World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
32
Citations
5569
World Ranking
13011
National Ranking
247

Ingrid Heynderickx publication distribution in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Computer Science in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Ingrid Heynderickx sits on this spectrum.

32–41 publications: 7 scientists 42–51 publications: 22 scientists 52–61 publications: 82 scientists 62–71 publications: 134 scientists 72–81 publications: 249 scientists 82–91 publications: 324 scientists 92–101 publications: 421 scientists 102–111 publications: 420 scientists 112–121 publications: 497 scientists 122–131 publications: 544 scientists 132–141 publications: 555 scientists 142–151 publications: 609 scientists 152–161 publications: 559 scientists 162–171 publications: 534 scientists 172–181 publications: 556 scientists 182–191 publications: 583 scientists 192–201 publications: 519 scientists 202–211 publications: 508 scientists 212–221 publications: 490 scientists 222–231 publications: 437 scientists 232–241 publications: 423 scientists 242–251 publications: 408 scientists 252–261 publications: 377 scientists 262–271 publications: 301 scientists 272–281 publications: 335 scientists 282–291 publications: 320 scientists 292–301 publications: 293 scientists 302–311 publications: 250 scientists 312–321 publications: 238 scientists 322–331 publications: 206 scientists 332–341 publications: 209 scientists 342–351 publications: 208 scientists 352–361 publications: 162 scientists 362–371 publications: 176 scientists 372–381 publications: 127 scientists 382–391 publications: 158 scientists 392–401 publications: 128 scientists 402–411 publications: 104 scientists 412–421 publications: 94 scientists 422–431 publications: 99 scientists 432–441 publications: 83 scientists 442–451 publications: 108 scientists 452–461 publications: 73 scientists 462–471 publications: 77 scientists 472–481 publications: 69 scientists 482–491 publications: 84 scientists 492–501 publications: 62 scientists 502–511 publications: 54 scientists 512–521 publications: 57 scientists 522–531 publications: 51 scientists 532–541 publications: 51 scientists 542–551 publications: 32 scientists 552–561 publications: 38 scientists 562–571 publications: 28 scientists 572–581 publications: 43 scientists 582–591 publications: 33 scientists 592–601 publications: 41 scientists 602–611 publications: 32 scientists 612–621 publications: 28 scientists 622–631 publications: 25 scientists 632–641 publications: 27 scientists 642–651 publications: 17 scientists 652–661 publications: 20 scientists 662–671 publications: 17 scientists 672–681 publications: 15 scientists 682–691 publications: 14 scientists 692–701 publications: 21 scientists 702–711 publications: 13 scientists 712–721 publications: 12 scientists 722–731 publications: 19 scientists 732–741 publications: 14 scientists 742–751 publications: 12 scientists 752–761 publications: 10 scientists 762–771 publications: 10 scientists 772–781 publications: 11 scientists 782–791 publications: 10 scientists 792–801 publications: 11 scientists 802–811 publications: 8 scientists 812–821 publications: 8 scientists 822–831 publications: 7 scientists 832–841 publications: 11 scientists 842–851 publications: 10 scientists 852–861 publications: 5 scientists 862–871 publications: 9 scientists 872–881 publications: 4 scientists 882–891 publications: 6 scientists 892–901 publications: 3 scientists 902–911 publications: 6 scientists 912–921 publications: 3 scientists 922–931 publications: 2 scientists 932–941 publications: 2 scientists 942–951 publications: 2 scientists 952–961 publications: 3 scientists 962–971 publications: 3 scientists 972–981 publications: 3 scientists 982–990 publications: 5 scientists 991+ publications: 100 scientists
32 publications 991+

This scientist: 173 publications — 36th percentile

36% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 991 publications or more.

