide — but here's the priority ranking:

Factor	Typical score impact	Priority
Desktop vs. mobile	+30–45ms penalty (mobile)	Critical
Wired vs. wireless mouse	+2–8ms penalty (wireless)	Important
60Hz vs. 144Hz display	~8ms improvement	Significant
144Hz vs. 240Hz display	~2ms improvement	Minor
Browser tabs open	+10–25ms penalty	Important