What really affects reaction time?
A 2,178-measurement analysis of how gender, day of week, sleep, time of day and mood shape motor response in everyday users of umo. By Scott Mongold, PhD in Neuromechanics.
Abstract
Our 30-second phone-based test analyzed 2,178 measurements from 153 users. Five dimensions — gender, weekday, sleep, time of day and mood — each shifted reaction time by margins large enough to matter for athlete readiness decisions.
Finding 01: Gender differences
Men are 11 ms faster than women on average
390 ms vs. 402 ms across self-reported gender.
Finding 02: Day of the week
Wednesday is the slowest day of the week
Wed (+9 ms vs. Mon), Fri (+7 ms), and Sun (+7 ms) are the slowest.
Finding 03: The sleep "Goldilocks" zone
7–9 hours of sleep is the optimal window
≤7h: +4.9 ms slower · 9+h: +8.8 ms slower vs. the optimal range.
Finding 04: Time of day
Reaction time is most reliable between 6–9 AM
Performance fluctuates throughout the day, with early morning showing the tightest variance.
Finding 05: Mood matters
Going from a bad to a good mood improves reaction time by 17 ms
Subjective wellness is a critical piece of performance prediction.
Subjective wellness is a critical piece of performance prediction. — Scott Mongold, PhD in Neuromechanics, Finding 05
Study at a glance
- Sample size: 2,178 measurements
- Participants: 153 users
- Method: 30-second phone test
- Metric: Visual reaction time (ms)
- Dimensions: 5 (gender, weekday, sleep, time, mood)
NeuroScore vs. CMJ in volleyball
White Paper · Case Study 02. Evaluating jump mechanics against neural readiness scores to predict daily training quality across a competitive in-season block. By Scott Mongold, PhD in Neuromechanics.
Abstract
CMJ tells you how the legs are recovering. NeuroScore tells you how the nervous system is firing. We tested whether a 30-second phone-based reading can stand in for a force plate when daily CMJ isn't realistic.
In elite volleyball, daily readiness is traditionally tracked with the countermovement jump (CMJ) — a vertical-jump test that estimates training fatigue from the athlete's peak power output. CMJ is a strong gold standard for the lower body, but it requires a force plate or a dedicated jump mat, controlled warm-up, and a coach on the floor to administer it. For most teams, that means CMJ is only realistic two or three times a week, not every morning before practice.
umo's NeuroScore takes a different angle on the same question. Instead of measuring how the legs are recovering, it measures how the nervous system is firing — through a 30-second phone-based reaction-time and attention protocol that an athlete can complete in the locker room before they put their shoes on. The hypothesis we wanted to test with this white paper was simple: does a daily NeuroScore reading track the same readiness signal as CMJ, and can it pick up days where CMJ misses fatigue that's systemic rather than muscular?
The full paper walks through the protocol design, the volleyball cohort we worked with across a competitive in-season block, the correlation analysis between daily NeuroScore and CMJ peak power, and the days where the two diverged — including what those divergences predicted about training quality the same afternoon.
The NeuroScore and the umo phone-based assessment can serve as a usable signal for the fatigue traditionally captured by a force plate. — From the white paper
Study at a glance
- Sport: Volleyball (in-season)
- Comparison: NeuroScore vs. CMJ peak power
- Cadence: Daily, pre-practice
- Method: 30-second phone test + force plate
- Output: Correlation + divergence analysis