Jane E. Aspell

2.1k total citations
45 papers, 1.5k citations indexed

About

Jane E. Aspell is a scholar working on Cognitive Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Mental health and Social Psychology. According to data from OpenAlex, Jane E. Aspell has authored 45 papers receiving a total of 1.5k indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 27 papers in Cognitive Neuroscience, 21 papers in Psychiatry and Mental health and 17 papers in Social Psychology. Recurrent topics in Jane E. Aspell's work include Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments (20 papers), Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts (16 papers) and Action Observation and Synchronization (12 papers). Jane E. Aspell is often cited by papers focused on Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments (20 papers), Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts (16 papers) and Action Observation and Synchronization (12 papers). Jane E. Aspell collaborates with scholars based in United Kingdom, Switzerland and Malaysia. Jane E. Aspell's 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 and has published in prestigious journals such as PLoS ONE, Journal of Neurophysiology and Scientific Reports.

In The Last Decade

Jane E. Aspell

44 papers receiving 1.5k citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
Jane E. Aspell United Kingdom 22 790 541 538 408 323 45 1.5k
Paul M. Jenkinson United Kingdom 25 927 1.2× 605 1.1× 606 1.1× 302 0.7× 433 1.3× 66 1.7k
Lukas Heydrich Switzerland 15 780 1.0× 490 0.9× 526 1.0× 318 0.8× 143 0.4× 26 1.4k
Shahar Arzy Israel 24 1.6k 2.0× 588 1.1× 680 1.3× 222 0.5× 242 0.7× 69 2.4k
Nicole David Germany 21 1.1k 1.4× 392 0.7× 561 1.0× 144 0.4× 185 0.6× 38 1.5k
Lorenzo Pia Italy 29 1.8k 2.3× 662 1.2× 1.1k 2.0× 656 1.6× 245 0.8× 94 2.7k
Lara Maister United Kingdom 16 535 0.7× 283 0.5× 512 1.0× 387 0.9× 123 0.4× 23 1.1k
Francesca Garbarini Italy 27 1.2k 1.5× 473 0.9× 820 1.5× 568 1.4× 206 0.6× 100 1.9k
Roy Salomon Switzerland 29 1.7k 2.1× 686 1.3× 821 1.5× 548 1.3× 190 0.6× 70 2.6k
Silvio Ionta Switzerland 28 1.7k 2.1× 422 0.8× 1.1k 2.0× 388 1.0× 359 1.1× 62 2.8k
Fabian Ramseyer Switzerland 21 748 0.9× 555 1.0× 1.2k 2.2× 113 0.3× 452 1.4× 45 2.0k

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-authorship network of co-authors of Jane E. Aspell

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Jane E. Aspell. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Jane E. Aspell 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 Jane E. Aspell. Jane E. Aspell 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.
Bright, Peter, et al.. (2025). Illusory ownership of one’s younger face facilitates access to childhood episodic autobiographical memories. Scientific Reports. 15(1). 32564–32564.
3.
Spooner, R. L., Jonathan M. Bird, Jennifer Todd, et al.. (2024). Exploring sex differences in cardiac interoceptive accuracy using the phase adjustment task. Psychophysiology. 61(12). e14689–e14689. 7 indexed citations
4.
Todd, Jennifer, et al.. (2024). Psychometric evaluation of a revised version of the body appreciation scale-2 for autistic adults (BAS-2A). Body Image. 49. 101706–101706. 5 indexed citations
5.
Todd, Jennifer, David Plans, Michael Lee, et al.. (2024). Heightened interoception in adults with fibromyalgia. Biological Psychology. 186. 108761–108761. 9 indexed citations
6.
Lenggenhager, Bigna, et al.. (2024). Examining the association between depersonalisation traits and the bodily self in waking and dreaming. Scientific Reports. 14(1). 6107–6107. 2 indexed citations
7.
Todd, Jennifer, Viren Swami, Jane E. Aspell, et al.. (2022). Are some interoceptive sensibility components more central than others? Using item pool visualisation to understand the psychometric representation of interoception. PLoS ONE. 17(12). e0277894–e0277894. 16 indexed citations
8.
Todd, Jennifer, Pasquale Cardellicchio, Viren Swami, Flavia Cardini, & Jane E. Aspell. (2021). Weaker implicit interoception is associated with more negative body image: Evidence from gastric-alpha phase amplitude coupling and the heartbeat evoked potential. Cortex. 143. 254–266. 15 indexed citations
9.
Heydrich, Lukas, et al.. (2021). Interoception and Empathy Impact Perspective Taking. Frontiers in Psychology. 11. 599429–599429. 21 indexed citations
10.
Todd, Jennifer, Jane E. Aspell, David Barron, & Viren Swami. (2019). Multiple dimensions of interoceptive awareness are associated with facets of body image in British adults. Body Image. 29. 6–16. 57 indexed citations
11.
Heydrich, Lukas, et al.. (2018). Cardio-visual full body illusion alters bodily self-consciousness and tactile processing in somatosensory cortex. Scientific Reports. 8(1). 9230–9230. 36 indexed citations
12.
Piech, Richard M., et al.. (2017). People with higher interoceptive sensitivity are more altruistic, but improving interoception does not increase altruism. Scientific Reports. 7(1). 15652–15652. 22 indexed citations
13.
Sengül, Ali, Giulio Rognini, Michiel van Elk, et al.. (2013). Force feedback facilitates multisensory integration during robotic tool use. Experimental Brain Research. 227(4). 497–507. 24 indexed citations
14.
Heydrich, Lukas, Jane E. Aspell, Bruno Herbelin, et al.. (2013). Visual capture and the experience of having two bodies – Evidence from two different virtual reality techniques. Frontiers in Psychology. 4. 946–946. 287 indexed citations
15.
Salomon, Roy, Michiel van Elk, Jane E. Aspell, & Olaf Blanke. (2012). I feel who I see: Visual body identity affects visual–tactile integration in peripersonal space. Consciousness and Cognition. 21(3). 1355–1364. 22 indexed citations
16.
Palluel, Estelle, et al.. (2012). Experimental changes in bodily self-consciousness are tuned to the frequency sensitivity of proprioceptive fibres. Neuroreport. 23(6). 354–359. 7 indexed citations
17.
Heydrich, Lukas, et al.. (2010). Visual capture and the experience of having two bodies. Perception. 39. 174–175. 3 indexed citations
18.
Aspell, Jane E., et al.. (2010). Seeing the body modulates audiotactile integration. European Journal of Neuroscience. 31(10). 1868–1873. 23 indexed citations
19.
Aspell, Jane E., John Wattam-Bell, & Oliver Braddick. (2006). Interaction of spatial and temporal integration in global form processing. Vision Research. 46(18). 2834–2841. 13 indexed citations
20.
Aspell, Jane E., Topi Tanskanen, & Anya Hurlbert. (2005). Neuromagnetic correlates of visual motion coherence. European Journal of Neuroscience. 22(11). 2937–2945. 47 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