Thomas Neumann

Dr. Thomas Neumann

Faculty of Economics and Management, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 February 2013 in Journal of Economic Psychology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SBSiegfried K. Berninghaus
Siegfried K. Berninghaus
SHSven Haller
Sven Haller
TKTYLL Krueger
TYLL Krueger
TNThomas Neumann
Thomas Neumann
SSStephan Schosser
Stephan Schosser
BVBodo Vogt
Bodo Vogt

1 September 2017 in Social Science Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TNThomas Neumann
Thomas Neumann
SSStephan Schosser
Stephan Schosser
BVBodo Vogt
Bodo Vogt

1 December 2014 in Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EKEike B. Kroll
Eike B. Kroll
RMRalf Morgenstern
Ralf Morgenstern
TNThomas Neumann
Thomas Neumann
SSStephan Schosser
Stephan Schosser
BVBodo Vogt
Bodo Vogt

5 October 2018 in Games
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TNThomas Neumann
Thomas Neumann
SKSabrina Kierspel
Sabrina Kierspel
IWIvo Windrich
Ivo Windrich
RBRoger Berger
Roger Berger
BVBodo Vogt
Bodo Vogt
Previous research has typically focused on distribution problems that emerge in the domain of gains. Only a few studies have distinguished between games played in the domain of gains from games in the domain of losses, even though, for example, prospect theory predicts differences between behavior in both domains. In this study, we experimentally analyze players’ behavior in dictator and ultimatum games when they need to divide a monetary loss and then compare this to behavior when players have to divide a monetary gain. We find that players treat gains and losses differently in that they are less generous in games over losses and react differently to prior experiences. Players in the dictator game become more selfish after they have had the experience of playing an ultimatum game first.

1 November 2019 in Clinical Neurophysiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TNThomas Neumann
Thomas Neumann
ABAnne Katrin Baum
Anne Katrin Baum
UBUlrike Baum
Ulrike Baum
RDRenate Deike
Renate Deike
HFHelmut Feistner
Helmut Feistner
BRBernt-Peter Robra
Bernt-Peter Robra

16 November 2023 in Bioengineering
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
APArtur Piet
Artur Piet
LJLennart Jablonski
Lennart Jablonski
JOJennifer Ibimina Daniel Onwuchekwa
Jennifer Ibimina Daniel Onwuchekwa
SUSteffen Unkel
Steffen Unkel
Christian WeberChristian Weber
Christian Weber
TNThomas Neumann
Thomas Neumann
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) poses a significant global health challenge and demands effective self-management strategies, including continuous blood glucose monitoring (CGM) and lifestyle adaptations. While CGM offers real-time glucose level assessment, the quest for minimizing trauma and enhancing convenience has spurred the need to explore non-invasive alternatives for monitoring vital signs in patients with T2D. Objective: This systematic review is the first that explores the current literature and critically evaluates the use and reporting of non-invasive wearable devices for monitoring vital signs in patients with T2D. Methods: Employing the PRISMA and PICOS guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search to incorporate evidence from relevant studies, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published since 2017. Of the 437 publications identified, seven were selected based on predetermined criteria. Results: The seven studies included in this review used various sensing technologies, such as heart rate monitors, accelerometers, and other wearable devices. Primary health outcomes included blood pressure measurements, heart rate, body fat percentage, and cardiorespiratory endurance. Non-invasive wearable devices demonstrated potential for aiding T2D management, albeit with variations in efficacy across studies. Conclusions: Based on the low number of studies with higher evidence levels (i.e., RCTs) that we were able to find and the significant differences in design between these studies, we conclude that further evidence is required to validate the application, efficacy, and real-world impact of these wearable devices. Emphasizing transparency in bias reporting and conducting in-depth research is crucial for fully understanding the implications and benefits of wearable devices in T2D management.