World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Neuroscience

D-Index
44
Citations
6682
World Ranking
7218
National Ranking
3112

Anna M. Barrett publication distribution in Neuroscience in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Neuroscience in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Anna M. Barrett sits on this spectrum.

38–47 publications: 18 scientists 48–57 publications: 79 scientists 58–67 publications: 193 scientists 68–77 publications: 323 scientists 78–87 publications: 406 scientists 88–97 publications: 452 scientists 98–107 publications: 539 scientists 108–117 publications: 505 scientists 118–127 publications: 522 scientists 128–137 publications: 469 scientists 138–147 publications: 456 scientists 148–157 publications: 459 scientists 158–167 publications: 397 scientists 168–177 publications: 383 scientists 178–187 publications: 350 scientists 188–197 publications: 302 scientists 198–207 publications: 306 scientists 208–217 publications: 262 scientists 218–227 publications: 242 scientists 228–237 publications: 220 scientists 238–247 publications: 203 scientists 248–257 publications: 174 scientists 258–267 publications: 176 scientists 268–277 publications: 175 scientists 278–287 publications: 125 scientists 288–297 publications: 116 scientists 298–307 publications: 127 scientists 308–317 publications: 128 scientists 318–327 publications: 99 scientists 328–337 publications: 89 scientists 338–347 publications: 78 scientists 348–357 publications: 96 scientists 358–367 publications: 66 scientists 368–377 publications: 59 scientists 378–387 publications: 65 scientists 388–397 publications: 54 scientists 398–407 publications: 48 scientists 408–417 publications: 49 scientists 418–427 publications: 34 scientists 428–437 publications: 31 scientists 438–447 publications: 30 scientists 448–457 publications: 31 scientists 458–467 publications: 36 scientists 468–477 publications: 40 scientists 478–487 publications: 35 scientists 488–497 publications: 30 scientists 498–507 publications: 23 scientists 508–517 publications: 26 scientists 518–527 publications: 20 scientists 528–537 publications: 23 scientists 538–547 publications: 20 scientists 548–557 publications: 20 scientists 558–567 publications: 17 scientists 568–577 publications: 14 scientists 578–587 publications: 20 scientists 588–597 publications: 20 scientists 598–607 publications: 19 scientists 608–617 publications: 18 scientists 618–627 publications: 17 scientists 628–637 publications: 11 scientists 638–647 publications: 11 scientists 648–657 publications: 11 scientists 658–667 publications: 8 scientists 668–677 publications: 7 scientists 678–687 publications: 11 scientists 688–697 publications: 10 scientists 698–707 publications: 4 scientists 708–717 publications: 6 scientists 718–727 publications: 5 scientists 728–737 publications: 5 scientists 738–747 publications: 9 scientists 748–757 publications: 9 scientists 758–767 publications: 3 scientists 768–777 publications: 7 scientists 778–787 publications: 7 scientists 788–797 publications: 6 scientists 798–807 publications: 2 scientists 808–817 publications: 2 scientists 818–827 publications: 7 scientists 828–837 publications: 0 scientists 838–847 publications: 9 scientists 848–857 publications: 3 scientists 858–867 publications: 1 scientists 868–877 publications: 3 scientists 878–886 publications: 6 scientists 887+ publications: 100 scientists
38 publications 887+

This scientist: 200 publications — 62nd percentile

62% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 887 publications or more.

Anna M. Barrett D-index placement in Neuroscience in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Neuroscience scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Anna M. Barrett sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 42 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 172 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 296 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 435 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 459 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 456 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 467 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 478 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 512 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 435 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 425 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 418 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 392 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 357 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 334 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 328 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 260 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 278 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 239 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 250 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 210 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 200 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 189 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 170 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 146 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 113 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 126 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 100 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 84 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 99 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 84 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 85 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 72 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 76 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 45 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 49 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 43 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 32 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 45 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 50 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 32 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 39 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 32 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 29 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 27 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 19 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 23 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 27 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 16 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 24 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 13 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 21 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 17 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 14 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 15 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 10 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 10 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 13 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 9 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 8 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 6 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 6 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 7 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 7 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 10 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 4 scientists 162 D-Index: 8 scientists 163+ D-Index: 100 scientists
30 D-Index 163+

This scientist: 44 D-Index — 27th percentile

27% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 163 D-Index or more.

Overview

Anna M. Barrett is affiliated with UMass Memorial Health Care in the United States. Their research primarily spans the fields of Medicine and Neuroscience, with notable subfields including Cognitive Neuroscience, Pharmacology, Clinical Psychology, Rehabilitation, and Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health.

The scientist's work addresses several main topics, such as:

  • Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
  • Musculoskeletal Pain and Rehabilitation
  • Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
  • Resilience and Mental Health
  • Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
  • Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

Frequent publication venues for their work include:

  • Neurology
  • Stroke
  • Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation
  • Cambridge Prisms Global Mental Health
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Some of the recent papers involving Anna M. Barrett include:

  • Private Lives 2: The second national survey of the health and wellbeing of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) Australians (2023), published in OPAL (Open@LaTrobe) (La Trobe University)
  • Accuracy of a Proactive Case Detection Tool for Internalizing and Externalizing Problems Among Children and Adolescents (2021), published in Journal of Adolescent Health
  • Impacts of Prism Adaptation Treatment on Spatial Neglect and Rehabilitation Outcome: Dosage Matters (2022), published in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
  • Brain Network Dysfunction in Poststroke Delirium and Spatial Neglect: An fMRI Study (2021), published in Stroke
  • Intense Arm Rehabilitation Therapy Improves the Modified Rankin Scale Score (2021), published in Neurology

Frequent coauthors collaborating with Anna M. Barrett include:

  • Peii Chen
  • Kimberly Hreha
  • Mark J. D. Jordans
  • Fadi Nahab
  • Robert W. Gillen

Best Publications

  • Evidence for two types of spatial representations: hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations.

    Stephen M. Kosslyn;Olivier Koenig;Anna Barrett;Carolyn Backer Cave

  • Age Differences in Imagery Abilities.

    Stephen M. Kosslyn;Jonathan A. Margolis;Anna M. Barrett;Emily J. Goldknopf

  • Possible mechanisms of anosognosia: a defect in self–awareness

    Kenneth M. Heilman;Anna M. Barrett;Anna M. Barrett;John C. Adair;John C. Adair

  • Increased discrimination of "false memories" in autism spectrum disorder.

    David Q. Beversdorf;Brian W. Smith;Gregory P. Crucian;Jeffrey M. Anderson

  • Cognitive Rehabilitation Interventions for Neglect and Related Disorders: Moving from Bench to Bedside in Stroke Patients

    Anna M. Barrett;Laurel J. Buxbaum;H. Branch Coslett;Emmeline Edwards

  • Impact of spatial neglect on stroke rehabilitation: evidence from the setting of an inpatient rehabilitation facility.

    Peii Chen;Peii Chen;Kimberly Hreha;Yekyung Kong;A.M. Barrett

  • Vision Therapy in Adults with Convergence Insufficiency: Clinical and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measures

    Tara L. Alvarez;Vincent R. Vicci;Yelda Alkan;Eun H. Kim

  • Concurrent vision dysfunctions in convergence insufficiency with traumatic brain injury.

    Tara L. Alvarez;Eun H. Kim;Vincent R. Vicci;Sunil K. Dhar

  • Spatial Neglect: Clinical and Neuroscience Review

    John C. Adair;Anna M. Barrett

  • Risk Factors Associated With Injury Attributable to Falling Among Elderly Population With History of Stroke

    Afshin A. Divani;Gabriela Vazquez;Anna M. Barrett;Marjan Asadollahi

  • Functional assessment of spatial neglect: a review of the Catherine Bergego scale and an introduction of the Kessler foundation neglect assessment process.

    Peii Chen;Kimberly Hreha;Paola Fortis;Kelly M. Goedert

  • Unawareness of cognitive deficit (cognitive anosognosia) in probable AD and control subjects

    Anna M. Barrett;Paul J. Eslinger;Noel H. Ballentine;Kenneth M. Heilman;Kenneth M. Heilman

  • Kessler Foundation Neglect Assessment Process uniquely measures spatial neglect during activities of daily living.

    Peii Chen;Peii Chen;Christine C. Chen;Kimberly Hreha;Kelly M. Goedert

  • Dementia syndromes: evaluation and treatment.

    Kevin R Scott;Anna M Barrett

  • Prism adaptation for spatial neglect after stroke: translational practice gaps

    A. M. Barrett;Kelly M. Goedert;Julia C. Basso

  • Emotional experience and perception in the absence of facial feedback.

    Jocelyn M. Keillor;Anna M. Barrett;Gregory P. Crucian;Sarah Kortenkamp

  • Emotional perception deficits in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

    Erin K. Zimmerman;Paul J. Eslinger;Zachary Simmons;Anna M. Barrett

  • Advancing the Evidence Base of Rehabilitation Treatments: A Developmental Approach

    John Whyte;A.M. Barrett

  • Adverse effect of dopamine agonist therapy in a patient with motor-intentional neglect

    Anna M. Barrett;Gregory P. Crucian;Ronald L. Schwartz;Kenneth M. Heilman;Kenneth M. Heilman

  • Monocular patching in subjects with right-hemisphere stroke affects perceptual-attentional bias

    Anna M Barrett;Stephanie Burkholder

Frequent Co-Authors

Kenneth M. Heilman
Kenneth M. Heilman University of Florida
Paul J. Eslinger
Paul J. Eslinger Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
Leslie J. Gonzalez Rothi
Leslie J. Gonzalez Rothi University of Florida
Jeffrey R. Binder
Jeffrey R. Binder Medical College of Wisconsin
Dawn Bowers
Dawn Bowers University of Florida
David Q. Beversdorf
David Q. Beversdorf University of Missouri
Raymond C. Boston
Raymond C. Boston St Vincent's Hospital
William J. Triggs
William J. Triggs University of Florida
Andreas Luft
Andreas Luft University of Zurich
William A. Friedman
William A. Friedman University of Florida

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Best Scientists Citing Anna M. Barrett

Trending Scientists