World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Natalie A. Phillips

Natalie A. Phillips

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Psychology 48 5770 5364 395 370 140 37145
Neuroscience 49 5847 5377 341 311 151 37307

Natalie A. Phillips publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Natalie A. Phillips between 1990 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Natalie A. Phillips published across 36 years, from 1990 to 2025, averaging 5.6 papers a year. Output peaked at 22 publications in 2021. 27 of the 201 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15 20
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1990 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 22. Peak 22 publications in 2021. 1990: 1 publication 1991: 0 publications 1992: 1 publication 1993: 1 publication 1994: 1 publication 1995: 2 publications 1996: 1 publication 1997: 2 publications 1998: 0 publications 1999: 0 publications 2000: 1 publication 2001: 0 publications 2002: 1 publication 2003: 1 publication 2004: 8 publications 2005: 4 publications 2006: 6 publications 2007: 4 publications 2008: 7 publications 2009: 5 publications 2010: 7 publications 2011: 5 publications 2012: 6 publications 2013: 5 publications 2014: 4 publications 2015: 3 publications 2016: 10 publications 2017: 5 publications 2018: 7 publications 2019: 15 publications 2020: 16 publications 2021: 22 publications 2022: 8 publications 2023: 15 publications 2024: 13 publications 2025: 14 publications
1990 2025

201 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Natalie A. Phillips: publications per year, 1990 to 2025
Year Publications
1990 1
1991 0
1992 1
1993 1
1994 1
1995 2
1996 1
1997 2
1998 0
1999 0
2000 1
2001 0
2002 1
2003 1
2004 8
2005 4
2006 6
2007 4
2008 7
2009 5
2010 7
2011 5
2012 6
2013 5
2014 4
2015 3
2016 10
2017 5
2018 7
2019 15
2020 16
2021 22
2022 8
2023 15
2024 13
2025 14
Total 201
Download as CSV

Natalie A. Phillips 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 Natalie A. Phillips 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, 131–140 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: 140 publications — 44th percentile

44% 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
121–130 670
131–140 644 140
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

Natalie A. Phillips 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 Natalie A. Phillips 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, 48–49 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: 48 D-Index — 49th percentile

49% 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 48
50–51 445
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

Natalie A. Phillips is affiliated with Concordia University in Canada. Their research contributions integrate multiple disciplines within neuroscience and medicine, reflecting a focus on cognitive and sensory processes, as well as health outcomes in aging populations.

Their recent published works include:

  • Ageism and COVID-19: what does our society's response say about us? (2020, Age and Ageing)
  • Bilingual language experience as a multidimensional spectrum: Associations with objective and subjective language proficiency (2020, Applied Psycholinguistics)
  • CCCDTD5 recommendations on early non cognitive markers of dementia: A Canadian consensus (2020, Alzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions)
  • The Prevalence of Hearing, Vision, and Dual Sensory Loss in Older Canadians: An Analysis of Data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (2020, Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement)
  • Menopause and cognitive complaints: are ovarian hormones linked with subjective cognitive decline? (2021, Climacteric)

Frequent co-authors in their research include:

  • Walter Wittich
  • M. Kathleen Pichora-Fuller
  • Paul Mick
  • Shari R. Baum
  • Melissa K. Andrew

Their work is often published in venues such as:

  • Alzheimer s & Dementia
  • Journal of Alzheimer s Disease
  • Ear and Hearing
  • Frontiers in Psychology
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

The main fields of study explored by Natalie A. Phillips are:

  • Neuroscience
  • Medicine

Within these fields, the following subfields are prominent in their research output:

  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Sensory Systems
  • Speech and Hearing

The primary research topics they address include:

  • Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Noise Effects and Management
  • Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Multisensory perception and integration
  • Health disparities and outcomes

Best Publications

  • The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A Brief Screening Tool For Mild Cognitive Impairment

    Ziad S. Nasreddine;Natalie A. Phillips;Valérie Bédirian;Simon Charbonneau

  • Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL)

    M. Kathleen Pichora-Fuller;Sophia E. Kramer;Mark A. Eckert;Brent Edwards

  • Language performance in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment: A comparative review

    Vanessa Taler;Natalie A. Phillips

  • Event-related potential components reflect phonological and semantic processing of the terminal word of spoken sentences

    John F. Connolly;Natalie A. Phillips

  • Intolerance of Uncertainty and Information Processing: Evidence of Biased Recall and Interpretations

    Michel J. Dugas;Mary Hedayati;Angie Karavidas;Kristin Buhr

  • Multilingualism (but not always bilingualism) delays the onset of Alzheimer disease: evidence from a bilingual community.

