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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Adult age differences in prospective memory in the laboratory: are they related to higher stress levels in the elderly?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01021 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andreas Ihle, Matthias Kliegel, Alexandra Hering, Nicola Ballhausen, Prune Lagner, Julia Benusch, Anja Cichon, Annekathrin Zergiebel, Michel Oris, Katharina M. Schnitzspahn |
| Abstract |
To explain age deficits found in laboratory-based prospective memory (PM) tasks, it has recently been suggested that the testing situation per se may be more stressful for older adults, thereby impairing their performance. To test this assumption, subjective and physiological stress levels were assessed at several times during the experiment in 33 younger and 29 older adults. In addition, half of participants were randomized in a condition where they completed a relaxation intervention before performing a time-based PM task. Results confirmed the age deficit in laboratory PM. Subjective and physiological stress levels showed no age difference and no detrimental association with PM. The intervention successfully reduced stress levels in both age groups but had no effect on PM or the age deficit. In conclusion, data suggest that age deficits usually observed in laboratory PM may not be due to higher stress levels in the older adults. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Puerto Rico | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 49 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 26 | 49% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 104. 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 05 September 2022.
All research outputs
#408,114
of 25,500,206 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#171
of 7,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,721
of 359,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,500,206 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 359,729 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 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 97% of its contemporaries.