Smartphones Review 2016

Smartphones Review 2016

Smartphones Review 2016

Scope Challenges and Limitations

There have been many technological developments in 21st-century technology that will change the way we communicate with the rest of the world. It is impossible to cover all types of new technologies, or to discuss every psychological aspect of them. Hartmann and colleagues (2014) have written extensively about the effects of video games and violent TV on children. This is just one example of many that are outside the scope of this review. The review also won't look at the expanding body of research that has been done on the problem of using mobile phones, and how it can lead to addiction (Bianchi et. al. 2005, Billieux (2008), Kwon (2008), Lee (2013) et. al. (2014) ). Nor will it consider studies exploring the possible effects of radio frequency electromagnetic fields emitted from cellular devices on the human brain and its functioning ( Zubko et al., 2016 ). The growing research on technology-related issues and the impact they have on individuals' emotions reading skills and social abilities is also being explored ( Brown, 2014. Misra et.al., 2014 Uhls., 2014 George et.al., 2015 Mills. 2016 ) but which is not something we pay much attention to.

For the purpose of this review, we will start with the assumption that smartphones are a highly impactful technological breakthrough because they offer a wide range functions, increased portability, and greater proliferation. Accordingly, we limit the scope of our examination to work that is directly relevant to smartphone-related impacts. Additionally, our focus is not on smartphones causing "problems" behaviour (Bianchi and Phillips (2005) Hadlington (2015)). We instead examine evidence concerning the normal consequences of daily smartphone use. While a variety of mental functions may be affected by smartphone use, our focus is on three areas that are the most commonly discussed and have received some empirical research: memory, attention and delayed gratification (reward processing). Next, we will briefly discuss some new research exploring the links between smartphone habits and executive functioning as well as academic performance.

Below is a summary of some studies that examine the connection between smartphones (and similar) and cognitive functioning. Researchers interested in this field of research face many challenges when trying to develop an empirical approach. This is why we have attempted to summarize the existing literature. Smartphones have made it nearly impossible for researchers to use true experimental methods that randomly assign participants into various technology access/exposure groups. It is difficult to find tech-naive people, so comparing them to more experienced users of technology is unlikely to work. This is due to differences in social expectations, SES, resources and age among different groups. The majority of research is either correlational or quasi-experimental. Therefore, it's hard to infer causality. Most studies of this topic that are truly experimental focus only on momentary effects of deprivation and smartphone usage on cognition.

Smartphones Review 2016

Mobile Technology Use And Everyday Cognitive Functioning

Given the pattern of findings in attention, memory, and the ability to regulate reward-related processing in the context of delay of gratification, it follows that we might expect to see links to more generalized measures of cognitive functioning. The relationship between technology use and academic performance has been explored in a number of ways. Research on the subject supports the conclusion that higher smartphone use can lead to poor academic performance. Baumgartner and colleagues, 2014, required participants to fill out a questionnaire as well as complete computerized tasks. These tasks assessed the executive functions of three categories: working memory and inhibition. According to MMI score, those who claimed they were multitaskers had lower scores on the questionnaire. The correlation was significant for all three subcategories of the executive functioning questionnaire. Though the results from the self-report measures were not corroborated by any of the performance-based measures of executive functioning used in that study, very recently published work conducted by Cain et al. Evidence for these connections is provided by Cain and colleagues (2016). This study found that a larger sample of adolescents was more likely to multitask than usual and had lower executive functions scores, such as the n back working memory task. It also showed lower grades on an academic achievement test in the classroom. Taken together, this body of work suggests that the degree to which one can exert executive control over behavior and maintain goal-related representations (in working memory) may explain individual differences in vulnerability to the "real life" consequences of mobile device habits.

See also  Samsung Sj55W Review

There are also evidence to suggest that individual's risk of cognitive disruption due to mobile technology usage and consequent effects on academic success may depend on their cognitive skills. In particular, the ability to self-regulate behavior. Research indicates, for instance, that how closely an individual monitors and plans for interruptions, via executive control, mediates the relationship between multimedia interruptions and resultant stress ( Tams et al., 2015 ), and that differences in working memory capacity (which is closely linked to executive functioning) is a predictor of the speed of task resumption following an interruption ( Werner et al., 2011 As a further point, it should be acknowledged that some of the cognitive and affective consequences of smartphone/technology habits may come from indirect impacts, such as through influences on sleep and mood. Lim and Dinges (2008) showed that quality sleep is a key factor in cognitive performance. Additional evidence suggests that smartphone technology can cause sleep disruptions. Lanaj et. al. (2014) found that this compound effect has an effect on both cognitive functioning and employee engagement. Pre-emerging smartphone technology, it was known that the ability to fall asleep is negatively affected by electronic devices, including computers and televisions. The problem can be made worse by the fact that many people keep their smartphones charged at bedside. They often use these devices as alarm clocks. This behavior is reflected in a survey that found 70% of Americans do (Trends in Consumer Mobility Report (2015) ). It has also been suggested that certain activities (e.g., social interaction or gaming) that are performed via the smartphone may cause psychological stimulation. In turn, this could disrupt sleep. While most research in this area has been done with adolescents and children, it is now clear that the effect can be found in older people ( Exelmans, Van den Bulck and others, 2016 ). Future research needs to investigate whether there is a relationship between the amount of smartphone usage that occurs before bedtime, and cognitive abilities. Future research could also examine if certain smartphone activities, such as gaming or passive social media usage, are particularly detrimental to sleep quality. Notification settings can be used to impact this disruption. Finally, it might look at how apps that track sleep (e.g. the newly introduced "Bedtime") feature on the iPhone i. A phone operating system), might help improve quality and consistency of sleep.

Data from such experiments provides proof of the psychological influence that digital media can exert on us. Yet, there is nothing to indicate whether the resultant anxiety is specific to separation from one's smartphone, or whether the same effect might emerge when participants are separated from something else of subjective value, such as a wallet or personally cherished item. The potential consequences for cognitive function are also limited because a word search puzzle was used to establish a link between anxiety & cognition. This task is more specialized than those that are commonly found in cognitive research. The design also does not allow for a determination of whether the effect on word search performance was caused by the absence of the participants' phones or simply by the distraction of the ring.

See also  Sony X750H Review

 

Smartphones Review 2016

Conclusion

Smartphones (and related mobile technologies) have the potential to affect a wide range of cognitive domains, but empirical research on the cognitive impacts of smartphone technology is still quite limited. Given that technology is constantly changing and still in its early stages, this is quite understandable. With each year that passes, however, smartphones are more and more ubiquitous in our daily lives. The research in this area will not be limited to a small group of people, but it will eventually apply to all of humanity ( Marketer 2014). Therefore, it is crucial to understand how smartphone technology affects us so that we can take the steps necessary to mitigate the potential negative consequences.

Although there is more research being done on cognitive implications of smartphone technology, it remains contradictory. These contradictory results suggest that not all smartphones are created equally. Certain apps, multitasking approaches, and notification settings could influence the relationship between smartphone usage overall and cognitive abilities. Even though the results are not conclusive, the media hypes promote the perception that smartphone use has a negative effect on cognitive function. Many believe that smartphones are restricting creativity because they deprive brains of downtime. This belief led to Richtel's 2010a Radio Challenge, whereby thousands cut their smartphone usage to try to enhance their creativity. Unfortunately, no research has been done to confirm the core concern. Perhaps another worthwhile endeavor is to examine the cognitive benefits of filling our small breaks with inputs via smartphone engagement. However, this research isn't yet supported in the peer-reviewed literature.

Our review highlighted many weaknesses in the literature that shaped this paper. There are very few longitudinal studies that show the long-term impacts of smartphones being used frequently. You should now begin collecting the data necessary for these types of studies. One topic of particular importance that will require longitudinal data is the impact of smartphone ownership in young children. We don't know enough about how young children should start using smartphones, despite widely shared recommendations by the AAP Council on Communications and Media (2016). It is necessary to conduct a longitudinal study that includes a large number of children. This will allow them to be assessed at different times on multiple cognitive and affective outcome measures. This study could collect data to assess the influence of smartphones on children and their use of other mobile sources for immediate gratification such as videogame systems. A group analysis could reveal information on how smartphone tech can influence the brain in times of high levels of developmental plasticity. While it's possible that smartphone use may not be as harmful for adults, children could suffer more from their higher neural plasticity.

