↓ Skip to main content

Psychophysiological Patterns During Cell Phone Text Messaging: A Preliminary Study

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, February 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 355)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
Psychophysiological Patterns During Cell Phone Text Messaging: A Preliminary Study
Published in
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, February 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10484-009-9078-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

I-Mei Lin, Erik Peper

Abstract

This study investigated the psychophysiological patterns associated with cell phone text messaging (texting). Twelve college students who were very familiar with texting were monitored with surface electromyography (SEMG) from the shoulder (upper trapezius) and thumb (abductor pollicis brevis/opponens pollicis); blood volume pulse (BVP) from the middle finger, temperature from the index finger, and skin conductance (SC) from the palm of the non-texting hand; and respiration from the thorax and abdomen. The counter-balanced procedure consisted of a 2 min pre-baseline, 1 min receiving text messages, 2 min middle baseline, 1 min sending text messages and 2 min post-baseline. The results indicated that all subjects showed significant increases in respiration rate, heart rate, SC, and shoulder and thumb SEMG as compared to baseline measures. Eighty-three percentage of the participants reported hand and neck pain during texting, and held their breath and experienced arousal when receiving text messages. Subjectively, most subjects were unaware of their physiological changes. The study suggests that frequent triggering of these physiological patterns (freezing for stability and shallow breathing) may increase muscle discomfort symptoms. Thus, participants should be trained to inhibit these responses to prevent illness and discomfort.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 101 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 18%
Student > Master 17 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 24 23%
Unknown 12 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 14%
Engineering 10 9%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 15 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2015.
All research outputs
#1,267,233
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
#30
of 355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,037
of 175,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 355 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 175,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them