↓ Skip to main content

Use of mobile and cordless phones and cognition in Australian primary school children: a prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Use of mobile and cordless phones and cognition in Australian primary school children: a prospective cohort study
Published in
Environmental Health, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12940-016-0116-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Redmayne, Catherine L. Smith, Geza Benke, Rodney J. Croft, Anna Dalecki, Christina Dimitriadis, Jordy Kaufman, Skye Macleod, Malcolm R. Sim, Rory Wolfe, Michael J. Abramson

Abstract

Use of mobile (MP) and cordless phones (CP) is common among young children, but whether the resulting radiofrequency exposure affects development of cognitive skills is not known. Small changes have been found in older children. This study focused on children's exposures to MP and CP and cognitive development. The hypothesis was that children who used these phones would display differences in cognitive function compared to those who did not. We recruited 619 fourth-grade students (8-11 years) from 37 schools around Melbourne and Wollongong, Australia. Participants completed a short questionnaire, a computerised cognitive test battery, and the Stroop colour-word test. Parents completed exposure questionnaires on their child's behalf. Analysis used multiple linear regression. The principal exposure-metrics were the total number of reported MP and CP calls weekly categorised into no use ('None'); use less than or equal to the median amount ('Some'); and use more than the median ('More'). The median number of calls/week was 2.5 for MP and 2.0 for CP. MP and CP use for calls was low; and only 5 of 78 comparisons of phone use with cognitive measures were statistically significant. The reaction time to the response-inhibition task was slower in those who used an MP 'More' compared to the 'Some' use group and non-users. For CP use, the response time to the Stroop interference task was slower in the 'More' group versus the 'Some' group, and accuracy was worse in visual recognition and episodic memory tasks and the identification task. In an additional exploratory analysis, there was some evidence of a gender effect on mean reaction times. The highest users for both phone types were girls. Overall, there was little evidence cognitive function was associated with CP and MP use in this age group. Although there was some evidence that effects of MP and CP use on cognition may differ by gender, this needs further exploration. CP results may be more reliable as parents estimated children's phone use and the CPs were at home; results for CP use were broadly consistent with our earlier study of older children.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Master 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 28 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Psychology 12 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Computer Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 29 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,837,567
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#1,071
of 1,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,833
of 297,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#36
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,493 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 297,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.