↓ Skip to main content

Cocaine Users Manifest Impaired Prosodic and Cross-Modal Emotion Processing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Cocaine Users Manifest Impaired Prosodic and Cross-Modal Emotion Processing
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00098
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lea M. Hulka, Katrin H. Preller, Matthias Vonmoos, Sarah D. Broicher, Boris B. Quednow

Abstract

Background: A small number of previous studies have provided evidence that cocaine users (CU) exhibit impairments in complex social cognition tasks, while the more basic facial emotion recognition is widely unaffected. However, prosody and cross-modal emotion processing has not been systematically investigated in CU so far. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess complex multisensory emotion processing in CU in comparison to controls and to examine a potential association with drug use patterns. Method: The abbreviated version of the comprehensive affect testing system (CATS-A) was used to measure emotion perception across the three channels of facial affect, prosody, and semantic content in 58 CU and 48 healthy control (HC) subjects who were matched for age, sex, verbal intelligence, and years of education. Results: CU had significantly lower scores than controls in the quotient scales of "emotion recognition" and "prosody recognition" and the subtests "conflicting prosody/meaning - attend to prosody" and "match emotional prosody to emotional face" either requiring to attend to prosody or to integrate cross-modal information. In contrast, no group difference emerged for the "affect recognition quotient." Cumulative cocaine doses and duration of cocaine use correlated negatively with emotion processing. Conclusion: CU show impaired cross-modal integration of different emotion processing channels particularly with regard to prosody, whereas more basic aspects of emotion processing such as facial affect perception are comparable to the performance of HC.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,345,822
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#6,795
of 9,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,056
of 280,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#154
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 280,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.