You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Impact of Chronic Cannabis Use on Auditory Mismatch Negativity Generation in Schizophrenia Patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pharmacopsychiatry, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1055/a-0573-9866 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrik Roser, Eva-Maria Pichler, Benedikt Habermeyer, Wolfram Kawohl, Georg Juckel |
| Abstract |
Cannabis use disorders (CUD) are highly prevalent among patients with schizophrenia (SCZ). Deficient mismatch negativity (MMN) generation is a characteristic finding in SCZ patients and cannabis users. This study therefore examined the effects of CUD on MMN generation in SCZ patients. Twenty SCZ - CUD patients, 21 SCZ+CUD patients, and 20 healthy controls (HC) were included in this study. MMN to frequency and duration deviants was elicited within an auditory oddball paradigm and recorded by 32 channel EEG. As expected, SCZ - CUD patients showed reduced frontocentral MMN amplitudes to duration deviants compared to HC. Interestingly, SCZ+CUD patients demonstrated greater MMN amplitudes to duration deviants compared to SCZ - CUD patients at central electrodes with no differences compared to HC. These results demonstrate that comorbid cannabis use in SCZ patients might be associated with superior cognitive functioning. It can be assumed that the association between cannabis use and better cognitive performance may be due to a subgroup of cognitively less impaired SCZ patients characterized by lower genetic vulnerability for psychosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 33% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 13% |
| Psychology | 5 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 August 2019.
All research outputs
#6,493,633
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Pharmacopsychiatry
#187
of 676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,915
of 332,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmacopsychiatry
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 332,016 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.