Jane E. Aspell

2.1k citations
45 papers · 1.5k indexed · h-index 22

Impact in

Papers in

Jane E. Aspell

44 papers receiving 1.5k citations

Peers

Jane E. Aspell
Comparison fields: 5 of 107
  • Human-Computer Interaction 408
  • Cognitive Neuroscience 790
  • Psychiatry and Mental health 541
  • Social Psychology 538
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 313
Replace Paul M. Jenkinson with:
Paul M. Jenkinson United Kingdom
Lukas Heydrich Switzerland
Lara Maister United Kingdom
Lorenzo Pia Italy
Shahar Arzy Israel
Silvio Ionta Switzerland
Nicole David Germany
Francesca Garbarini Italy
Roy Salomon Switzerland
Anouk Keizer Netherlands
Jane E. Aspell relative to Paul M. Jenkinson United Kingdom Paul M. Jenkinson's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.6×
Paul M. Jenkinson · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Jane E. Aspell

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Jane E. Aspell'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 Jane E. Aspell with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Jane E. Aspell more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Jane E. Aspell

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Jane E. Aspell. 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 Jane E. Aspell. The network helps show where Jane E. Aspell may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 25 scholars most cited alongside Jane E. Aspell, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Jane E. Aspell Line = papers co-authored together Jane E. Aspell links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 45 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 2013287
2 2013180
3 2009163
4 2018120
5 201957
6 200547
7 201945
8 201242
9 201939
10 201338
11 201836
12 201636
13 201931
14 201927
15 201126
16 201225
17 201324
18 201724
19 202023
20 201023

About Jane E. Aspell

Jane E. Aspell is a scholar working on Cognitive Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Mental health, Social Psychology, Human-Computer Interaction and Clinical Psychology, having authored 45 papers that have together received 1.5k indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments (20 papers), Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts (16 papers), Action Observation and Synchronization (12 papers), Body Image and Dysmorphia Studies (9 papers), Tactile and Sensory Interactions (9 papers), Visual perception and processing mechanisms (8 papers), Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes (5 papers) and Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs (5 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Human-Computer Interaction (408 citations), Cognitive Neuroscience (790 citations), Psychiatry and Mental health (541 citations), Social Psychology (538 citations) and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (313 citations). Jane E. Aspell has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, Switzerland and Malaysia. Frequent co-authors include Olaf Blanke, Bruno Herbelin, Lukas Heydrich, Bigna Lenggenhager, Jennifer Todd, Viren Swami, HH Bülthoff, Betty J. Mohler, Steven D. Stagg and David Barron. Their work appears in journals such as Body Image, Scientific Reports, PLoS ONE, European Journal of Neuroscience and Experimental Brain Research.

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