Ingrid Heynderickx D-index placement in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Computer Science scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Ingrid Heynderickx sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 879 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 983 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 918 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 990 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 968 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 907 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 821 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 763 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 689 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 543 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 543 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 518 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 500 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 458 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 400 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 337 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 308 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 292 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 249 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 213 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 192 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 189 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 165 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 139 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 119 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 121 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 113 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 88 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 87 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 75 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 69 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 57 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 46 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 38 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 34 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 36 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 27 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 37 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 18 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 31 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 19 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 16 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 20 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 15 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 5 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 20 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 8 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 5 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 7 scientists 130 D-Index: 3 scientists 131+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 131+

This scientist: 32 D-Index — 10th percentile

10% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 131 D-Index or more.

Overview

Ingrid Heynderickx is affiliated with Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands and conducts research primarily in the field of Environmental Science.

Their research spans several subfields including Global and Planetary Change, Social Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, Atomic and Molecular Physics and Optics, as well as Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis.

Key topics addressed in their work include:

  • Impact of Light on Environment and Health
  • Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Color Science and Applications
  • Urban Green Space and Health
  • Color perception and design
  • Building Energy and Comfort Optimization
  • Image Enhancement Techniques

Heynderickx has published extensively on aspects of lighting, visual perception, and environmental effects relating to light. Frequent publication venues for their work include:

  • Lighting Research & Technology
  • LEUKOS The Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
  • Proceedings of the CIE.
  • Journal of the Optical Society of America A
  • Building and Environment

Recent papers authored or coauthored by Heynderickx are:

  • "Putting the ceiling center stage - The impact of direct/indirect lighting on room appraisal" (2021, Building and Environment)
  • "Assessing the temporal uniformity of CIELAB hue angle" (2020, Journal of the Optical Society of America A)
  • "Road Marking Contrast Threshold Revisited" (2021, LEUKOS The Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America)
  • "From luminance to brightness: A data-driven approach to support brightness assessments in open plan offices" (2022, Lighting Research & Technology)
  • "Correspondence: Designing and specifying light for melatonin suppression, non-visual responses and integrative lighting solutions - establishing a proper bright day, dim night metrology" (2022, Lighting Research & Technology)

The scientist frequently collaborates with colleagues including Xiangzhen Kong, Kevin Smet, Peter Hanselaer, Rik Marco Spieringhs, and Christophe Martinsons.

Best Publications

  • Visual Discomfort and Visual Fatigue of Stereoscopic Displays: A Review

    Mtm Marc Lambooij;WA Wijnand IJsselsteijn;MF Marten Fortuin;Iej Ingrid Heynderickx

  • Visual discomfort in stereoscopic displays : a review

    Mtm Marc Lambooij;WA Wijnand IJsselsteijn;Iej Ingrid Heynderickx

  • Visual Attention in Objective Image Quality Assessment: Based on Eye-Tracking Data

    Hantao Liu;Ingrid Heynderickx

  • A Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Self-Reported Presence and Anxiety in Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Anxiety Disorders

    Yun Ling;Harold T. Nefs;Nexhmedin Morina;Ingrid Heynderickx

  • A No-Reference Metric for Perceived Ringing Artifacts in Images

    Hantao Liu;Nick Klomp;Ingrid Heynderickx

  • The relationship between individual characteristics and experienced presence

    Yun Ling;Harold T. Nefs;Willem-Paul Brinkman;Chao Qu

  • Visual discomfort of 3D TV: Assessment methods and modeling

    Mtm Marc Lambooij;Mtm Marc Lambooij;WA Wijnand IJsselsteijn;Iej Ingrid Heynderickx;Iej Ingrid Heynderickx

  • Evaluation of Stereoscopic Images: Beyond 2D Quality

    M Lambooij;W IJsselsteijn;D G Bouwhuis;I Heynderickx

  • Understanding the role of social context and user factors in video Quality of Experience

    Yi Zhu;Ingrid Heynderickx;Judith A. Redi

  • Illumination system for a colour image projection device and circular polarizer suitable for use in such a system

