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 |
Effects of Sulpiride on True and False Memories of Thematically Related Pictures and Associated Words in Healthy Volunteers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychiatry, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00028 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Regina V. Guarnieri, Rafaela L. Ribeiro, Altay A. Lino de Souza, José Carlos F. Galduróz, Luciene Covolan, Orlando F. A. Bueno |
| Abstract |
Episodic memory, working memory, emotional memory, and attention are subject to dopaminergic modulation. However, the potential role of dopamine on the generation of false memories is unknown. This study defined the role of the dopamine D2 receptor on true and false recognition memories. Twenty-four young, healthy volunteers ingested a single dose of placebo or 400 mg oral sulpiride, a dopamine D2-receptor antagonist, just before starting the recognition memory task in a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial. The sulpiride group presented more false recognitions during visual and verbal processing than the placebo group, although both groups had the same indices of true memory. These findings demonstrate that dopamine D2 receptors blockade in healthy volunteers can specifically increase the rate of false recognitions. The findings fit well the two-process view of causes of false memories, the activation/monitoring failures model. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
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 12 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,789,675
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#6,132
of 9,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,698
of 300,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#54
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,991 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 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 300,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 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.