The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience
- Journal
- Journal of Consciousness Studies
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w6615165 →Countries where authors are citing The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience
This map shows the geographic impact of The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. 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 The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience
This network shows the impact of The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience.
About The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience
This paper, published in 1999, received 526 indexed citations . Written by Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein covering the research area of Cognitive Neuroscience and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Cognitive Neuroscience (368 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (251 citations) and Social Psychology (170 citations). Published in Journal of Consciousness Studies.
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/w6615165.