| Title |
The effects of cigarette smoking on overnight performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychopharmacology, March 1998
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s002130050553 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Parkin, D. B. Fairweather, Z. Shamsi, N. Stanley, I. Hindmarch |
| Abstract |
Fifteen healthy smokers and 15 non-smokers were enrolled into this study investigating the effects of smoking on overnight performance. Subjects arrived at the test centre at 1930 hours and were assessed at baseline (2000 hours) and at 2200, 0000, 0200, 0400, 0600, and 0800 hours on a battery of tests (including Critical Flicker Fusion, CFF; Choice Reaction Time, CRT; Compensatory Tracking Task, CTT; Short Term Memory Task, STM; and the Line Analogue Rating Scale, LARS). Results showed that the performance of the smokers was more consistent with baseline measures than that of the non-smokers, which became more impaired throughout the night on a number of tasks [CFF (P < 0.005), Total Reaction Time (TRT, P < 0.05), CTT (P < 0.05) and the Reaction Time (RT) aspect of the CTT task (P < 0.0005)]. The Recognition Reaction Time (RRT) aspect of the CRT task showed that the performance of the non-smokers became more impaired from baseline (P < 0.005), while that of the smokers remained at baseline levels until 0400 hours, when it deteriorated to become comparable to that of the non-smoking controls. Subjective sedation ratings (LARS) resulted in comparable levels of impairment for both study groups (P < 0.00005). Findings from the STM task failed to reach significance. These data suggest that when performance is being measured overnight, smokers show little or no impairment, whilst the performance of non-smokers showed performance decrements. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 31% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 19% |
| Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 4 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 11 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,047,742
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Psychopharmacology
#1,892
of 5,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,223
of 31,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychopharmacology
#11
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 31,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.