↓ Skip to main content

Impact of a purported nootropic supplementation on measures of mood, stress, and marksmanship performance in U.S. active duty soldiers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, April 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
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.
Title
Impact of a purported nootropic supplementation on measures of mood, stress, and marksmanship performance in U.S. active duty soldiers
Published in
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, April 2022
DOI 10.1186/s12970-018-0229-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas Barringer, Aaron Crombie, Russ Kotwal

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of a commercially available purported nootropic supplement on mood, stress, and rifle marksmanship accuracy and engagement time via an Engagement Skills Trainer. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 43 U.S. active duty Soldiers participating in a professional military course were assigned to treatment (n = 20; 16 males and 4 females) or placebo (n = 23; 15 males and 8 females) based on initial marksmanship score. The study period was 31 days (testing performed on days 1 and 31, supplementation days 2 through 30). Participants were instructed to consume 2 pills at breakfast and 1 pill at dinner for a total of 3 pills per day (1925 mg) of either the Alpha Brain® nootropic supplement or a placebo. Height, weight, cortisol (in a hair sample), body composition using multi-frequency tetrapolar bioelectrical impedance (InBody 720), and marksmanship (Engagement Skills Trainer 2000). Marksmanship was assessed in the prone position with zeroed M-4 rifles with a twenty target protocol with targets presenting and remaining for 3 s at set intervals. Participants' performance were assessed with hits versus misses, distance of hit from target center mass (DCM), and target engagement speed. Statistical analysis via SPSS Statistics 21 (IBM) was conducted using a repeated measures ANOVA with significance set at P < 0.5. There was no statistically significant difference between Treatment and Placebo for hits (TreatmentPre 18.5 ± 1.5, TreatmentPost 19.4 ± 0.8, PlaceboPre18.2 ± 2.9, PlaceboPost19.4 ± 1.3), initial reaction time in seconds (TreatmentPre 1.65 ± 0.28, TreatmentPost 1.43 ± 0.28, PlaceboPre1.59 ± 0.29, PlaceboPost1.41 ± 0.21), mean reaction time in seconds (TreatmentPre 1.60 ± 0.20, TreatmentPost 1.41 ± 0.16, PlaceboPre1.61 ± 0.51, PlaceboPost1.46 ± 0.56), or distance from center mass in centimeters (TreatmentPre 11.28 ± 4.28, TreatmentPost 11.92 ± 4.23, PlaceboPre10.52 ± 5.29, PlaceboPost10.94 ± 4.64). A significant time effect (P < 0.5) was found for both groups on all variables except distance from center mass. Reaction time values were adjusted to give percent decrease for initial reaction and mean reaction for the Treatment group (- 12.3% ± 16, - 15.2% ± 21.6) compared to the Placebo group (- 8.3% ± 21.8, - 12.5% ± 23.5), but no significant difference was found. The Alpha Brain® nootropic supplement did not have any statistically significant effects on marksmanship performance in this study. Given the rising popularity of nootropic supplements, future research on their potential impact on cognitively demanding soldier tasks, such as target discrimination scenarios, are recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Unspecified 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 30 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 11 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Unspecified 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 29 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,003,483
of 25,643,886 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#237
of 950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,719
of 449,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#221
of 852 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,643,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 62.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 449,011 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 852 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.