If emerging research does suggest that there are serious consequences of smartphone usage, we need to investigate potential practical approaches that could mitigate these effects. Finally, most of the literature is limited to "smartphone use." Future research needs to identify specific forms of smartphone usage which may have different effects. While it appears that certain social activities like email, text messaging, and social media usage will have different impact than gaming or browsing, not much is known about the concerns surrounding these disparate use patterns.

Smartphones have made their way into nearly half of all adults in the United States and over 70% of Americans' pockets. This means that there are great opportunities to make use of them for research purposes ( Poushter 2016 ). Research has already shown that smartphones offer a convenient, naturalistic, and faster way of collecting empirical data to support cognitive and psychological experiments. Additionally, smartphone usage will continue to be closely monitored to determine how it affects our cognitive functioning and shape our lives.

See also  Nokia 2 V Tella Review

The research outlined in this paper lays a foundation on which a seemingly endless number of "next steps" can be imagined. It is worth pursuing additional research in order to provide psychologists and others with more information about the effects of smartphone tech on their lives.

 

Smartphones Review 2016

App Retention Rates

In general, the user retention rate of smartphone apps amongst the population is very low. According to Rodde, 25% of smartphone app users give up after just one usage (Rodde). The app retention rate for both Android smartphones and Apple phones was only 4% after just 90 days in 2016, according to Statistica 2019b. Even Pokemon Go, a popular app that has exploded in popularity, lost almost 80% of its users within a matter of months (com. Score 2017a In a similar vein, data on apps for mental and physical health shows low downloads as well as poor retention. This is especially true if the app is not used in clinical trials or other research contexts. According to Ernting et.al., 20% of German adult smartphone users aged 35 and older used a health application. 16.5% were older.

). A survey among smartphone owners in the US found that 58% of them had downloaded health apps, but only half were using them (Krebs & Duncan). In other studies using national data, people who used health apps were younger, richer and in excellent health (Carroll et al.

According to Robbins (et al.

(). A mental health app was used by 10.7% of VA patients who had mental illnesses (Lipschiz et al.

You can. Around 10% of patients, both in a clinic that is state-run and in private insurance facilities used a mental health application (Torous et al.

These are the results. Review of apps and programs that can be used to help depression or anxiety. There were 8 – 40,000 registrations per month. 21-88% reported using the app at minimum once. 0.5-28.6% continued for 6 weeks. (Fleming.

. The treatment app was downloaded by only 18.7% of a US Hispanic/Latino population who enrolled in a clinical depression trial (Pratap et al.

 

What Is The Best Smartphone Of 2016?

Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, the 2016 Samsung flagship smartphone, is launched alongside the MWC 2016. Galaxy S7 Edge features a dual-curved touchscreen display and a new UI. It will be available in November 2020.

Are These The Top Smartphones Of 2016?

  1. Samsung Galaxy S7/S7 Edge. It's not surprising that my favorite pick for 2016 is here.
  2. HTC 10.
  3. Apple iPhone 6s Plus/6s.
  4. Samsung Galaxy Note 5.
  5. LG V10.
  6. LG G5.
  7. Google's Huawei Nexus 6P.
  8. Nextbit Robin.

What Phone Was Out In 2016?

iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus. Samsung Galaxy S7, S7 edge. Google Pixel / Google Pixel XL.Nov 28, 2016

Which smartphone was most sold in 2016

IHS Markit Names iPhone 7 the Top-Seller in Quarter Four, while iPhone 6s was named the Most Popular Smartphone of 2016, according to IHS Markit. iPhone 7 Plus was the number-one selling smartphone in 2016’s fourth quarter, with the iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 7 Plus being the leading smartphones. IHS Markit ranked iPhone 6s as best-selling smartphone of the entire year. March 24, 2017.

.Smartphones Review 2016

Published
Categorized as Reviews

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *