Reaction time test

How the test works

The screen waits a random time between 1 and 4 seconds, then turns green. You tap, click or press the space bar as fast as you can. The test runs five valid trials and keeps the median, the middle value, so one lucky tap or one distracted tap does not decide your score.

A tap before the green, or less than 100 ms after it, counts as a false start and the trial is replayed. No human reacts to a light in under 100 ms, so a time that short is a guess, not a reaction. After more than three false starts the run is void. The time is taken on the first touch of the screen with a high resolution clock, not on the release of the click, which is how the Headgame app measures it too.

What is a good reaction time?

Across 70,940 Human Benchmark games, half of the players are faster than 228 ms and half are slower (Human Benchmark, 2026). One game in ten is faster than 178 ms, and one in ten is slower than 308 ms. Under 200 ms puts you ahead of about three games in four.

Human Benchmark states a median of 273 ms on its own page, computed over all clicks ever recorded. The distribution embedded in its code, which we use, has a median of 228 ms, so it is most likely a subset such as best scores per player. Its exact origin is not documented, which is why we show the lab norm next to it. The same distribution still contains 79 games under 100 ms, which are anticipations rather than reactions.

Average reaction time by age

In the largest calibrated study we use, 1,469 adults aged 18 to 65 had a mean simple reaction time of 231 ms, or 213 ms once the delay of the computer hardware was removed (Woods et al., 2015a). Reaction time rose by about 0.55 ms per year of age and did not differ by sex or education.

The same study estimated that simply detecting the light takes about 131 ms and does not change with age. The slowing comes mostly from starting the movement. Across 40 years, 0.55 ms per year adds up to about 22 ms, which is less than the gap between two phones.

Phone, mouse or keyboard

Your device adds its own delay before your tap is registered. Conventional touchscreens add between 50 and 200 ms of latency (Van Patten et al., 2021). In 59,587 visitors to an online testing platform, people on mobile devices, Android phones in particular, were slower on reaction tests than people on laptops and desktops, even after accounting for age and education (Passell et al., 2021).

So compare a phone score with phone scores, ideally on the same phone. The app corrects for the type of screen when it computes your card. The details are in why reaction time is slower on a phone.

Why five trials and a median

One trial is noisy. In a study of 48 adults tested once a week for three weeks, a precise simple reaction time test reached a test retest reliability of 0.83, with no significant learning effect between sessions (Woods et al., 2015b). On personal phones, 55 adults reached 0.83 too over three weekly sessions (Van Patten et al., 2021).

Averaging also helps. When short tests were repeated on smartphones by 219 adults, the reliability of the average score reached 0.97 or more (Sliwinski et al., 2018). This is why the app averages your best sessions over the week instead of trusting a single morning. On this page, play a few rounds before you decide what your real time is.

Reaction time and driving

Some driving licence assessments include reaction tasks. This page is not one of them. It has no legal or medical value and cannot tell you whether you are fit to drive.

If you want to know where your time stands, the F1 reaction test uses the same reflex with a racing start, and our guide on average reaction time goes through the numbers in detail.

Questions

Is 200 ms a good reaction time?

Yes. A median of 200 ms is faster than about 74% of the 70,940 Human Benchmark games (Human Benchmark, 2026). On a phone, with the added screen delay, it is an even better time.

What is the world record?

There is no verified record we can cite. Times under 100 ms appear in online data but they are anticipations, which is why serious tests reject them. This test does too.

Can this test detect ADHD or a health problem?

No, it measures one simple reaction on your device, today, and it is not a diagnostic tool. If you have a concern about attention or health, talk to a doctor.

Sources

1. Human Benchmark, score distributions embedded in humanbenchmark.com, read on 13 October 2026. Reaction time n 70 940, sequence memory n 35 868, chimp test n 27 233, number memory n 24 084. humanbenchmark.com
2. 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. doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131
3. Van Patten R., Iverson G.L., Muzeau M.A., VanRavenhorst-Bell H.A. (2021). Test-retest reliability and reliable change estimates for four mobile cognitive tests administered virtually in community-dwelling adults. Frontiers in Psychology 12, 734947. PMC8566921. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.734947
4. Passell E., Strong R.W., Rutter L.A. et al. (2021). Cognitive test scores vary with choice of personal digital device. Behavior Research Methods 53(6), 2544 to 2557. PMC8568735. doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01597-3
5. Woods D.L., Wyma J.M., Yund E.W., Herron T.J. (2015). The effects of repeated testing, simulated malingering, and traumatic brain injury on high-precision measures of simple visual reaction time. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9, 540. PMC4637414. doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00540
6. Sliwinski M.J., Mogle J.A., Hyun J. et al. (2018). Reliability and validity of ambulatory cognitive assessments. Assessment 25(1), 14 to 30. PMC5690878. doi.org/10.1177/1073191116643164