↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Differential effects of dopamine-directed treatments on cognition

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Differential effects of dopamine-directed treatments on cognition
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s65875
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. Gregory Ashby, Vivian Valentin, Stella von Meer

Abstract

Dopamine, a prominent neuromodulator, is implicated in many neuropsychiatric disorders. It has wide-ranging effects on both cortical and subcortical brain regions and on many types of cognitive tasks that rely on a variety of different learning and memory systems. As neuroscience and behavioral evidence for the existence of multiple memory systems and their corresponding neural networks accumulated, so did the notion that dopamine's role is markedly different depending on which memory system is engaged. As a result, dopamine-directed treatments will have different effects on different types of cognitive behaviors. To predict what these effects will be, it is critical to understand: which memory system is mediating the behavior; the neural basis of the mediating memory system; the nature of the dopamine projections into that system; and the time course of dopamine after its release into the relevant brain regions. Consideration of these questions leads to different predictions for how changes in brain dopamine levels will affect automatic behaviors and behaviors mediated by declarative, procedural, and perceptual representation memory systems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Unknown 22 92%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 8%
Unknown 22 92%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 July 2015.
All research outputs
#6,651,503
of 12,517,383 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#826
of 2,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,889
of 234,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#44
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,517,383 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 234,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 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 54% of its contemporaries.