World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Psychology 51 5185 4810 2851 2582 120 11398
Neuroscience 51 5471 5026 2433 2194 127 11444

Laurel J. Buxbaum publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Laurel J. Buxbaum between 1992 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Laurel J. Buxbaum published across 34 years, from 1992 to 2025, averaging 4.3 papers a year. Output peaked at 8 publications in 2021. 12 of the 145 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
2 4 6 8
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1992 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 8. Peak 8 publications in 2021. 1992: 1 publication 1993: 1 publication 1994: 1 publication 1995: 1 publication 1996: 2 publications 1997: 3 publications 1998: 5 publications 1999: 0 publications 2000: 3 publications 2001: 4 publications 2002: 6 publications 2003: 1 publication 2004: 4 publications 2005: 4 publications 2006: 7 publications 2007: 7 publications 2008: 5 publications 2009: 4 publications 2010: 6 publications 2011: 4 publications 2012: 4 publications 2013: 4 publications 2014: 7 publications 2015: 6 publications 2016: 2 publications 2017: 3 publications 2018: 3 publications 2019: 7 publications 2020: 6 publications 2021: 8 publications 2022: 7 publications 2023: 7 publications 2024: 5 publications 2025: 7 publications
1992 2025

145 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Laurel J. Buxbaum: publications per year, 1992 to 2025
Year Publications
1992 1
1993 1
1994 1
1995 1
1996 2
1997 3
1998 5
1999 0
2000 3
2001 4
2002 6
2003 1
2004 4
2005 4
2006 7
2007 7
2008 5
2009 4
2010 6
2011 4
2012 4
2013 4
2014 7
2015 6
2016 2
2017 3
2018 3
2019 7
2020 6
2021 8
2022 7
2023 7
2024 5
2025 7
Total 145
Download as CSV

Laurel J. Buxbaum 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 Laurel J. Buxbaum sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600
Bar chart with 69 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 31–40 to 705+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 736. Most scientists, 736, have 101–110 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 705 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 111–120 publications, is where this scientist sits. 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
31–40 publications 705+

This scientist: 120 publications — 32nd percentile

32% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Psychology scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 11,416 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
31–40 6
41–50 52
51–60 138
61–70 299
71–80 461
81–90 605
91–100 713
101–110 736
111–120 686 120
121–130 670
131–140 644
141–150 597
151–160 576
161–170 477
171–180 450
181–190 397
191–200 343
201–210 328
211–220 313
221–230 283
231–240 226
241–250 196
251–260 201
261–270 171
271–280 151
281–290 139
291–300 113
301–310 102
311–320 100
321–330 76
331–340 92
341–350 85
351–360 69
361–370 71
371–380 63
381–390 58
391–400 57
401–410 43
411–420 33
421–430 50
431–440 41
441–450 32
451–460 27
461–470 28
471–480 25
481–490 28
491–500 20
501–510 23
511–520 26
521–530 17
531–540 21
541–550 14
551–560 16
561–570 10
571–580 22
581–590 9
591–600 14
601–610 9
611–620 11
621–630 4
631–640 7
641–650 5
651–660 10
661–670 8
671–680 8
681–690 4
691–700 3
701–704 4
705+ 100
Download as CSV

Laurel J. Buxbaum 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 Laurel J. Buxbaum sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600
Bar chart with 58 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30–31 to 144+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 702. Most scientists, 702, have 32–33 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 144 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 50–51 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 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
30–31 D-Index 144+

This scientist: 51 D-Index — 56th percentile

56% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Psychology scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 11,416 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30–31 398
32–33 702
34–35 671
36–37 659
38–39 641
40–41 671
42–43 617
44–45 558
46–47 495
48–49 487
50–51 445 51
52–53 390
54–55 408
56–57 345
58–59 325
60–61 321
62–63 248
64–65 290
66–67 218
68–69 219
70–71 215
72–73 183
74–75 169
76–77 132
78–79 137
80–81 120
82–83 112
84–85 86
86–87 101
88–89 83
90–91 77
92–93 70
94–95 78
96–97 58
98–99 53
100–101 57
102–103 48
104–105 53
106–107 46
108–109 24
110–111 35
112–113 27
114–115 32
116–117 31
118–119 22
120–121 16
122–123 24
124–125 18
126–127 11
128–129 19
130–131 10
132–133 16
134–135 10
136–137 12
138–139 8
140–141 5
142–143 12
144+ 98
Download as CSV

Overview

Laurel J. Buxbaum is affiliated with Thomas Jefferson University in the United States. Their research primarily spans several fields, including Neuroscience, Psychology, and Medicine, with a distinct focus on Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology, Rehabilitation, Developmental and Educational Psychology, and Neurology.

The scientist's work encompasses a variety of key topics:

  • Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
  • Hearing Impairment and Communication

Frequent co-authors in their collaborative research include Aaron L. Wong, Frank E. Garcea, Harrison Stoll, Mitchell W. Isaacs, and Scott T. Grafton.

Several publication venues are notable for hosting their work. These include bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) with 10 publications, Cortex with 8, Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair with 3, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation with 2, and Psychonomic Bulletin & Review with 1 publication.