    Howard Chertkow;Victor Whitehead;Natalie Phillips;Christina Wolfson

  • Ageism and COVID-19: what does our society’s response say about us?

    Unknown

  • Who Comes First? The Role of the Prefrontal and Parietal Cortex in Cognitive Control

    Marcel Brass;Markus Ullsperger;Thomas R. Knoesche;D. Yves Von Cramon

  • Dual-tasking and gait in people with Mild Cognitive Impairment. The effect of working memory

    Manuel Montero-Odasso;Manuel Montero-Odasso;Manuel Montero-Odasso;Howard Bergman;Howard Bergman;Natalie A Phillips;Chek H Wong;Chek H Wong

  • Montreal Cognitive Assessment Memory Index Score (MoCA-MIS) as a predictor of conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease.

    Parunyou Julayanont;Mélanie Brousseau;Howard Chertkow;Howard Chertkow;Natalie Phillips

  • Sensitivity and Specificity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Modified for Individuals Who Are Visually Impaired

    Walter Wittich;Natalie Phillips;Ziad S. Nasreddine;Howard Chertkow

  • Conflict monitoring and resolution: Are two languages better than one? Evidence from reaction time and event-related brain potentials.

    Shanna Kousaie;Natalie A. Phillips

  • Event-related potential sensitivity to acoustic and semantic properties of terminal words in sentences.

    J.F. Connolly;N.A. Phillips;S.H. Stewart;W.G. Brake

  • Ageing and bilingualism: Absence of a “bilingual advantage” in Stroop interference in a nonimmigrant sample

    Shanna Kousaie;Natalie A. Phillips

  • Advance preparation in task-switching: converging evidence from behavioral, brain activation, and model-based approaches

    Frini Karayanidis;Sharna Jamadar;Hannes Ruge;Natalie A Phillips

  • Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): Concept and Clinical Review

    Parunyou Julayanont;Natalie Phillips;Howard Chertkow;Ziad S. Nasreddine;Ziad S. Nasreddine

  • The effects of processing requirements on neurophysiological responses to spoken sentences.

    J.F. Connolly;S.H. Stewart;N.A. Phillips

  • Combined impairments in vision, hearing and cognition are associated with greater levels of functional and communication difficulties than cognitive impairment alone: Analysis of interRAI data for home care and long-term care recipients in Ontario.

    Dawn M. Guthrie;Jacob G. S. Davidson;Nicole Williams;Jennifer Campos;Jennifer Campos

  • The effects of phonological and semantic features of sentence-ending words on visual event-related brain potentials.

    John F. Connolly;Natalie A. Phillips;Kelly A.K. Forbes

  • Associations between sensory loss and social networks, participation, support, and loneliness: Analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

    Mick P;Parfyonov M;Wittich W;Phillips N

  • Normative data for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a population-based sampleAuthor Response

    Ziad S. Nasreddine;Heidi Rossetti;Natalie Phillips;Howard Chertkow

Frequent Co-Authors

Howard Chertkow
Howard Chertkow Rotman Research Institute
M. Kathleen Pichora-Fuller
M. Kathleen Pichora-Fuller University of Toronto
Shari R. Baum
Shari R. Baum McGill University
Howard Bergman
Howard Bergman McGill University
Sylvie Belleville
Sylvie Belleville University of Montreal
Howard Feldman
Howard Feldman University of California, San Diego
David B. Hogan
David B. Hogan University of Calgary
Debra Titone
Debra Titone McGill University
Vincent L. Gracco
Vincent L. Gracco McGill University
Kenneth Rockwood
Kenneth Rockwood Dalhousie 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 neuroscience in the USA can open doors to diverse career opportunities across mental health, research, and clinical practice. Many professionals choose to complement or expand their neuroscience background with other related online degrees tailored to specific interests and career goals.

For those interested in understanding human behavior and cognition, a bachelors in psychology online is a popular and accessible choice. Graduates can work in entry-level roles or go on to advanced studies.

If your goal is to support individuals and families through therapeutic practice, exploring a mft program (Marriage and Family Therapy) can prepare you for licensure and counseling careers.

Social work offers another impactful pathway. The msw degree (Master of Social Work) enables graduates to provide clinical services, advocacy, and community support.

For those aiming to become licensed psychologists, pursuing a psyd online (Doctor of Psychology) program provides the advanced training necessary for clinical and counseling psychology careers.

Best Scientists Citing Natalie A. Phillips

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles