Mark E. McCourt

5.1k total citations · 1 hit paper
99 papers, 3.8k citations indexed

About

Mark E. McCourt is a scholar working on Cognitive Neuroscience, Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics and Social Psychology. According to data from OpenAlex, Mark E. McCourt has authored 99 papers receiving a total of 3.8k indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 72 papers in Cognitive Neuroscience, 23 papers in Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics and 14 papers in Social Psychology. Recurrent topics in Mark E. McCourt's work include Visual perception and processing mechanisms (53 papers), Color Science and Applications (21 papers) and Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction (20 papers). Mark E. McCourt is often cited by papers focused on Visual perception and processing mechanisms (53 papers), Color Science and Applications (21 papers) and Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction (20 papers). Mark E. McCourt collaborates with scholars based in United States, Germany and Australia. Mark E. McCourt's co-authors include George Jewell, Barbara Blakeslee, John J. Foxe, Daniel C. Javitt, Michael Behringer, Joachim Mester, John Miles Foley, G. H. Henry, J. Bullier and Justin Storbeck and has published in prestigious journals such as PLoS ONE, NeuroImage and Journal of Neurophysiology.

In The Last Decade

Mark E. McCourt

96 papers receiving 3.8k citations

Hit Papers

Pseudoneglect: a review and meta-analysis of performance ... 2000 2026 2008 2017 2000 250 500 750

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

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

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
Mark E. McCourt United States 30 3.2k 550 480 337 263 99 3.8k
E. William Yund United States 32 3.4k 1.1× 201 0.4× 283 0.6× 931 2.8× 68 0.3× 94 4.1k
Manfred Fahle Germany 39 5.4k 1.7× 261 0.5× 660 1.4× 710 2.1× 76 0.3× 191 6.1k
Laure Zago France 35 3.8k 1.2× 98 0.2× 390 0.8× 636 1.9× 137 0.5× 91 4.7k
B. Fischer Germany 35 4.6k 1.4× 113 0.2× 329 0.7× 723 2.1× 56 0.2× 56 5.2k
Casper J. Erkelens Netherlands 36 3.7k 1.1× 143 0.3× 473 1.0× 371 1.1× 101 0.4× 100 4.5k
Susan Courtney United States 33 5.6k 1.7× 47 0.1× 375 0.8× 896 2.7× 186 0.7× 81 6.9k
Patrick Bennett Canada 40 4.0k 1.2× 215 0.4× 465 1.0× 969 2.9× 48 0.2× 167 4.7k
Frank H. Durgin United States 30 2.0k 0.6× 79 0.1× 725 1.5× 606 1.8× 340 1.3× 140 2.8k
Masato Taira Japan 36 3.3k 1.0× 38 0.1× 901 1.9× 357 1.1× 90 0.3× 109 4.8k
Raymond van Ee Netherlands 42 3.8k 1.2× 288 0.5× 712 1.5× 1.0k 3.1× 43 0.2× 144 5.0k

Countries citing papers authored by Mark E. McCourt

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Mark E. McCourt

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Mark E. McCourt

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Mark E. McCourt. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Mark E. McCourt 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 Mark E. McCourt. Mark E. McCourt 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.
Blakeslee, Barbara, G. Padmanabhan, & Mark E. McCourt. (2016). Dissecting the influence of the collinear and flanking bars in White’s effect. Vision Research. 127. 11–17. 5 indexed citations
2.
Behringer, Michael, et al.. (2015). Effects of stimulation frequency, amplitude, and impulse width on muscle fatigue. Muscle & Nerve. 53(4). 608–616. 21 indexed citations
3.
Blakeslee, Barbara, Davis K. Cope, & Mark E. McCourt. (2015). The Oriented Difference of Gaussians (ODOG) model of brightness perception: Overview and executable Mathematica notebooks. Behavior Research Methods. 48(1). 306–312. 19 indexed citations
4.
McCourt, Mark E., et al.. (2014). Brightness induction and suprathreshold vision: Effects of age and visual field. Vision Research. 106. 36–46. 4 indexed citations
5.
Cope, Davis K., Barbara Blakeslee, & Mark E. McCourt. (2014). Modeling lateral geniculate nucleus response with contrast gain control Part 2: analysis. Journal of the Optical Society of America A. 31(2). 348–348. 2 indexed citations
6.
Blakeslee, Barbara & Mark E. McCourt. (2012). When is spatial filtering enough? Investigation of brightness and lightness perception in stimuli containing a visible illumination component. Vision Research. 60. 40–50. 27 indexed citations
7.
Sosa, Y. & Mark E. McCourt. (2011). The modulation of spatial attention by exogenous cues in visual line bisection: Effects of cue-line SOA, cue contrast and cue position. Journal of Vision. 11(11). 240–240. 1 indexed citations
8.
McCourt, Mark E. & Y. Sosa. (2011). Scanning effects on visuospatial attention. 2. 1 indexed citations
9.
McCourt, Mark E., et al.. (2009). Quantifying the Importance of Image and Perception to Bus Rapid Transit. 58(5). 32 indexed citations
10.
Cope, Davis K., Barbara Blakeslee, & Mark E. McCourt. (2009). Simple cell response properties imply receptive field structure: balanced Gabor and/or bandlimited field functions. Journal of the Optical Society of America A. 26(9). 2067–2067. 4 indexed citations
11.
Blakeslee, Barbara & Mark E. McCourt. (2008). Nearly instantaneous brightness induction. Journal of Vision. 8(2). 15–15. 29 indexed citations
12.
Blakeslee, Barbara & Mark E. McCourt. (2004). A unified theory of brightness contrast and assimilation incorporating oriented multiscale spatial filtering and contrast normalization. Vision Research. 44(21). 2483–2503. 110 indexed citations
13.
Blakeslee, Barbara & Mark E. McCourt. (2001). A multiscale spatial filtering account of the Wertheimer–Benary effect and the corrugated Mondrian. Vision Research. 41(19). 2487–2502. 59 indexed citations
14.
McCourt, Mark E.. (2000). Centripetal versus centrifugal bias in visual line bisection focusing attention on two hypotheses. Frontiers in bioscience. 5(3). d58–71. 43 indexed citations
15.
McCourt, Mark E., et al.. (1997). The effects of gender, menstrual phase and practice on the perceived location of the midsagittal plane. Neuropsychologia. 35(5). 717–724. 44 indexed citations
16.
McCourt, Mark E., et al.. (1997). Cognitive and perceptual influences on visual line bisection: Psychophysical and chronometric analyses of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia. 35(3). 369–380. 112 indexed citations
17.
McCourt, Mark E. & Barbara Blakeslee. (1993). The effect of edge blur on grating induction magnitude. Vision Research. 33(17). 2499–2507. 9 indexed citations
18.
McCourt, Mark E.. (1991). Comparison of brightness and contrast induction. Optical Society of America Annual Meeting. ThY5–ThY5. 1 indexed citations
19.
McCourt, Mark E.. (1990). Disappearance of grating induction at scotopic luminances. Vision Research. 30(3). 431–437. 19 indexed citations
20.
McCourt, Mark E.. (1980). Spatial frequency-dependent brightness induction effect (A). Journal of the Optical Society of America A. 70. 1599. 3 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