Buxbaum has contributed to the academic literature through several recent papers:

  • What we mean when we say semantic: Toward a multidisciplinary semantic glossary, 2024, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
  • Predictors of Arm Nonuse in Chronic Stroke: A Preliminary Investigation, 2020, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair
  • Structural Disconnection of the Tool Use Network after Left Hemisphere Stroke Predicts Limb Apraxia Severity, 2020, Cerebral Cortex Communications
  • Virtual Reality Treatment Displaying the Missing Leg Improves Phantom Limb Pain: A Small Clinical Trial, 2021, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair
  • Single-case disconnectome lesion-symptom mapping: Identifying two subtypes of limb apraxia, 2022, Neuropsychologia

In addition to journal articles, they contributed to the book The Cognitive Neurosciences, published by The MIT Press in 2020.

Best Publications

  • Hemispatial neglect Subtypes, neuroanatomy, and disability

    Lj Buxbaum;Mk Ferraro;T Veramonti;A Farne

  • Two action systems in the human brain

    Ferdinand Binkofski;Laurel J. Buxbaum

  • On beyond mirror neurons: internal representations subserving imitation and recognition of skilled object-related actions in humans.

    Laurel J. Buxbaum;Kathleen M. Kyle;Rukmini Menon

  • Ideomotor apraxia: a call to action.

    Laurel J. Buxbaum

  • Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: dissociations in apraxic and nonapraxic subjects

    Laurel J Buxbaum;Eleanor M Saffran

  • Distinctions between manipulation and function knowledge of objects: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging.

    Consuelo B. Boronat;Laurel J. Buxbaum;H. Branch Coslett;Kathy Tang

  • Action knowledge, visuomotor activation, and embodiment in the two action systems

    Laurel J. Buxbaum;Solène Kalénine

  • The Naturalistic Action Test: A standardised assessment for everyday action impairment

    Myrna F. Schwartz;Mary Segal;Tracy Veramonti;Mary Ferraro

  • Cognitive representations of hand posture in ideomotor apraxia.

    Laurel J Buxbaum;Angela Sirigu;Myrna F Schwartz;Roberta Klatzky

  • Critical brain regions for action recognition: lesion symptom mapping in left hemisphere stroke

    Solène Kalénine;Laurel J. Buxbaum;Harry Branch Coslett

  • Left inferior parietal representations for skilled hand-object interactions: evidence from stroke and corticobasal degeneration.

    Laurel J. Buxbaum;Laurel J. Buxbaum;Kathleen Kyle;Murray Grossman;H. Branch Coslett;H. Branch Coslett

  • Specialised structural descriptions for human body parts: Evidence from autotopagnosia

    Laurel J. Buxbaum;H. Branch Coslett

  • The Role of Semantic Memory in Object Use

    Laurel J. Buxbaum;Myrna F. Schwartz;Tania G. Carew

  • Naturalistic action impairment in closed head injury.

    Schwartz Mf;Montgomery Mw;Buxbaum Lj;Lee Ss

  • Critical brain regions for tool-related and imitative actions: a componential analysis

    Laurel J. Buxbaum;Allison D. Shapiro;H. Branch Coslett

  • The role of the dynamic body schema in praxis: evidence from primary progressive apraxia.

    Laurel J. Buxbaum;Tania Giovannetti;David Libon

  • Deficient internal models for planning hand–object interactions in apraxia

    Laurel J. Buxbaum;Scott H. Johnson-Frey;Megan Bartlett-Williams

  • Patterns of spontaneous recovery of neglect and associated disorders in acute right brain-damaged patients.

    A Farnè;L J Buxbaum;M Ferraro;F Frassinetti

  • Treatments of unilateral neglect: a review.

    Samuel R. Pierce;Laurel J. Buxbaum

  • Naturalistic action production following right hemisphere stroke

    Myrna F Schwartz;Laurel J Buxbaum;Michael W Montgomery;Eileen Fitzpatrick-DeSalme

Frequent Co-Authors

H. Branch Coslett
H. Branch Coslett University of Pennsylvania
Myrna F. Schwartz
Myrna F. Schwartz Temple University
John W. Krakauer
John W. Krakauer Johns Hopkins University
Tania Giovannetti
Tania Giovannetti Temple University
Katherine J. Kuchenbecker
Katherine J. Kuchenbecker Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems
Daniel Mirman
Daniel Mirman University of Edinburgh
John Whyte
John Whyte Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience
Sharon L. Thompson-Schill
Sharon L. Thompson-Schill University of Pennsylvania
Eleanor M. Saffran
Eleanor M. Saffran Temple University
David J. Libon
David J. Libon Rowan 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

Studying psychology in the USA can lead to numerous online degrees and diverse career paths. Many students pursue fields such as counseling, therapy, or speech-language pathology. However, each profession requires specific licensure and qualifications, which often vary by state.

For instance, aspiring professional counselors must meet particular state guidelines. Those interested in practicing in West Virginia should review the lpc licensure requirements in West Virginia. Individuals planning to work in Wisconsin need to be aware of the lpc licensure requirements in Wisconsin, while those looking towards the mountain states should understand the Wyoming lpc licensure requirements.

Another rewarding avenue is speech-language pathology. If you wish to support people with communication disorders, you can learn more about how to become a speech language pathologist in Alabama.

When planning your degree and career, it’s crucial to research state-specific licensure details for your field. Exploring these pathways with online degrees could open doors to in-demand and fulfilling roles in mental health and human services across the country.

Best Scientists Citing Laurel J. Buxbaum

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles