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 |
General Deficit in Inhibitory Control of Excessive Smartphone Users: Evidence from an Event-Related Potential Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00511 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jingwei Chen, Yunsi Liang, Chunmiao Mai, Xiyun Zhong, Chen Qu |
| Abstract |
With the popularity of smartphones, the problem of excessive use has drawn increasing attention. However, it is not clear whether there is an inhibitory deficit in excessive smartphone users. Using a modified Go/NoGo task with three types of context (blank, neutral, and smartphone-related), the present study combined measures of behavior and electrophysiology [event-related potentials (ERPs)] to examine general and specific inhibitory control in an excessive smartphone use group and a normal use group. Results showed that participants in both groups had larger amplitude of N2 and P3 on NoGo trials than Go trials. NoGo N2, an ERP component associated with inhibitory control, was more negative in the excessive smartphone use group than the normal use group. These results suggest that in the early stage of inhibition processing, excessive smartphone users experience more conflicts and show a general deficit that does not depend on smartphone-related cues. Moreover, the study provides further neuroscience evidence of the physiological correlates of excessive smartphone use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 150 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 11% |
| Researcher | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 17% |
| Unknown | 46 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 51 | 34% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 12% |
| Unknown | 54 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,365,885
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,726
of 29,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,329
of 300,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#293
of 427 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,902 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 300,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 427 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.