World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Neuroscience

D-Index
37
Citations
5010
World Ranking
8830
National Ranking
3734

Marian E. Berryhill 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 Marian E. Berryhill 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: 108 publications — 21st percentile

21% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Marian E. Berryhill 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 Marian E. Berryhill 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: 37 D-Index — 10th percentile

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

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

Overview

Marian E. Berryhill is affiliated with the University of Nevada Reno in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on neuroscience and medicine, with significant contributions in cognitive neuroscience, neurology, epidemiology, experimental and cognitive psychology, and clinical psychology.

The scientist has published extensively in topics related to transcranial magnetic stimulation studies, traumatic brain injury research, neural and behavioral psychology studies, neural dynamics and brain function, functional brain connectivity studies, obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders, and cognitive functions and memory.

Recent papers authored or co-authored by Marian E. Berryhill include:

  • Frontoparietal theta-gamma interactions track working memory enhancement with training and tDCS, 2020, NeuroImage
  • Impaired visual working memory and reduced connectivity in undergraduates with a history of mild traumatic brain injury, 2021, Scientific Reports
  • Individual predictors and electrophysiological signatures of working memory enhancement in aging, 2022, NeuroImage
  • Predicting Working Memory Training Benefits From Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Using Resting-State fMRI, 2020, Frontiers in Psychology
  • No tDCS augmented working memory training benefit in undergraduates rewarded with course credit, 2020, Brain Stimulation

Frequent co-authors include:

  • Jorja Shires
  • Jenna N. Pablo
  • Wendy Torrens
  • Sarah M. Haigh
  • Hector Arciniega

Marian's publications have appeared frequently in venues such as:

  • Biological Psychiatry
  • NeuroImage
  • Cognitive Neuropsychiatry
  • European Journal of Neuroscience
  • Trends in Neurosciences

Best Publications

  • Parietal lobe and episodic memory: bilateral damage causes impaired free recall of autobiographical memory.

    Marian E. Berryhill;Lisa Phuong;Lauren Picasso;Roberto Cabeza

  • tDCS selectively improves working memory in older adults with more education.

    Marian E. Berryhill;Kevin T. Jones

  • Dissociation Between Memory Accuracy and Memory Confidence Following Bilateral Parietal Lesions

    Jon S. Simons;Polly V. Peers;Yonatan S. Mazuz;Marian E. Berryhill;Marian E. Berryhill

  • Is the posterior parietal lobe involved in working memory retrieval? Evidence from patients with bilateral parietal lobe damage.

    Marian E. Berryhill;Ingrid R. Olson

  • Some surprising findings on the involvement of the parietal lobe in human memory

    Ingrid R. Olson;Marian Berryhill;Marian Berryhill

  • Longitudinal Neurostimulation in Older Adults Improves Working Memory

    Kevin T. Jones;Jaclyn A. Stephens;Mahtab Alam;Marom Bikson

  • The Gestalt principle of similarity benefits visual working memory

    Dwight J. Peterson;Marian E. Berryhill

  • A selective working memory impairment after transcranial direct current stimulation to the right parietal lobe.

    Marian E. Berryhill;Elaine B. Wencil;Elaine B. Wencil;H. Branch Coslett;H. Branch Coslett;Ingrid R. Olson

  • Hits and misses: leveraging tDCS to advance cognitive research

    Marian E Berryhill;Dwight J Peterson;Kevin T Jones;Jaclyn A. Msot Stephens

  • The right parietal lobe is critical for visual working memory.

    Marian E. Berryhill;Ingrid R. Olson

  • Parietal contributions to visual working memory depend on task difficulty

    Kevin T. Jones;Marian E. Berryhill

  • Older Adults Improve on Everyday Tasks after Working Memory Training and Neurostimulation

    Jaclyn A. Stephens;Marian E. Berryhill

  • Real-world objects are more memorable than photographs of objects

    Jacqueline C. Snow;Rafal M. Skiba;Taylor L. Coleman;Marian E. Berryhill

  • Shifting attention among working memory representations: testing cue type, awareness, and strategic control

    Marian E Berryhill;Lauren L Richmond;Cara S Shay;Ingrid R Olson

  • Insights from neuropsychology: pinpointing the role of the posterior parietal cortex in episodic and working memory

    Marian E. Berryhill

  • The strategy and motivational influences on the beneficial effect of neurostimulation: a tDCS and fNIRS study.

    Kevin T. Jones;Kevin T. Jones;Filiz Gözenman;Marian E. Berryhill

  • Similarities and differences between parietal and frontal patients in autobiographical and constructed experience tasks.

    Marian E. Berryhill;Marian E. Berryhill;Lauren Picasso;Robert Arnold;David Drowos

  • Impaired perception of mnemonic oldness, but not mnemonic newness, after parietal lobe damage

    Kylie H. Hower;John Wixted;Marian E. Berryhill;Ingrid R. Olson

  • Frontoparietal theta-gamma interactions track working memory enhancement with training and tDCS.

    Kevin T. Jones;Elizabeth L. Johnson;Marian E. Berryhill

  • Vibrotactile temporal summation: probability summation or neural integration?

    George A. Gescheider;Marian E. Berryhill;Ronald T. Verrillo;Stanley J. Bolanowski

  • At the intersection of attention and memory: the mechanistic role of the posterior parietal lobe in working memory.

    Marian E. Berryhill;Jason Chein;Ingrid R. Olson

Frequent Co-Authors

Ingrid R. Olson
Ingrid R. Olson Temple University
H. Branch Coslett
H. Branch Coslett University of Pennsylvania
Marom Bikson
Marom Bikson City College of New York
Geoffrey K. Aguirre
Geoffrey K. Aguirre University of Pennsylvania
Jon S. Simons
Jon S. Simons University of Cambridge
Anjan Chatterjee
Anjan Chatterjee University of Pennsylvania
Roberto Cabeza
Roberto Cabeza Duke University
Jason Chein
Jason Chein Temple University
John T. Wixted
John T. Wixted University of California, San Diego
Donel Martin
Donel Martin University of New South Wales

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 Neuroscience opens doors to diverse and rewarding career options. Many students consider pursuing a bachelor degree online in 2 years to accelerate their entry into the workforce and acquire essential skills quickly.

Choosing a program with strong career outcomes is important. According to recent data on the best bachelor degrees, fields like Neuroscience, Biomedical Engineering, and Computer Science often lead to robust starting salaries and opportunities for growth.

When selecting a major, it’s wise to look at the most lucrative college majors to ensure your investment in education translates to real-world earning potential. Neuroscience blends well with other high-demand areas such as psychology, data science, and medical technology.

For those seeking affordable options, there are several online colleges that provide flexibility and accept federal financial aid, making a science education accessible no matter your financial situation.

Best Scientists Citing Marian E. Berryhill

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles