World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
30
Citations
8860
World Ranking
11269
National Ranking
5887

Emily S. Kappenman publication distribution in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Psychology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Emily S. Kappenman sits on this spectrum.

31–40 publications: 6 scientists 41–50 publications: 52 scientists 51–60 publications: 138 scientists 61–70 publications: 299 scientists 71–80 publications: 461 scientists 81–90 publications: 605 scientists 91–100 publications: 713 scientists 101–110 publications: 736 scientists 111–120 publications: 686 scientists 121–130 publications: 670 scientists 131–140 publications: 644 scientists 141–150 publications: 597 scientists 151–160 publications: 576 scientists 161–170 publications: 477 scientists 171–180 publications: 450 scientists 181–190 publications: 397 scientists 191–200 publications: 343 scientists 201–210 publications: 328 scientists 211–220 publications: 313 scientists 221–230 publications: 283 scientists 231–240 publications: 226 scientists 241–250 publications: 196 scientists 251–260 publications: 201 scientists 261–270 publications: 171 scientists 271–280 publications: 151 scientists 281–290 publications: 139 scientists 291–300 publications: 113 scientists 301–310 publications: 102 scientists 311–320 publications: 100 scientists 321–330 publications: 76 scientists 331–340 publications: 92 scientists 341–350 publications: 85 scientists 351–360 publications: 69 scientists 361–370 publications: 71 scientists 371–380 publications: 63 scientists 381–390 publications: 58 scientists 391–400 publications: 57 scientists 401–410 publications: 43 scientists 411–420 publications: 33 scientists 421–430 publications: 50 scientists 431–440 publications: 41 scientists 441–450 publications: 32 scientists 451–460 publications: 27 scientists 461–470 publications: 28 scientists 471–480 publications: 25 scientists 481–490 publications: 28 scientists 491–500 publications: 20 scientists 501–510 publications: 23 scientists 511–520 publications: 26 scientists 521–530 publications: 17 scientists 531–540 publications: 21 scientists 541–550 publications: 14 scientists 551–560 publications: 16 scientists 561–570 publications: 10 scientists 571–580 publications: 22 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 14 scientists 601–610 publications: 9 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 4 scientists 631–640 publications: 7 scientists 641–650 publications: 5 scientists 651–660 publications: 10 scientists 661–670 publications: 8 scientists 671–680 publications: 8 scientists 681–690 publications: 4 scientists 691–700 publications: 3 scientists 701–704 publications: 4 scientists 705+ publications: 100 scientists
31 publications 705+

This scientist: 52 publications — 1st percentile

1% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 705 publications or more.

Emily S. Kappenman D-index placement in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Psychology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Emily S. Kappenman sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 398 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 702 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 671 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 659 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 641 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 671 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 617 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 558 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 495 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 487 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 445 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 390 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 408 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 345 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 325 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 321 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 248 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 290 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 218 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 219 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 215 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 183 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 169 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 132 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 137 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 120 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 112 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 86 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 101 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 83 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 77 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 70 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 78 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 58 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 53 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 57 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 48 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 53 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 46 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 24 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 35 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 27 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 32 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 31 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 22 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 16 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 24 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 18 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 11 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 19 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 10 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 16 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 10 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 12 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 8 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 5 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 12 scientists 144+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 144+

This scientist: 30 D-Index — 1st percentile

1% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 144 D-Index or more.

Best Publications

  • The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components

    Steven J. Luck;Emily S Kappenman

  • A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools

    A.J. Woods;A. Antal;M. Bikson;P.S. Boggio

  • Committee report: Publication guidelines and recommendations for studies using electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography

    Andreas Keil;Stefan Debener;Gabriele Gratton;Markus Junghöfer

  • The effects of electrode impedance on data quality and statistical significance in ERP recordings.

    Emily S. Kappenman;Steven J. Luck

  • How many trials does it take to get a significant ERP effect? It depends

    Megan A. Boudewyn;Steven J. Luck;Jaclyn L. Farrens;Emily S. Kappenman

  • Behavioral and ERP measures of attentional bias to threat in the dot-probe task: poor reliability and lack of correlation with anxiety.

    Emily S. Kappenman;Jaclyn L. Farrens;Steven J. Luck;Greg eHajcak Proudfit

  • Eye gaze and individual differences consistent with learned attention in associative blocking and highlighting.

    John K. Kruschke;Emily S. Kappenman;William P. Hetrick

  • Mechanisms and Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation.

    James Giordano;Marom Bikson;Emily S. Kappenman;Vincent P. Clark

  • ERP CORE: An open resource for human event-related potential research.

    Emily S. Kappenman;Jaclyn L. Farrens;Wendy Zhang;Andrew X. Stewart

  • Rigor and reproducibility in research with transcranial electrical stimulation: An NIMH-sponsored workshop

    Marom Bikson;Andre R. Brunoni;Leigh E. Charvet;Vincent P. Clark

  • Best Practices for Event-Related Potential Research in Clinical Populations

    Emily S. Kappenman;Steven J. Luck

  • Electrocortical evidence for rapid allocation of attention to threat in the dot-probe task

    Emily S. Kappenman;Annmarie MacNamara;Greg Hajcak Proudfit

  • Emotion Regulation Abnormalities in Schizophrenia: Cognitive Change Strategies Fail to Decrease the Neural Response to Unpleasant Stimuli

    Gregory P. Strauss;Emily S. Kappenman;Adam J. Culbreth;Lauren T. Catalano

  • ERP Components and Selective Attention

    Steven J. Luck;Emily S. Kappenman

  • Reduced capacity but spared precision and maintenance of working memory representations in schizophrenia

    James M. Gold;Britta Hahn;Wei Wei Zhang;Benjamin M. Robinson

  • ERP Components: The Ups and Downs of Brainwave Recordings

    Emily S. Kappenman;Steven J. Luck

  • Neural Correlates of Reward Processing in Depressed and Healthy Preschool-Age Children

    Andy C. Belden;Kelsey Irvin;Greg Hajcak;Emily S. Kappenman

  • Impaired response selection in schizophrenia: evidence from the P3 wave and the lateralized readiness potential.

    Steven J. Luck;Emily S. Kappenman;Rebecca L. Fuller;Benjamin Robinson

  • Assessing the internal consistency of the event-related potential: An example analysis.

    Nina N. Thigpen;Emily S. Kappenman;Andreas Keil

  • Failure of Schizophrenia Patients to Overcome Salient Distractors During Working Memory Encoding

    Britta Hahn;Benjamin M. Robinson;Samuel T. Kaiser;Alexander N. Harvey

Frequent Co-Authors

Steven J. Luck
Steven J. Luck University of California, Davis
James M. Gold
James M. Gold University of Maryland, Baltimore
Marom Bikson
Marom Bikson City College of New York
Greg Hajcak
Greg Hajcak Santa Clara University
Adam J. Woods
Adam J. Woods The University of Texas at Dallas
Deanna M. Barch
Deanna M. Barch Washington University in St. Louis
Joan L. Luby
Joan L. Luby Washington University in St. Louis
William P. Hetrick
William P. Hetrick Indiana University
Andreas Keil
Andreas Keil University of Florida
Gregory A. Miller
Gregory A. Miller University of California, Los Angeles

External Links

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 Emily S. Kappenman