    Dirk Jan Broer;Ingrid Emilienne Joanna Rita Heynderickx

  • Studying the added value of visual attention in objective image quality metrics based on eye movement data

    Hantao Liu;Ingrid Heynderickx

  • Viewing experience and naturalness of 3D images

    Pjh Pieter Seuntiëns;Iej Ingrid Heynderickx;WA Wijnand IJsselsteijn;Pmj Paul van den Avoort

  • Effects of stereoscopic viewing on presence, anxiety, and cybersickness in a virtual reality environment for public speaking

    Yun Ling;Willem-Paul Brinkman;Harold T. Nefs;Chao Qu

  • A perceptually relevant no-reference blockiness metric based on local image characteristics

    Hantao Liu;Ingrid Heynderickx

  • Measuring visual discomfort associated with 3D displays

    Mtm Marc Lambooij;Mtm Marc Lambooij;MF Marten Fortuin;MF Marten Fortuin;WA Wijnand IJsselsteijn;Iej Ingrid Heynderickx;Iej Ingrid Heynderickx

  • Color Distribution Information for the Reduced-Reference Assessment of Perceived Image Quality

    Judith A. Redi;Paolo Gastaldo;Ingrid Heynderickx;Rodolfo Zunino

  • Crosstalk Evaluation in Stereoscopic Displays

    Lili Wang;Kees Teunissen;Yan Tu;Li Chen

  • Objective quality assessment of displayed images by using neural networks

    Paolo Gastaldo;Rodolfo Zunino;Ingrid Heynderickx;Elena Vicario

  • Interactions of visual attention and quality perception

    Judith Redi;Hantao Liu;Rodolfo Zunino;Ingrid Heynderickx

  • A no-reference perceptual blockiness metric

    Hantao Liu;I. Heynderickx

  • Susceptibility to Visual Discomfort of 3-D Displays by Visual Performance Measures

    M. Lambooij;M. Fortuin;W. A. IJsselsteijn;B. J. Evans

  • Visual stimuli in daily life.

    Dorothée G. A. Kasteleijn‐Nolst Trenité;Gerrit Van Der Beld;Ingrid Heynderickx;Paul Groen

  • 32.2: Effect of Crosstalk in Multi‐View Autostereoscopic 3D Displays on Perceived Image Quality

    Ronald Kaptein;Ingrid Heynderickx;Ingrid Heynderickx

Frequent Co-Authors

Dirk J. Broer
Dirk J. Broer Eindhoven University of Technology
WA Wijnand IJsselsteijn
WA Wijnand IJsselsteijn Eindhoven University of Technology
Hans-Jurgen Zepernick
Hans-Jurgen Zepernick Blekinge Institute of Technology
M. Ronnier Luo
M. Ronnier Luo Zhejiang University
Mark D. Fairchild
Mark D. Fairchild Rochester Institute of Technology
Gerton Lunter
Gerton Lunter University of Oxford
Nexhmedin Morina
Nexhmedin Morina University of Münster
Sanjit K. Mitra
Sanjit K. Mitra University of California, Santa Barbara
Lina J. Karam
Lina J. Karam Lebanese American University

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:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Exploring computer science in the USA opens doors to a variety of online degrees and career routes. Today, many students are choosing flexible study options, including accelerated computer science degree online programs that enable faster completion and quicker entry into the workforce.

If you’re drawn to sustainability or technology’s role in the environment, consider expanding your options. Learning what can you do with an environmental studies degree reveals careers in environmental policy, analysis, and more.

Engineering pathways are also growing in popularity due to increasing career opportunities and salary potential. Interested in shaping the future of infrastructure or conserving resources? Explore online programs at environmental engineering schools online.

Additionally, students seeking practical and cost-effective options can look into mechanical engineering degree cost for affordable pathways to a rewarding engineering career. These related degrees offer flexibility, affordability, and alignment with emerging tech careers in today’s job market.

Best Scientists Citing Ingrid Heynderickx

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles