↓ Skip to main content

Frontiers

Article Metrics

Enhancement stimulants: perceived motivational and cognitive advantages

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 8,049)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
42 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Enhancement stimulants: perceived motivational and cognitive advantages
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, October 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2013.00198
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irena P. Ilieva, Martha J. Farah, Ilieva, Irena P., Farah, Martha J.

Abstract

Psychostimulants like Adderall and Ritalin are widely used for cognitive enhancement by people without ADHD, although the empirical literature has shown little conclusive evidence for effectiveness in this population. This paper explores one potential explanation of this discrepancy: the possibility that the benefit from enhancement stimulants is at least in part motivational, rather than purely cognitive. We review relevant laboratory, survey, and interview research and present the results of a new survey of enhancement users with the goal of comparing perceived cognitive and motivational effects. These users perceived stimulant effects on motivationally-related factors, especially "energy" and "motivation," and reported motivational effects to be at least as pronounced as cognitive effects, including the effects on "attention."

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 109 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 34%
Student > Master 22 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Professor 10 9%
Researcher 6 5%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 11 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 10%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 18 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 369. 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 29 January 2020.
All research outputs
#53,887
of 19,572,659 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#16
of 8,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#460
of 206,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#1
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,572,659 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 206,085 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.