Stanley Sheft

1.5k total citations
69 papers, 1.1k citations indexed

About

Stanley Sheft is a scholar working on Cognitive Neuroscience, Speech and Hearing and Signal Processing. According to data from OpenAlex, Stanley Sheft has authored 69 papers receiving a total of 1.1k indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 59 papers in Cognitive Neuroscience, 30 papers in Speech and Hearing and 26 papers in Signal Processing. Recurrent topics in Stanley Sheft's work include Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation (58 papers), Noise Effects and Management (30 papers) and Speech and Audio Processing (24 papers). Stanley Sheft is often cited by papers focused on Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation (58 papers), Noise Effects and Management (30 papers) and Speech and Audio Processing (24 papers). Stanley Sheft collaborates with scholars based in United States, France and United Kingdom. Stanley Sheft's co-authors include William A. Yost, Valeriy Shafiro, Roy D. Patterson, Christian Lorenzi, Raymond H. Dye, William P. Shofner, Brian Gygi, Sandra J. Guzman, Caitlin C. Farrell and Zhiqiang Guo and has published in prestigious journals such as Journal of Neuroscience, PLoS ONE and The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

In The Last Decade

Stanley Sheft

67 papers receiving 1.1k citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

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

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
Stanley Sheft United States 17 1.1k 548 344 341 174 69 1.1k
David A. Eddins United States 24 1.1k 1.0× 675 1.2× 578 1.7× 288 0.8× 351 2.0× 105 1.5k
Aleksander Sęk Poland 21 1.3k 1.2× 830 1.5× 694 2.0× 343 1.0× 112 0.6× 81 1.4k
So ren Buus United States 18 1.1k 1.0× 572 1.0× 430 1.3× 313 0.9× 163 0.9× 33 1.2k
Bernhard U. Seeber Germany 16 807 0.8× 510 0.9× 371 1.1× 306 0.9× 110 0.6× 72 883
Patricia Van Roon Canada 15 1.2k 1.1× 234 0.4× 510 1.5× 159 0.5× 139 0.8× 19 1.2k
Joshua G. W. Bernstein United States 20 1.4k 1.3× 799 1.5× 683 2.0× 524 1.5× 161 0.9× 68 1.5k
Niek J. Versfeld Netherlands 17 1.3k 1.2× 759 1.4× 272 0.8× 649 1.9× 242 1.4× 41 1.4k
Dianne J. Van Tasell United States 19 1.1k 1.1× 607 1.1× 401 1.2× 603 1.8× 175 1.0× 41 1.2k
Zachary M. Smith United States 11 1.2k 1.1× 414 0.8× 573 1.7× 380 1.1× 160 0.9× 15 1.2k
B. C. J. Moore United Kingdom 12 888 0.8× 513 0.9× 507 1.5× 307 0.9× 72 0.4× 24 981

Countries citing papers authored by Stanley Sheft

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Stanley Sheft

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Stanley Sheft

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Stanley Sheft. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Stanley Sheft 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 Stanley Sheft. Stanley Sheft 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.
Shafiro, Valeriy, Kelly Brown, Stanley Sheft, et al.. (2020). Development of the Basic Auditory Skills Evaluation Battery for Online Testing of Cochlear Implant Listeners. American Journal of Audiology. 29(3S). 577–590. 16 indexed citations
2.
Sheft, Stanley, et al.. (2019). Improving Attentiveness: Effect of Cognitive Training on Sustained Attention Measures. Professional safety. 64(4). 31–35. 2 indexed citations
3.
Guo, Zhiqiang, Weifeng Li, Jeffery A. Jones, et al.. (2017). Top-Down Modulation of Auditory-Motor Integration during Speech Production: The Role of Working Memory. Journal of Neuroscience. 37(43). 10323–10333. 37 indexed citations
5.
Sheft, Stanley, Valeriy Shafiro, Emily Wang, Lisa L. Barnes, & Raj C. Shah. (2015). Relationship between Auditory and Cognitive Abilities in Older Adults. PLoS ONE. 10(8). e0134330–e0134330. 24 indexed citations
6.
Sheft, Stanley, et al.. (2015). Discrimination of Stochastic Frequency Modulation by Cochlear Implant Users. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 26(6). 572–581. 7 indexed citations
7.
Ives, D. Timothy, Sridhar Kalluri, Olaf Strelcyk, et al.. (2014). Effects of Noise Reduction on AM Perception for Hearing-Impaired Listeners. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology. 15(5). 839–848. 4 indexed citations
8.
Sheft, Stanley, et al.. (2014). Discrimination of Static and Dynamic Spectral Patterns by Children and Young Adults in Relationship to Speech Perception in Noise. Audiology Research. 4(1). 101–101. 12 indexed citations
9.
Sheft, Stanley, et al.. (2013). Relationship of frequency-pattern training to speech perception. 4. 53–60. 1 indexed citations
10.
Shafiro, Valeriy, et al.. (2013). Intelligibility of interrupted speech in listeners of different age and hearing status. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 133(5_Supplement). 3387–3387.
11.
Sheft, Stanley, et al.. (2013). Effect of musical training on static and dynamic measures of spectral-pattern discrimination. Proceedings of meetings on acoustics. 50025–50025. 1 indexed citations
12.
Sheft, Stanley, et al.. (2011). Clinical measures of static and dynamic spectral-pattern discrimination in relationship to speech perception. 3. 481–488. 8 indexed citations
13.
Shafiro, Valeriy, et al.. (2011). Perception of interrupted speech: Effects of dual-rate gating on the intelligibility of words and sentences. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 130(4). 2076–2087. 20 indexed citations
14.
Sheft, Stanley, et al.. (2010). Perception of temporal fine-structure cues in speech with minimal envelope cues for listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. International Journal of Audiology. 49(11). 823–831. 24 indexed citations
15.
Boomer, Joseph, Raymond H. Dye, Stanley Sheft, & William A. Yost. (2006). The effect of spectral differences on the ability to judge the laterality of a simulated source followed by a simulated echo. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 119(5_Supplement). 3296–3296.
16.
Yost, William A., Raymond H. Dye, & Stanley Sheft. (1996). A simulated “cocktail party” with up to three sound sources. Perception & Psychophysics. 58(7). 1026–1036. 83 indexed citations
17.
Yost, William A. & Stanley Sheft. (1994). Modulation Detection Interference: Across-frequency processing and auditory grouping. Hearing Research. 79(1-2). 48–58. 24 indexed citations
18.
Shofner, William P. & Stanley Sheft. (1994). Detection of bandlimited noise masked by wideband noise in the chinchilla. Hearing Research. 77(1-2). 231–235. 1 indexed citations
19.
Yost, William A., Stanley Sheft, & Raymond H. Dye. (1994). Divided auditory attention with up to three sound sources: A cocktail party. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 95(5_Supplement). 2916–2916. 3 indexed citations
20.
Shofner, William P., William A. Yost, & Stanley Sheft. (1993). Increment detection of bandlimited noises in the chinchilla. Hearing Research. 66(1). 67–80. 6 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