How old are you based on your reactions?

I may be off here but, I found that when I had the window fullscreen the graphics were rendering very slowly and my reaction times were very slow. I then made the window smaller and the graphics were much smoother time and my reaction times were much better.

The animation was very jerky, and I had to press the keys about three times for it to even register. Maybe a better title would be "How laggy is this website based on your reactions?"

I really like the idea but it's completely off. What it should do is measure your reaction time: the time between the sign appearing on screen and the user pressing the mouse or tapping the screen. What it does is include frame rendering time. I apparently have the reaction speed of a 80-year-old at 22 (900ms), while I'm sure my reaction time on computers is around 225ms (measured on different occasions).

Also, you compare with the average, but what's your error margin? Were there 25 year olds that got 350ms and 200ms or did everyone consistently get between, say, 240 and 250?

This is a silly knickknack intended to promote justpark.com. It doesn't work, and even if you account for differences in other variables (mouse vs keyboard, rendering speed, etc.), it probably can't work reliably given the variation in reaction times between members of the same cohort.

It said I was nine years younger than I truly am. I say it's doing a fine job. Let's not trouble the man too much.

It would be nice to know something about the accuracy of the age estimate (stdev? or 66% of 29-year old's trials are between blaah and blaah?), and also, how many tries did the test subjects get. I got a couple of "we are not sure you are human" ratings after a few tries (around ten tries total).

Interesting, I get a decade younger with each try... Doubt there is much behind the conversion between reaction time and age, but it's a nice setting to test your reaction time :-)

Seems like it'd be a little more honest to plot the range rather than the average, and report the range of ages you likely are rather than the "exact" age you are. I have aged between 23 and 55 so I suspect that the data aren't quite as neat as they're presented.

I have to agree with the numerous comments, results of this "test" are way too dependent on hardware, platform, and other local variables. Was kind of fun though.

Using the keyboard, my reaction time "age" was in low 20's, much younger than my real vintage. Using mouse clicks, well now I'm 44 or so. My, how quickly one ages.

There is a serious side to such testing. Used under tightly controlled conditions similar tests have shown interesting results. For example, a number of studies report small but significant reaction time differences between kids with ADHD vs. without the disorder, though what that means is uncertain.

I've often thought a properly calibrated RT test of auto drivers would be useful. Readily observed that when the stop light goes from red to green, many drivers are quite slow on the uptake. Logically I wonder if a similar finding re: emergency braking might apply.

Hard to say how much RT differences are genetic vs. learned trait. In any case effects on traffic flow, or performance in critical situations probably have real-world meaning.

I got radically different results on keyboard vs mouse, with keyboard being massively quicker.

It might be a good idea to standardise just on keyboard or mouse.

With my wireless mouse, I was getting anywhere from 37 - 55 years old. Using the touchpad on my laptop, I was getting 50 - 60. Using my keyboard, most often I got "we're not sure you're an actual human being" but sometimes it said I was 18 or 19. The lowest one I had was 241 ms.

> We're not sure if you're an actual human being With the reaction time of (271) milliseconds.

Really? That is like two deaths by a railgun in quake III. And lets not go into the real twitch games like Ninja Gaiden or DMC III royal guard. Or random bulletstorms ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VCX4p3Iw3M

Edit - couple of more trys - consistenly under 300 ms. The majority of time is lost in the click itself. With Type M ior cherry red could probably shave to 200-sh. Also getting better results with keyboard (cherry blue) vs mouse (DeathAdder)

Unfortunately not a great experiment. The first time through I expected to see a 'stop' sign, so I was doing what I do when I drive, scanning the road, looking at signs, making sure the deer on the sides aren't going to jump out. When the 'STOP' flashed on the screen it took me by surprise because I was looking for a stop sign, not for what's essentially a pop-up to come out of nowhere.

My reaction time was initially scored as '42 year old' (I'm 37). The next time through it was a 20 year old. The third time it told me I might not be human.

560 milliseconds, 48-year-old... really? Care for a friendly match of Quake Live? :-)

update: when you actually know what will happen it skews in other direction. I got 312 ms (20-year-old) after several tries.

It's fun and looks to be designed to go viral, but seems pretty useless. I got anywhere from "We're not sure you're an actual human being" to being a 47 year old.

- First time i was distracted, not sure where the sign would appear. Hit mouse and got 44 years old. - Second try i was focused and got 25 years old. - third try i changed to keyboard since mouse is slow, and got "not sure if you are a human being" (288 ms)

In real life i am 38. Perhaps this is a good test for attention level or something like that. Not exactly age per se. But i understood the point ;)

I wonder if something which flatters the user is more likely to go viral?

That it consistently underestimates my age by a couple of decades certainly makes me want to link to it and boast.

My reaction time is 25 years worse than my actual age according to this. I am not particularly surprised although I question the variance in their methodology.

Where are the error bars on the graph? The curve is suspiciously flat, up, and to the right. Plus, half of 18 year olds aren't actual humans.

It might be deeply flawed, but the first time it missed my age by 2 months, the next ones i was prepared and my reaction time was lower.

At first I'm 55 and then they're not sure I'm human. I'm actually in my late 20's.

"You have the reaction of a 23 year old". Since I'm 45, I guess I should take that well, but I would guess it has more to do with spending my 45 (one way) mile daily commute watching for animals on the road.

So apparently being stoned consistently increases reaction time by about 10 years.

I was playing this on my phone and was regularly "we're not actually sure you're human" I was also a little buzzed at the time. I'm pretty sure this isn't accurate.

They weren't sure if I was human when I was under 300ms quite frequently. One time as high as 43 years old, otherwise between not human, 18 and 25.

Went from a 71 year old to "We're not sure if you're actually human" in 3 tries. Benjamin Button!

I tried three times and got 37, 26, 35 years-old playing it at full screen in a browser window; I'm 46.

288 ms, we're not sure if you're an actual human being. Funny, I'm pretty sure I am.

I got about 15 years younger on average by switching from a mouse click to the enter key.

Apparently I might not be human.

Using wireless mouse I'm between 28-33. Using keyboard I'm a machine. What can I say? I used to play a lot of COD.