Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32699510›Full record

ReviewDialogues in clinical neuroscience2020

The impact of the digital revolution 
on human brain and behavior: where 
do we stand?
.

Martin Korte

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Development and Validation of a Self-Report Measure of Existential Well-Being.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2025
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Martin KorteDepartment of Cellular Neurobiology, Zoological Institute, TU Braunschweig, Germany; Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Group, Braunschweig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This overview will outline the current results of neuroscience research on the possible effects of digital media use on the human brain, cognition, and behavior. This is of importance due to the significant amount of time that individuals spend using digital media. Despite several positive aspects of digital media, which include the capability to effortlessly communicate with peers, even over a long distance, and their being used as training tools for students and the elderly, detrimental effects on our brains and minds have also been suggested. Neurological consequences have been observed related to internet/gaming addiction, language development, and processing of emotional signals. However, given that much of the neuroscientific research conducted up to now relies solely on self-reported parameters to assess social media usage, it is argued that neuroscientists need to include datasets with higher precision in terms of what is done on screens, for how long, and at what age.
.

Indexed as

BrainCognitionDigital TechnologyHumansInternetKnowledge BasesMultitasking BehaviorNeuronal Plasticityaddictionadolescenceamygdalaattentionbrain developmentcognitive neurosciencedigital medialanguage developmentprefrontal cortex

Identifiers

PMID32699510
PMCPMC7366944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.