World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
45
Citations
8566
World Ranking
7185
National Ranking
117

Mark A. Neerincx 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 Mark A. Neerincx 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: 337 publications — 80th percentile

80% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Mark A. Neerincx 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 Mark A. Neerincx 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: 45 D-Index — 51st percentile

51% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Mark A. Neerincx is affiliated with Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. Their research spans multiple fields including Psychology and Computer Science, with notable contributions in subfields such as Artificial Intelligence, Social Psychology, Applied Psychology, Safety Research, and Control and Systems Engineering.

Their work addresses several main topics, including:

  • Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Robot Interaction and Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)
  • Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • AI in Service Interactions
  • Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Behavioral Health and Interventions

Mark A. Neerincx has published extensively in various venues. Frequent publication venues include:

  • IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
  • Frontiers in Robotics and AI
  • International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations

Notable recent papers authored or co-authored by them cover topics related to explainable AI, hybrid intelligence, and health technology, such as:

  • "Evaluating XAI: A comparison of rule-based and example-based explanations," 2020, Artificial Intelligence
  • "A Research Agenda for Hybrid Intelligence: Augmenting Human Intellect With Collaborative, Adaptive, Responsible, and Explainable Artificial Intelligence," 2020, Computer
  • "Hybrid collective intelligence in a human-AI society," 2020, AI & Society
  • "Human-centered XAI: Developing design patterns for explanations of clinical decision support systems," 2021, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
  • "Music, Computing, and Health: A Roadmap for the Current and Future Roles of Music Technology for Health Care and Well-Being," 2021, Music & Science

Throughout their career, Mark A. Neerincx has collaborated frequently with several co-authors, including:

  • Matthew L. Bolton
  • Ricardo Chavarriaga
  • Luke
  • Michael C. Dorneich
  • Giancarlo Fortino

Best Publications

  • Towards a Theory of Longitudinal Trust Calibration in Human–Robot Teams

    Ewart J. de Visser;Marieke M. M. Peeters;Malte F. Jung;Spencer Kohn

  • Evaluating XAI: A comparison of rule-based and example-based explanations

    Jasper van der Waa;Elisabeth Nieuwburg;Anita H. M. Cremers;Mark A. Neerincx

  • A Research Agenda for Hybrid Intelligence: Augmenting Human Intellect With Collaborative, Adaptive, Responsible, and Explainable Artificial Intelligence

    Zeynep Akata;Dan Balliet;Maarten de Rijke;Frank Dignum

  • Multimodal child-robot interaction: building social bonds

    Tony Belpaeme;Paul Baxter;Robin Read;Rachel Wood

  • Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: Design and evaluation of social behaviors

    Rosemarijn Looije;Mark A. Neerincx;Fokie Cnossen

  • The SWELL Knowledge Work Dataset for Stress and User Modeling Research

    Saskia Koldijk;Maya Sappelli;Suzan Verberne;Mark A. Neerincx

  • Multimodal Child-Robot Interaction: Building Social Bonds

    Unknown

  • Child-Robot Interaction: Perspectives and Challenges

    Tony Belpaeme;Paul Baxter;Joachim Greeff;James Kennedy

  • Hybrid collective intelligence in a human–AI society

    Marieke M. M. Peeters;Jurriaan van Diggelen;Karel van den Bosch;Adelbert W. Bronkhorst

  • Detecting Work Stress in Offices by Combining Unobtrusive Sensors

    Saskia Koldijk;Mark A. Neerincx;Wessel Kraaij

  • Human-centered XAI : Developing design patterns for explanations of clinical decision support systems

    Tjeerd A.J. Schoonderwoerd;Wiard Jorritsma;Mark A. Neerincx;Karel van den Bosch

  • Adaptive emotional expression in robot-child interaction

    Myrthe Tielman;Mark Neerincx;John-Jules Meyer;Rosemarijn Looije

  • Controlling social stress in virtual reality environments

    Dwi Hartanto;Isabel L. Kampmann;Nexhmedin Morina;Paul G. M. Emmelkamp

  • An online lifestyle diary with a persuasive computer assistant providing feedback on self-management

    Olivier A. Blanson Henkemans;Paul J. M. van der Boog;Jasper Lindenberg;Charles A. P. G. van der Mast

  • Experience in system design for human-robot teaming in urban search & rescue

    G.J.M. Kruijff;M. Janíček;S. Keshavdas;B. Larochelle

  • Usability trade-offs for adaptive user interfaces: ease of use and learnability

    Tim F. Paymans;Jasper Lindenberg;Mark Neerincx

  • Motivating children to learn arithmetic with an adaptive robot game

    Joris B. Janssen;Chrissy C. van der Wal;Mark A. Neerincx;Rosemarijn Looije

  • Towards long-term social child-robot interaction: using multi-activity switching to engage young users

    Alexandre Coninx;Paul Baxter;Elettra Oleari;Sara Bellini

  • Experience in System Design for Human-robot Teaming in Urban Search and Rescue

    Geert Jan M. Kruijff;Miroslav Janicek;Shanker Keshavdas;Benoit Larochelle

  • A Therapy System for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Using a Virtual Agent and Virtual Storytelling to Reconstruct Traumatic Memories

    Myrthe L. Tielman;Mark A. Neerincx;Rafael Bidarra;Ben Kybartas

  • Using Perceptual and Cognitive Explanations for Enhanced Human-Agent Team Performance

    Mark A. Neerincx;Mark A. Neerincx;Jasper van der Waa;Frank Kaptein;Jurriaan van Diggelen

  • Contrastive Explanations for Reinforcement Learning in terms of Expected Consequences

    Jasper van der Waa;Jurriaan van Diggelen;Karel van den Bosch;Mark A. Neerincx

  • Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication

    R. Looije;Fokie Cnossen;M Neerincx

Frequent Co-Authors

Koen V. Hindriks
Koen V. Hindriks Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Nexhmedin Morina
Nexhmedin Morina University of Münster
Wessel Kraaij
Wessel Kraaij Leiden University
Catholijn M. Jonker
Catholijn M. Jonker Delft University of Technology
John-Jules Ch. Meyer
John-Jules Ch. Meyer Utrecht University
Marcel G. M. Olde Rikkert
Marcel G. M. Olde Rikkert Radboud University
Yiannis Demiris
Yiannis Demiris Imperial College London
Tony Belpaeme
Tony Belpaeme Ghent University
Jaap Lancee
Jaap Lancee University of Amsterdam
Emiel Krahmer
Emiel Krahmer Tilburg 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

Pursuing Computer Science in the USA offers many flexible and affordable options outside of traditional on-campus degrees. Many students look for cheap online degrees fast to save both time and money while advancing their education. These programs often offer accelerated courses, transfer-friendly credits, and lower tuition costs.

Applicants with a less competitive academic record may worry about meeting strict grade requirements. Fortunately, there are online colleges that accept low gpa, making it possible for a wider range of students to enter the field.

Once you earn your degree, the career paths extend well beyond software development. Graduates can explore industries like cybersecurity, data analysis, and even work in sectors that value technical expertise, similar to the diverse opportunities discussed in what jobs can you get with an environmental science degree.

For those eager to kick-start their tech careers, pursuing an accelerated computer science degree online can be an ideal route. These programs offer a fast track to graduation and entry into the job market, making them perfect for motivated learners.

Best Scientists Citing Mark A. Neerincx

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles