"Hock's article (on startle) is like an amazing discovery!" -Ralph Mroz

A Startling Study in the Startle Reflex

By W. Hock Hochheim

The late author Kurt Vonnegut called the surprise of “Boo!” as, "the ancient game," one we played on each other since antiquity. How we react to this sudden “Boo,” has been called by experts, startling. If truly startled, the body will thoughtlessly react in some manner. The Britannica defines the startle pattern as:

"...an extremely rapid psycho-physiological response of an organism to a sudden and unexpected stimulus such as a loud sound or a blinding flash of light. In human beings it is characterized by involuntary bending of the limbs and a spasmodic avoidance movement of the head. Musculature returns to normal in less than one second, although elevations in heart rate, breathing and skin conductance persist slightly longer."

Everyone startles, and since childbirth, unless they have maladies in their nervous system or are under the influence of fatigue, drugs or alcohol. In the last 20 years, military, police and citizen self defense trainers have tried to calculate just how this startle concept should fit into combative training programs. I, and others, think they have confused and overdone their expectations. With this essay I hope to explain how these instructors have misunderstood and used misguided information to form doctrine and policy. This misinformation affects all aspects of combatives training, hand, stick, knife and gun.

Much has been written and preached about the startle reflex. Laboratory studies have been interwoven with drug testing, disease effects, hearing loss, post traumatic stress and a host of topics as their main goal, none directly related to combatives. Still, modern combatives trainers have absorbed these primitive findings and concluded that body responses to attack are:

• arms raised in the shape of a triangle - or at the very least, lifted upward,

• clenched hands,

• bent arms, bent knees,

• ducked head,

• squinted eyes

These have been the presumed as central, gross, motor movement responses and the core of self-defense training versus an attacker. They believe that your body will naturally assume these positions when assaulted. Therefore self-defense fighting systems must be largely based on the startle reflex. As a result of this dogged preaching, and enhanced by some apparent sense it seems to make on first blush examination, the term “startle reflex” has landed heavily into the minds, dogma and doctrine of most martial, police and military fighting systems. Some fighting programs have been completely constructed around this “startle reflex” concept.

Unfortunately, upon a close inspection we learn most of this comes from an outdated and stale study by C. Landis and W.A. Hunt's conclusions back in 1939, The Startle Pattern. Landis and Hunt used very primitive lab equipment, cameras and only sound , not physical stimuli to shock people. Sound only. They first reported the very typical, body motions previously listed. The difference between sound stimuli and visual and physical stimuli is critical and plays the major reason for the confusion, misinterpretation and practical application of the startle work in combatives training.

In the subsequent decades, much research, study and advanced lab gear have dissected the startle into a full roll call of responses, which I would like to share here. The research I quote and capsulate is from two renown and respected sources from the 1990s, the 10-year work of Dr. Robert C. Simmons and several decades of what experts call the splendid work of Dr. Michael Davis for his book Neural Mechanisms of Startle Behavior. Keep in mind that these two sources also include all the prior results of all other decades of work.

The following will include Dr. Michael Davis, of the Emory University School of Medicine, was the first to identify the entire brain circuitry for the startle response and its habituation as recent as March, 2006. My goal here with this essay is to better prepare the individual for what has bio-mechanically happened to startled people in the past and what might happen to you if suddenly ambushed and startled.

Situational and Positional Combatives and the Startle Reflex

Technically, a startle usually involves an ambush of sorts. A surprise. Some of the greatest militaries of the world have been defeated by ambush. All fighting is situational and positional, and in answering the universal who, what, when, where, how and whys of a fight, we must ask, do all fights always involve being startled? The simple answer is no. Crimes, mutual-participant fights and assaults often unfold in such a manner that no party involved is actually ever startled. No "Boo!" And then one must remember, if once startled? That startle only lasts so long.

Experience tells us that a startle does not have to originate from a blind corner in a dark alley. We might be startled by a person standing calmly before us. We can be sucker-punched. We can suddenly be pinched into Wolf Pack Attack positions by a clever group of multiple opponents. A good surprise attack will startle you, but, how will you then react? In the 60-plus years since the Landis and Hunt study, clinical experts have collected some 30 or more common, startle responses and categories - some with sub-categories. What does the actual research show? It is hardly what modern, reality-based instructors pontificate!

Dr. Simmons nicknamed such a list of startle responses as “The Startle Museum” and the following are a collection of observed reactions from all prior research. Since the 1930s the stimuli for research has almost exclusively been sudden, audible bursts and some lesser experiments with blinding flashes, often called "acoustic startle-inducing stimulus" or " acoustic 'go' stimulus."

We would be safe to say that some of these in-the-field, "Boo experiments" did accompany various aspects of physical motion stimuli, such as sudden hand waves, surprise touches or pinches from the sides or rear (based on photographs I have seen in these research books). There is some visual stimulus used in the "Boo experiments," along with the sound. The below museum list also includes the obvious, incoming physical stimuli such as objects being thrown at the subjects and hand, arm strikes and lunges (probably no kicks) at the subject. I have tried to note where possible, what the audible, visual and physical stimuli were used when I could find it in these studies.

The Startle Museum

The “museum” includes: (and in no specific order)

1) Two arms up in some manner (possible from audible and/or physical stimuli. Blocks versus incoming physical stimuli will be directional-specific to counter the attack - such as in the following versions).

2) One arm up and one arm down (if the subject detects even the quick and remote possibility of a physical attack coming in high and/or medium-height. This reaction is decided in milliseconds.

3) One arm up and one arm down with a knee raise (if the subject detects even the quick and remote possibility of a physical attack incoming in high, medium and low. Decided in milliseconds). Body will support movement.

4) Knee raise (if the subject detects the possibility of a physical attack incoming very low, such as snakes, animals, insects - often the prized test tools and subject matter of the clinical psychologist. The arms may hardly move ).

5) Arm or arms may bend. They may not bend (from sound stimuli. Incoming physical objects will usually be quickly blocked by arms instinctively. This may cause the arm to bend or not bend).

6) Dropping items (from both physical and sound. The hands are just as likely to open as they are to clinch when the body is shocked).

7) Untargeted throwing as hand-held objects randomly leave the opening hand (from both physical and sound stimuli. The hands are just as likely to open as they are to clinch when the body is shocked).

8) Targeted throwing at the subject that first caused the initial startle (at source of stimuli).

9) Striking out intentionally at source of audible or physical stimuli.

10) Flailing the arms wildly (usually from audible stimuli).

11) The wave - where the body and arms rock up and down as if a vertical wave passed through them (usually from audible stimuli).

12) Jumping up, forward, back or to the sides (from both audible and physical stimuli) The arms may or may not respond.

13) Knee bends and knee buckling (from both audible and physical stimuli).

14) Falling down.

15) Ducking and/or cowering (from audible and physical stimuli).

16) Fainting.

17) A kind of sudden, temporary heart attack.

18) Clutching of one's own throat (explained as an instinctive protective reflex).

19) Clutching of one's own face, palms on the sides of head.

20) Clutching of one's own chest about the heart.

21) Freezing into the pre-startle position (usually from audible stimuli. The body usually, reflexively blocks an incoming physical stimuli).

22) Blurting out and talking nonsense, or cursing.

23) Matching or mirroring – the startled person instantly matches the arm pose and body position of the person startling them.

24) Over 40 different, recorded facial expressions

25) A practiced fighting stance (from sound stimuli surprise. If physical attacked, the subject is likely to forego a stance and instantly respond/block the physical stimuli).

26) Obedience – in some cases, people are subject to instantly following the orders of the ambusher.

27) Cultural – experts have recorded responses that are uniquely culturally, as in family, tribe, region and/or nationality.

28) Idiosyncratic, individual specific responses (sometimes unexplainable. One main conclusion drawn from this list is that many startles are highly idiosyncratic to an individual).

29) Customized responses. Clutching a rail or furniture when falling. Puling away from "hot stove." The body quickly adapts with motions to save itself that do not resemble other motions.

30) Some combinations of the above.

I think we can safely deduce at this point there is quite a variety of recorded responses. Not just the handful first listed above by Landis and Hunt. Even Dr. Landis reported as early as 1937 that “the pattern varies in degree of manifestation among individuals and in any one individual from time to time.” Responses may vary depending upon the condition of the person. People may be tired, sick, under the influence of fatigue, alcohol or drugs. Given the museum variables, one asks the following three combatives-related questions:

Question 1) How can training programs massage startle reflexes into fighting responses, least of all make them the source, gross, motor movements of a combatives program, given the wild continuum of responses?

Question 2) Do these current program authors even know that so many startle responses exist? (My guess is not). Or, do they pick and choose from the responses to fit a marketing program?

Question 3) Third, do current program authors even know the source material they like to use is really from non-visual, non-physical stimuli, usually audible shocks like sudden blasts of sound? The reactions to sound do not directly relate to reactions of physical attacks.

Answers and a Tactical Review

From a tactical standpoint, some startle issues must be highlighted.

Review Issue 1: Apples and Oranges

Probably the most significant point is that many modern instructors have taken the audible/sound responses and turned them into solutions to physical attacks. You can't make orange juice from apple juice. Normal, healthy individuals will reflexively block or duck in the direction of incoming attacks, no matter the direction, or next in probability they also respond in a sliding scale from the Startle Museum list. In the mid-2000s, the aforementioned Dr. Wood really separated the stimuli response from sound to physical movement. Dr. Wood reports, “The (official) "Startle Pattern" may be briefly described as follows:

In reaction to a sudden loud noise. Much has been done with acoustic responses. Since the 1930s, when reviewing the test data, one begins to take note that startle testing is almost always about audible shocks. There is little testing needed on incoming, physical stimuli as those physical responses are usually and naturally blocked and/or dodged by most people, at the perceived height and direction of the attack. This is called directional-specific reaction – natural blocks or customized ducks and dodges in response to incoming threats.

Much has also been done in physical, reflex, rarely if ever are these physical tests ever referred to as startle pattern or startle reflex as such belongs to acoustic categories, not physical responses. Classic responses from sound! Not incoming, physical attack. Creating one-stop-shop startle reflex moves for combat, because “it is based on the startle reflex” from sound is a scientific mistake.

Review Issue 2: Fighting Stances

In the 1980s the US Army conducted some experiments and learned that people can be startled into their favored, trained fighting stances, no matter what those stances were. I have really tried to gather exact information on this Army study but, thus far, I cannot locate the specifics, such as - how many people were tested? Under what conditions? So, the results are sadly anecdotal to us here. However, almost all martial practitioners can relate to this response as they have experienced this shock/sound event. In Dr. Simmons's book, he does have extensive interviews of people who have studied Judo and karate and reported these “jumps into fighting stances.” The clinicians used a term to explain this as "over-learning," to describe why this happens. The stances were deemed over-learned by the subjects from repetition training. Remember that, when a visual threat is coming in, most people just reflexively block in that very direction, forgoing any fighting stances. When a fly zooms toward your eye, you don't jump into a fighting stance and then swat at the fly, you simply swat the fly. Reflex. Fighting stances should NEVER interfere with this reflex.

Review Issue 3: Fist Clenching

Another subject martial practitioners concern themselves with is fist clenching as a result of a startle. How many times have you heard a self-defense instructor order you to fight with your fists clenched because hand-clenching is the natural reaction under startle and stress. Yet, studies show that clenching the hands is hardly a universal given. Research shows many startled persons actually open their hands, drop objects and even throw objects accidentally or on purpose, and all in milliseconds.

Some respondents have open-hand-slapped or pushed their ambushers. Indeed some have also punched them. I have taken particular interest in watching the candid camera style, funniest video programs on television for decades now, and pay close attention to the segments when the subject of the tape is surprised, shocked and ambushed by a gag. There you see the true startle reflex in action as men and women shock into a full plethora of responses, some not even listed in our clinical museum. The gags are sound, visual or physical and/or all or some. Some of these hapless TV victims run the gamut from dropping to the floor, some strike and attack of the ambusher with slaps and some closed-fist, punches and hammer fists. We simply cannot declare with any clinical confidence and certainty that all startled people naturally clench their hands into fists when startled.

Review Tactical Issue 4: Arms Rising

A fly dashes at your eye and your hand and arm zip up to protect it. Your head dodges sideways (not down). Your hand and arm vertically flee the hot stove. You swat at a ball headed to your face. You raise your leg against a low-line threat and your arms do not lift at all. All these startle response motions from physical threats are not really the classic Landis/Hunt reactions because they are threat/pain-protection-specific and not from acoustic stimuli. If a person perceives a physical medium to low attack, the arms may cover low. A head attack? The arms may wrap the head. The arms may flail up and down in a wave-like motion or flail wildly. They may match and mirror the arm positions of the ambusher. They may instantly strike or shove. They may not move at all. Training people to raise their arms in a protective fighting stance is one thing, selling us that the move is an absolute mandatory startle reflex is incorrect.

Arms up!

Arms up is a rather common reaction to a sudden sound /audible stimulus. There is no visual incoming threat, just sound.

When a visual threat is coming in, most people just reflexively block in that very direction, forgoing any fighting stances.

When a fly zooms toward your eye, you don't jump into a fighting stance and then swat at the fly, you simply swat the fly. Reflex.

