Julia Strand

969 total citations
28 papers, 440 citations indexed

About

Julia Strand is a scholar working on Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence. According to data from OpenAlex, Julia Strand has authored 28 papers receiving a total of 440 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 16 papers in Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, 15 papers in Cognitive Neuroscience and 5 papers in Artificial Intelligence. Recurrent topics in Julia Strand's work include Multisensory perception and integration (11 papers), Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation (10 papers) and Phonetics and Phonology Research (8 papers). Julia Strand is often cited by papers focused on Multisensory perception and integration (11 papers), Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation (10 papers) and Phonetics and Phonology Research (8 papers). Julia Strand collaborates with scholars based in United States, Czechia and Australia. Julia Strand's co-authors include Violet A. Brown, Julia E. Smith, Susanne Gahl, Kristin J. Van Engen, Drew Jordan McLaughlin, Mitchell S. Sommers, David Liben‐Nowell, Tom Wexler, Kevin M. Woods and Simine Vazire and has published in prestigious journals such as PLoS ONE, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America and Journal of Experimental Psychology General.

In The Last Decade

Julia Strand

26 papers receiving 432 citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

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

Name	h						Papers	Cites
Julia Strand United States	11	287	223	112	62	59	28	440
Shannon L. M. Heald United States	11	284 1.0×	185 0.8×	36 0.3×	61 1.0×	96 1.6×	27	403
Max Siegel United States	6	229 0.8×	146 0.7×	38 0.3×	63 1.0×	77 1.3×	15	351
Rachel Smith United Kingdom	12	194 0.7×	277 1.2×	30 0.3×	46 0.7×	53 0.9×	36	419
Daniel McCloy United States	8	152 0.5×	103 0.5×	36 0.3×	43 0.7×	65 1.1×	23	288
Rebecca Carroll Germany	11	202 0.7×	94 0.4×	100 0.9×	59 1.0×	40 0.7×	19	306
Joseph C. Toscano United States	14	442 1.5×	583 2.6×	50 0.4×	228 3.7×	163 2.8×	34	801
Dawn M. Behne Norway	12	194 0.7×	377 1.7×	10 0.1×	176 2.8×	44 0.7×	54	469
Sari Ylinen Finland	13	415 1.4×	329 1.5×	11 0.1×	214 3.5×	52 0.9×	37	605
Hillary Ganek Canada	9	145 0.5×	26 0.1×	36 0.3×	204 3.3×	19 0.3×	16	310
Michelle Cohn United States	11	96 0.3×	164 0.7×	41 0.4×	20 0.3×	46 0.8×	39	368

Countries citing papers authored by Julia Strand

Since Specialization

Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Julia Strand

Since Specialization

Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Julia Strand. 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 Julia Strand. The network helps show where Julia Strand may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Julia Strand

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Julia Strand. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Julia Strand 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 Julia Strand. Julia Strand is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

Sort: Min cites: Since: Top N: Style:

20 of 20 papers shown

Strand, Julia, et al.. (2024). Assessing the effects of “native speaker” status on classic findings in speech research.. Journal of Experimental Psychology General. 153(12). 3027–3041.

Brown, Violet A., et al.. (2023). The effects of temporal cues, point-light displays, and faces on speech identification and listening effort. PLoS ONE. 18(11). e0290826–e0290826.

Strand, Julia. (2023). Error tight: Exercises for lab groups to prevent research mistakes.. Psychological Methods. 30(2). 416–424. 4 indexed citations

Brown, Violet A., et al.. (2022). Revisiting the target-masker linguistic similarity hypothesis. Attention Perception & Psychophysics. 84(5). 1772–1787. 3 indexed citations

Brown, Violet A., et al.. (2022). Speech and non-speech measures of audiovisual integration are not correlated. Attention Perception & Psychophysics. 84(6). 1809–1819. 6 indexed citations

Rohrer, Julia M., Warren Tierney, Eric Luis Uhlmann, et al.. (2021). Putting the Self in Self-Correction: Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 16(6). 1255–1269. 25 indexed citations

Brown, Violet A., et al.. (2021). “Where are the . . . Fixations?”: Grammatical number cues guide anticipatory fixations to upcoming referents and reduce lexical competition.. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition. 48(5). 643–657. 2 indexed citations

Vatakis, Argiro, Julia Strand, & Violet A. Brown. (2020). Stimuli and Other Resources for Speech Researchers. OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints). 1 indexed citations

Brown, Violet A., et al.. (2020). Recall of Speech is Impaired by Subsequent Masking Noise: A Replication of Rabbitt (1968) Experiment 2. PubMed Central. 3(3). 158–167. 4 indexed citations

10.

Brown, Violet A. & Julia Strand. (2019). “Paying” attention to audiovisual speech: Do incongruent stimuli incur greater costs?. Attention Perception & Psychophysics. 81(6). 1743–1756. 4 indexed citations

11.

Liben‐Nowell, David, et al.. (2019). The Danger of Testing by Selecting Controlled Subsets, with Applications to Spoken-Word Recognition. Journal of Cognition. 2(1). 2–2. 8 indexed citations

12.

Strand, Julia & Violet A. Brown. (2019). Publishing Open, Reproducible Research With Undergraduates. Frontiers in Psychology. 10. 564–564. 7 indexed citations

13.

Brown, Violet A. & Julia Strand. (2019). About Face: Seeing the Talker Improves Spoken Word Recognition but Increases Listening Effort. Journal of Cognition. 2(1). 44–44. 14 indexed citations

14.

Strand, Julia, et al.. (2018). Measuring Listening Effort: Convergent Validity, Sensitivity, and Links With Cognitive and Personality Measures. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 61(6). 1463–1486. 99 indexed citations

15.

Brown, Violet A., et al.. (2018). What accounts for individual differences in susceptibility to the McGurk effect?. PLoS ONE. 13(11). e0207160–e0207160. 32 indexed citations

16.

Strand, Julia, et al.. (2017). Keep listening: Grammatical context reduces but does not eliminate activation of unexpected words.. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition. 44(6). 962–973. 4 indexed citations

17.

Strand, Julia, et al.. (2015). Conducting spoken word recognition research online: Validation and a new timing method. Behavior Research Methods. 48(2). 553–566. 41 indexed citations

18.

Strand, Julia. (2013). Phi-square Lexical Competition Database (Phi-Lex): An online tool for quantifying auditory and visual lexical competition. Behavior Research Methods. 46(1). 148–158. 10 indexed citations

19.

Strand, Julia, et al.. (2013). Grammatical context constrains lexical competition in spoken word recognition. Memory & Cognition. 42(4). 676–687. 9 indexed citations

20.

Strand, Julia & Mitchell S. Sommers. (2011). Sizing up the competition: Quantifying the influence of the mental lexicon on auditory and visual spoken word recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 130(3). 1663–1672. 15 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