↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Sleep on Emotional Target Detection Performance: A Novel iPad-Based Pediatric Game

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
The Effects of Sleep on Emotional Target Detection Performance: A Novel iPad-Based Pediatric Game
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00241
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annalisa Colonna, Anna B. Smith, Stuart Smith, Kirandeep VanDenEshof, Jane Orgill, Paul Gringras, Deb K. Pal

Abstract

Background: Consolidation of learning occurs during sleep but when it is disturbed there may be an adverse impact upon these functions. While research has focused upon how sleep affects cognition in adulthood, the effects of disrupted sleep are likely to impact more heavily on learning among children and adolescents. We aimed to investigate whether a night's sleep impacts upon executive function compared with an equivalent wakefulness period. We also wanted to know whether restricting sleep would reduce these effects on performance. To investigate this issue in children, we adapted existing research methods to make them more suitable for this population. Methods: Using a cross-over trial design, 22 children aged 7-14 completed an updated but previously validated, continuous performance task (CPT) designed to be appealing to children, containing emotional and neutral targets and presented on an iPad. We measured omission and commission errors, mean and variability of reaction times (RTs) immediately and after a delay spent in the following three ways: 11-h intervals of unrestricted and restricted sleep in the style of a 'sleepover' and daytime wakefulness. We examined differences in immediate and delayed testing for each dependent variable. Both sleep nights were spent in a specialist sleep lab where polysomnography data were recorded. Results: While there were no significant main effects of sleep condition, as expected we observed significantly faster and more accurate performance in delayed compared with immediate testing across all conditions for omission errors, RT and variability of RT. Importantly, we saw a significant interaction for commission errors to emotional targets (p = 0.034): while they were comparable across all conditions during immediate testing, for delayed testing there were significantly more errors after wakefulness compared with unrestricted sleep (p = 0.019) and at a trend level for restricted sleep (p = 0.063). Performance improvement after restricted sleep was inversely correlated with sleep opportunity time (p = 0.03), total sleep time (p = 0.01) and total non-REM time (p = 0.005). Conclusion: This tool, designed to be simple to use and appealing to children, revealed a preserving effect of typical and disrupted sleep periods on performance during an emotionally themed target detection task compared with an equivalent wakefulness period.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 13%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,546,261
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,041
of 30,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,086
of 332,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#306
of 576 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,282 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 332,613 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 576 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.