Dana Samson

6.1k total citations · 1 hit paper
70 papers, 4.2k citations indexed

About

Dana Samson is a scholar working on Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology and Social Psychology. According to data from OpenAlex, Dana Samson has authored 70 papers receiving a total of 4.2k indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 43 papers in Cognitive Neuroscience, 30 papers in Developmental and Educational Psychology and 22 papers in Social Psychology. Recurrent topics in Dana Samson's work include Child and Animal Learning Development (26 papers), Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies (17 papers) and Action Observation and Synchronization (14 papers). Dana Samson is often cited by papers focused on Child and Animal Learning Development (26 papers), Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies (17 papers) and Action Observation and Synchronization (14 papers). Dana Samson collaborates with scholars based in Belgium, United Kingdom and Austria. Dana Samson's co-authors include Ian A. Apperly, Glyn W. Humphreys, Claudia Chiavarino, Andrew Surtees, Jason J. Braithwaite, Adam Qureshi, Agnesa Pillon, Henryk Bukowski, Xavier Seron and Kevin J. Riggs and has published in prestigious journals such as Nature Neuroscience, PLoS ONE and NeuroImage.

In The Last Decade

Dana Samson

69 papers receiving 4.1k citations

Hit Papers

Seeing it their way: Evid... 2010 2026 2015 2020 2010 100 200 300 400

Author Peers

Peers are selected by citation overlap in the author's most active subfields. citations · hero ref

Author Last Decade Papers Cites
Dana Samson 2.5k 1.7k 1.7k 1.0k 433 70 4.2k
Giorgio Ganis 4.1k 1.6× 924 0.5× 1.7k 1.0× 1.6k 1.6× 277 0.6× 69 5.9k
Gisa Aschersleben 5.0k 2.0× 2.3k 1.4× 3.8k 2.2× 1.6k 1.6× 286 0.7× 108 7.0k
Maggie Moore 2.1k 0.8× 3.0k 1.8× 2.6k 1.5× 1.0k 1.0× 197 0.5× 43 5.4k
Natasha Z. Kirkham 2.3k 0.9× 2.6k 1.5× 764 0.4× 1.3k 1.3× 201 0.5× 61 4.9k
Raffaella I. Rumiati 3.6k 1.4× 1.3k 0.7× 2.8k 1.6× 1.2k 1.2× 400 0.9× 186 5.2k
Wilfried Kunde 5.4k 2.2× 1.5k 0.9× 3.0k 1.8× 1.1k 1.1× 261 0.6× 281 6.5k
Jessica Simon 3.9k 1.6× 929 0.5× 1.2k 0.7× 1.3k 1.3× 259 0.6× 102 5.0k
Juan Lupiáñez 6.6k 2.6× 739 0.4× 1.2k 0.7× 2.5k 2.4× 569 1.3× 237 8.1k
Sandra Hale 3.5k 1.4× 1.6k 0.9× 456 0.3× 2.0k 2.0× 653 1.5× 98 5.5k
Dima Amso 2.4k 1.0× 1.8k 1.0× 595 0.3× 990 1.0× 552 1.3× 85 5.0k

Countries citing papers authored by Dana Samson

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Dana Samson's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Dana Samson with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Dana Samson more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Dana Samson

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Dana Samson. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Dana Samson. The network helps show where Dana Samson may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Dana Samson

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Dana Samson. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Dana Samson based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with Dana Samson. Dana Samson is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Meert, Gaëlle, et al.. (2018). Moral Judgments Depend on Information Presentation: Evidence for Recency and Transfer Effects. Psychologica Belgica. 58(1). 256–256. 5 indexed citations
2.
Deliens, Gaétane, Henryk Bukowski, Hichem Slama, et al.. (2017). The impact of sleep deprivation on visual perspective taking. Journal of Sleep Research. 27(2). 175–183. 19 indexed citations
3.
Beck, A T, Bruno Rossion, & Dana Samson. (2017). An objective neural signature of rapid perspective taking. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 13(1). 72–79. 18 indexed citations
4.
Meert, Gaëlle, Jessica Wang, & Dana Samson. (2017). Efficient belief tracking in adults: The role of task instruction, low-level associative processes and dispositional social functioning. Cognition. 168. 91–98. 6 indexed citations
5.
Surtees, Andrew, Dana Samson, & Ian A. Apperly. (2016). Unintentional perspective-taking calculates whether something is seen, but not how it is seen. Cognition. 148. 97–105. 81 indexed citations
6.
Surtees, Andrew, Ian A. Apperly, & Dana Samson. (2016). I’ve got your number: Spontaneous perspective-taking in an interactive task. Cognition. 150. 43–52. 49 indexed citations
7.
Becchio, Cristina, et al.. (2015). Altercentric interference in level 1 visual perspective taking reflects the ascription of mental states, not submentalizing.. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance. 42(2). 158–163. 102 indexed citations
8.
Lane, Anthony, Moïra Mikolajczak, Dana Samson, et al.. (2015). Failed Replication of Oxytocin Effects on Trust: The Envelope Task Case. PLoS ONE. 10(9). e0137000–e0137000. 44 indexed citations
9.
Quadflieg, Susanne, Caroline Michel, Henryk Bukowski, & Dana Samson. (2013). A database of psycholinguistic and lexical properties for French adjectives referring to human and/or nonhuman attributes.. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale. 68(1). 67–76. 7 indexed citations
10.
Samson, Dana, et al.. (2010). Seeing it their way: Evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see.. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance. 36(5). 1255–1266. 491 indexed citations breakdown →
11.
Qureshi, Adam, Ian A. Apperly, & Dana Samson. (2010). Executive function is necessary for perspective selection, not Level-1 visual perspective calculation: Evidence from a dual-task study of adults. Cognition. 117(2). 230–236. 210 indexed citations
12.
Apperly, Ian A., Dana Samson, & Glyn W. Humphreys. (2009). Studies of adults can inform accounts of theory of mind development.. Developmental Psychology. 45(1). 190–201. 177 indexed citations
13.
Apperly, Ian A., et al.. (2007). The cost of thinking about false beliefs: Evidence from adults’ performance on a non-inferential theory of mind task. Cognition. 106(3). 1093–1108. 101 indexed citations
14.
15.
Samson, Dana, et al.. (2005). Testing the domain-specificity of a theory of mind deficit in brain-injured patients: Evidence from an improved false photograph task with reduced language and executive demands. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 71–71. 2 indexed citations
16.
Samson, Dana, et al.. (2005). Seeing it my way: a case of a selective deficit in inhibiting self-perspective. Brain. 128(5). 1102–1111. 224 indexed citations
17.
Samson, Dana. (2004). Orthographic neighborhood and concreteness effects in the lexical decision task. Brain and Language. 91(2). 252–264. 18 indexed citations
18.
Samson, Dana, Ian A. Apperly, Claudia Chiavarino, & Glyn W. Humphreys. (2004). Left temporoparietal junction is necessary for representing someone else's belief. Nature Neuroscience. 7(5). 499–500. 411 indexed citations
19.
Bruyer, Raymond, et al.. (2003). Aging and the Locus of the Global Precedence Effect: A Short Review and New Empirical Data. Experimental Aging Research. 29(3). 237–268. 17 indexed citations
20.
Pesenti, Mauro, et al.. (2000). Number Processing and Calculation in A Case of Visual Agnosia. Cortex. 36(3). 377–400. 12 indexed citations

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026