| Title |
Stimulant drugs and vigilance performance: a review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychopharmacology, April 1993
|
| DOI | 10.1007/bf02257400 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
H. S. Koelega |
| Abstract |
The literature on the effects of some stimulant drugs (amphetamine, methylphenidate, caffeine, and nicotine) on vigilance performance is reviewed. Improvement of overall level of performance (both accuracy and speed) after the intake of amphetamine, caffeine, and nicotine has often been reported, and the decrement in performance with time has been shown to be prevented especially with amphetamine and nicotine. Effects on false alarms are negligible. In studies where a test battery was employed, vigilance tasks appeared to be the most sensitive performance tests in detecting the effects of stimulants; however, different vigilance tasks may measure different aspects of mental functions. There is no support for earlier conclusions that improvements are noticed only in fatigued subjects in protracted sessions. Evidence from several studies does not support the hypothesis that improvements are only a recovery of withdrawal-induced impairment. Because positive effects have been obtained with drugs possessing different mechanisms of action, there is as yet no clear support for a noradrenergic, dopaminergic, or cholinergic theory of sustained attention. Simple neurotransmitter theories of attention and information processing may be untenable. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Russia | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 19% |
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 26% |
| Unknown | 7 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 31 | 42% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 05 February 2016.
All research outputs
#2,477,258
of 25,385,864 outputs
Outputs from Psychopharmacology
#607
of 5,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#641
of 20,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychopharmacology
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 20,084 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.