Speed Test - Decision
Choice Reaction Time Test
A colored circle appears - Click the matching colored button as fast as you can. More choices means slower responses. This is Hick's Law in action. 20 trials, score is your average correct RT.
Why More Choices Slow You Down
Select difficulty, then click Start. Match the center circle color to the correct button.
Don't lose this result
Create a free account to track choice RT improvement over time.
Hick's Law: RT grows with choices
In 1952, British psychologist William Edmund Hick published one of the most influential papers in cognitive psychology: a systematic demonstration that reaction time increases as a logarithmic function of the number of stimulus-response alternatives. The relationship is expressed as: RT = a + b × log₂(N + 1), where N is the number of choices and b is approximately 150ms per bit of information.
The logarithmic relationship means that going from 1 to 2 choices adds the most time (~150ms), while going from 7 to 8 choices adds far less (~25ms). The brain is essentially performing a binary search through available options, eliminating half the possibilities with each discrimination step - An efficient but time-consuming process.
Predicted RT by number of choices (Hick's Law)
Simple vs choice reaction time
Simple RT measures the interval from a single expected stimulus to a single pre-planned response - No decision required. The standard reaction time test measures this. Choice RT adds a discrimination phase: the brain must identify which stimulus appeared and select the corresponding response. This additional step - Performed by the prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia - Adds 80–200ms depending on complexity. For a fuller comparison of the two paradigms, see choice vs simple reaction time, explained in depth.
| Measure | Simple RT | 2-choice RT | 4-choice RT | 8-choice RT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global avg (ms) | 284 | 340 | 380 | 455 |
| Top 10% (ms) | 210 | 255 | 295 | 360 |
| Brain regions | Motor cortex only | +PFC discrimination | +Basal ganglia | +Working memory |
| Cognitive demand | Very low | Low | Moderate | High |
Choice reaction time score distribution
| Percentile | 4-choice RT | Classification |
|---|---|---|
| Top 1% | <225ms | Exceptional |
| Top 10% | 225–295ms | Elite |
| Top 25% | 295–345ms | Above average |
| 50th (median) | 345–410ms | Average |
| Bottom 25% | >410ms | Below average |
Decision speed in real life
Hick's Law is not merely a laboratory curiosity - It governs real-world performance in ways that affect safety and competitive outcomes. When a driver sees a hazard, the brain must discriminate the type of hazard (pedestrian? pothole? car braking?) and select among responses (brake, swerve left, swerve right, honk). More complex hazard scenarios produce measurably longer response times.
Sports scientists use Hick's Law to explain why elite athletes practice responses until they become automatic - Effectively reducing the number of decision alternatives by ingraining the most common response, lowering the information load and shaving critical milliseconds. Quarterbacks, tennis returners, and combat sports athletes all demonstrate this through years of deliberate practice.
Military research has applied Hick's Law to attention and focus training for high-stakes decision-making. Studies of air traffic controllers, fighter pilots, and emergency dispatchers consistently show that workload management - Reducing the number of active choices at any given moment - Is more effective than trying to speed up the underlying reaction time.
How to improve choice RT
Automate common responses
Practice until frequent responses become reflexive - This effectively reduces choice count, bypassing the logarithmic cost of deliberation. Repetition moves responses from working memory into procedural memory.
Action games
Research by Daphne Bavelier (2012) showed action video game players have faster choice RT and better probability learning. The constant multi-choice demands of action games directly train the discrimination circuitry this test measures.
Varied practice
Alternate between 2-choice, 4-choice, and 8-choice modes to train flexibility. Challenging your brain with more choices during practice makes the lower-choice conditions feel faster by comparison - A well-replicated contextual interference effect.
Cross-train with simple RT
Improving your baseline simple reaction time lowers the floor of every choice RT trial. The decision-overhead component remains roughly constant, so faster motor execution directly translates to better choice RT scores.
How age affects choice reaction time
Choice RT is more sensitive to aging than simple RT because it combines two declining components: raw detection speed (which slows 2–5ms per decade) and response-selection speed (which slows an additional 5–10ms per decade due to prefrontal processing decline). The decision overhead in choice RT means older adults suffer a compounding disadvantage. This is why driving safety researchers focus on choice RT - The multi-option nature of traffic decisions means older drivers experience disproportionate slowing compared to what simple RT alone would predict.
| Age group | Avg 4-way choice RT | Vs simple RT gap |
|---|---|---|
| 18–29 | ~335ms | ~110ms above simple RT - Normal decision overhead |
| 30–44 | ~355ms | ~120ms above simple RT - Slight prefrontal slowing |
| 45–59 | ~390ms | ~135ms above simple RT - Decision overhead growing |
| 60–74 | ~440ms | ~155ms above simple RT - Compounding decline |
| 75+ | ~510ms | ~175ms above simple RT - Significant decision slowing |
Age norms derived from WAIS-IV processing speed data and laboratory choice RT studies. Platform data aligns within 10–15ms of laboratory benchmarks. See cognitive decline FAQ for the full aging trajectory.
Setup for accurate measurement
Because choice RT adds a decision step on top of hardware latency, hardware effects are proportionally smaller here than in a pure speed test like audio reaction time - But still worth controlling for valid comparisons across sessions. The decision component (~110–175ms) is always neural; only the detection and motor execution components are hardware-sensitive.
- - Wired mouse (adds 0–2ms)
- - 144Hz+ monitor (adds ~7ms)
- - Response keys pre-mapped before starting
- - Fingers resting on response keys throughout
- - Bluetooth input devices (+8–30ms)
- - Phone touchscreen (+30–80ms variable)
- - Resting hands away from keys between trials
- - Large monitor-to-response-key distance
Clinical and professional applications
Choice RT is widely used outside the laboratory because it captures the decision-speed component that simple RT cannot. It appears in driving fitness assessments, aviation crew performance evaluations, and occupational health screening for safety-critical roles.
Choice RT is a stronger predictor of accident risk than simple RT because traffic requires choosing between swerve, brake, and horn in real-time. A 100ms increase in choice RT at 100km/h adds ~2.8m to stopping distance across the full reaction-to-brake sequence.
Pilots require fast multi-option decisions under cockpit warning conditions. Aviation medical examiners use choice RT norms to evaluate fitness to fly, particularly for older pilots where the decision-overhead penalty compounds most.
In-game decision speed - Choosing between abilities, weapons, or movement options - Is choice RT applied to familiar mappings. Elite players optimise this through automation: practiced mappings bypass the logarithmic Hick's Law cost entirely.
Hick's Law explains why sports training emphasises pattern recognition and role definition: by reducing the number of live decision alternatives, athletes compress their effective choice RT. Take Aim Trainer to measure the motor targeting component alongside choice speed.
Global Statistics
On this page
Try next
Track your improvement
Create a free account to save scores and compare across difficulty levels.
Sign up free