↓ Skip to main content

Preserved Crossmodal Integration of Emotional Signals in Binge Drinking

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Preserved Crossmodal Integration of Emotional Signals in Binge Drinking
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00984
Pubmed ID
Authors

Séverine Lannoy, Valérie Dormal, Mélanie Brion, Joël Billieux, Pierre Maurage

Abstract

Binge drinking is an alcohol consumption pattern with various psychological and cognitive consequences. As binge drinking showed qualitatively comparable cognitive impairments to those reported in alcohol-dependence, a continuum hypothesis suggests that this habit would be a first step toward alcohol-related disorders. Besides these cognitive impairments, alcohol-dependence is also characterized by large-scale deficits in emotional processing, particularly in crossmodal contexts, and these abilities have scarcely been explored in binge drinking. Emotional decoding, most often based on multiple modalities (e.g., facial expression, prosody or gesture), yet represents a crucial ability for efficient interpersonal communication and social integration. The present study is the first exploration of crossmodal emotional processing in binge drinking, in order to test whether binge drinkers already present the emotional impairments described among alcohol-dependent patients, in line with the continuum hypothesis. Twenty binge drinkers and 20 matched controls performed an experimental task requiring the identification of two emotions (happiness or anger) presented in two modalities (visual or auditory) within three conditions (unimodal, crossmodal congruent or crossmodal incongruent). In accordance with previous research in binge drinking and alcohol-dependence, this study was based on two main hypotheses. First, binge drinkers would present a reduced facilitation effect (i.e., classically indexed in healthy populations by faster reaction times when two congruent modalities are presented simultaneously). Second, binge drinkers would have higher difficulties to inhibit interference in incongruent modalities. Results showed no significant difference between groups in emotional decoding ability, whatever the modality or condition. Control participants, however, appeared slower than binge drinkers in recognizing facial expressions, also leading to a stronger facilitation effect when the two modalities were presented simultaneously. However, findings did not show a disrupted facilitation effect in binge drinkers, whom also presented preserved performance to inhibit incongruence during emotional decoding. The current results thus suggest that binge drinkers do not demonstrate a deficit for emotional processing, both in unimodal and crossmodal contexts. These results imply that binge drinking might not be characterized by impairments for the identification of primary emotions, which could also indicate that these emotional processing abilities are well-preserved at early stages of excessive alcohol consumption.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

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.
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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 21%
Student > Master 7 16%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 12 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 30%
Neuroscience 8 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 35%
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 15 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,552,700
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,408
of 30,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,912
of 317,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#511
of 617 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 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 30,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 317,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 617 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.