| Title |
The neurocognitive effects of simulated use-of-force scenarios
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12024-013-9510-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donald M. Dawes, Jeffrey D. Ho, Andrea S. Vincent, Paul C. Nystrom, Johanna C. Moore, Lila W. Steinberg, Anne Marie K. Tilton, Michael A. Brave, Marc S. Berris, James R. Miner |
| Abstract |
While the physiologic effects of modern conducted electrical weapons (CEW) have been the subject of numerous studies, their effects on neurocognitive functioning, both short-term and long-term, are less well understood. It is also unclear how these effects compare to other use-of-force options or other arrest-related stressors. We compared the neurocognitive effects of an exposure to a TASER(®) (TASER International, Inc, Scottsdale, AZ) X26™ CEW to four other use-of-force scenarios during a training exercise using a well-established neurocognitive metric administered repeatedly over 1 h. Overall, we found that there was a decline in neurocognitive performance immediately post-scenario in all groups, but this effect was transient, of questionable clinical significance, and returned to baseline by 1 h post-scenario. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Maldives | 2 | 50% |
| United States | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 13 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 6 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 21 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,652,357
of 25,632,496 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#41
of 1,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,139
of 228,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,632,496 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 228,619 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 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