Closed-loop brain training: the science of neurofeedback

761 indexed citations

Abstract

loading...

About

This paper, published in 2016, received 761 indexed citations. Written by Ranganatha Sitaram, Tomas Ros, Luke E. Stoeckel, Sven Haller, Frank Scharnowski, Jarrod A. Lewis‐Peacock, Nikolaus Weiskopf, Maria Laura Blefari, Mohit Rana and Ethan Oblak covering the research area of Cognitive Neuroscience. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Cognitive Neuroscience (616 citations), Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience (112 citations) and Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine (109 citations). Published in Nature reviews. Neuroscience.

Countries where authors are citing Closed-loop brain training: the science of neurofeedback

Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Closed-loop brain training: the science of neurofeedback. 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 Closed-loop brain training: the science of neurofeedback with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Closed-loop brain training: the science of neurofeedback more than expected).

Fields of papers citing Closed-loop brain training: the science of neurofeedback

Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of Closed-loop brain training: the science of neurofeedback. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Closed-loop brain training: the science of neurofeedback.

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.

This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.164.

Explore hit-papers with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026