Humans often simply throw their arms up in the direction of a visual attack as a matter of reflex. If the attack is low? They often reflexively block low. "Directional specific reaction."

Tactical Issue 5: Startles and Gun Fighting

Since close quarters gun fighting involves audible explosions, the startle reactions to intense, sudden sounds may play a part in a gunfight reaction. Fighters may frequently copy the classic, Landis and Hunt, loud sound responses first listed above. The same may be said for artillery or mortar fire or explosions on any battlefield.

In Summary

The startle reflex/pattern is interesting to study, discuss and research. In the most technically sense, the startle reflex is a study of reactions to sudden sound and some bright light. In a semantic and looser sense, it has come to mean for many, a point when someone is shocked, surprised, assaulted or ambushed. Herein lies the confusion. in summary, one cannot build a fighting system around the old, acoustic-based research.

*First even the audible, human response continuum is really too large to predict.

* Secondly, not all fights include startles, audible or otherwise.

* Third, once startled? The startle only lasts so long. Musculature returns to normal in less than one second, although elevations in heart rate, respiration, and skin conductance persist longer. Milliseconds in fact and there are 1000 milliseconds in one second.

* Fourth, too many training systems are drawing conclusions from audible stimuli, not physical stimuli.

False foundations may accidentally create some good structures, but at some point in system doctrine, a false crack leads to major mistakes and a subsequent collapse of the building/program. Fighting doctrine must start at the real root of research and construct responses from there.

What then to do for training?

Who? What? Where? When? How? And why? The big questions police officers must ask at every crime investigation. These are the same questions military experts ponder when reviewing the battlefield. As well as citizens should worry about when they go about their daily lives. Who is the enemy? Then, what do they want? Followed by, where are we when attacked, when is this attack, how will you attacked? Why are they attacking you? When you calculate these points, you can best prepare for encounters and limit the shocking aspects you might encounter. The answers to these questions differ for the soldier, the cop, the guard or the citizen. Prepare for the hot zones you pass through in your life. Predict and prepare for the likely ambushes you will face in your profession or in your lifestyle. Fortune favors the prepared. But know this - prepare way less with acoustical and audible-based solutions to solve physical attacks. Do however, keep audible, startle reflex studies in mind when instructing close quarter, firearm combatives, where they may play a unique part.

One major solution is to practice defending yourself against high percentage attacks in as real a setting as possible. Exercise these with an escalation, a continuum of increasing force. When the force becomes too dangerous to practice, then the instructor must introduce a level of realistic acting, to reward the practitioner for proper responses, even though a padded, protected attacker can't really feel the pain through his protection. An element of acting and simulation is absolutely essential in reality training, else everything degrades into a wrestling match. In the military, much time is dedicated to the ambush, by the preparation of crisis rehearsals called “immediate action drills.”

The startle stance/the fighting stance? I once had a combatives instructor who warned me, “There is no such thing as football scoring stance.” I am a military and police veteran and a martial arts black belt in several systems. I have come to believe that a formal fighting stance is more like a "loose position" than a rigid stance and is more about balance and power in motion - a moving film if you will - rather than a still photograph of exacting position where everyone's knuckle, chin and foot heel are in the same statuesque pose. Exact fighting stances are used for classroom, group, line training and also to intimidate opponents. When the fight starts, it is all balance and power in motion. Keep your actual fighting stance/position, loose, "uncommitted" and very flexible like a football or basketball player in action. When the real fight starts, the statue stance is gone.

Take solace that your healthy body may well snap into blocking and ducking motions that protect you EXACTLY in the direction you need it too, and in milliseconds. Proper training and physical fitness helps this nerve and muscle “firing.” Contact fitness experts for available programs. It is important that your muscle memory is free to respond directly to the threat, not snap into a rehearsed pose, then respond to the threat. When a fly zooms toward your eye, you don't first jump into a fighting stance and then swat at the fly, you simply swat the fly. Reflex. Fighting stances and positions should NEVER interfere with this reflex.

Who? What? Where? When? How and why will you most likely be startled and ambushed? Answer those questions to counter the surprise and startle of an ambush, it would be smarter to use studies on physical stimuli, not audible stimuli for fighting research. Research abounds on this and experts agree that most people simply block in the direction of a sudden, incoming attack, or dodge and duck.

Prepare. Fortune favors the prepared.

W. Hock Hochheim is a military, police martial arts veteran with multiple Black Belts. He currently teaches tactical, practical hand, stick, knife and gun combatives in the United States and 8 other allied countries. For more see www.HocksCQC.com