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 |
Response Inhibition during Cue Reactivity in Problem Gamblers: An fMRI Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0030909 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ruth J. van Holst, Mieke van Holstein, Wim van den Brink, Dick J. Veltman, Anna E. Goudriaan |
| Abstract |
Disinhibition over drug use, enhanced salience of drug use and decreased salience of natural reinforcers are thought to play an important role substance dependence. Whether this is also true for pathological gambling is unclear. To understand the effects of affective stimuli on response inhibition in problem gamblers (PRGs), we designed an affective Go/Nogo to examine the interaction between response inhibition and salience attribution in 16 PRGs and 15 healthy controls (HCs).Four affective blocks were presented with Go trials containing neutral, gamble, positive or negative affective pictures. The No-Go trials in these blocks contained neutral pictures. Outcomes of interest included percentage of impulsive errors and mean reaction times in the different blocks. Brain activity related to No-Go trials was assessed to measure response inhibition in the various affective conditions and brain activity related to Go trials was assessed to measure salience attribution.PRGs made fewer errors during gamble and positive trials than HCs, but were slower during all trials types. Compared to HCs, PRGs activated the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate and ventral striatum to a greater extent while viewing gamble pictures. The dorsal lateral and inferior frontal cortex were more activated in PRGs than in HCs while viewing positive and negative pictures. During neutral inhibition, PRGs were slower but similar in accuracy to HCs, and showed more dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex activity. In contrast, during gamble and positive pictures PRGs performed better than HCs, and showed lower activation of the dorsolateral and anterior cingulate cortex.This study shows that gambling-related stimuli are more salient for PRGs than for HCs. PRGs seem to rely on compensatory brain activity to achieve similar performance during neutral response inhibition. A gambling-related or positive context appears to facilitate response inhibition as indicated by lower brain activity and fewer behavioural errors in PRGs. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 161 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 23% |
| Researcher | 27 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 31 | 19% |
| Unknown | 23 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 61 | 37% |
| Neuroscience | 29 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 10% |
| Unknown | 32 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 20 September 2012.
All research outputs
#3,883,358
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#48,127
of 207,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,592
of 163,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#767
of 3,730 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 207,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 163,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,730 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.