World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
62
Citations
28394
World Ranking
3172
National Ranking
1800

Nina F. Dronkers 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 Nina F. Dronkers sits on this spectrum.

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 publications 705+

This scientist: 147 publications — 47th percentile

47% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Nina F. Dronkers 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 Nina F. Dronkers sits on this spectrum.

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 D-Index 144+

This scientist: 62 D-Index — 72nd percentile

72% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Nina F. Dronkers is affiliated with the University of California, Davis in the United States. Their research spans multiple disciplines, primarily focusing on neuroscience, medicine, and psychology. Within these broad fields, their work concentrates on cognitive neuroscience, developmental and educational psychology, psychiatry and mental health, radiology, nuclear medicine and imaging, and social psychology.

The scientist's research addresses several main topics, including:

  • Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Reading and Literacy Development
  • Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Action Observation and Synchronization

They have contributed extensively to scientific literature, with notable recent papers including:

  • "Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions" (2021) published in Neuron
  • "Functional Contributions of the Arcuate Fasciculus to Language Processing" (2021) published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
  • "An empirical comparison of univariate versus multivariate methods for the analysis of brain-behavior mapping" (2020) published in Human Brain Mapping
  • "Dissociating nouns and verbs in temporal and perisylvian networks: Evidence from neurodegenerative diseases" (2021) published in Cortex
  • "Auditory Comprehension Deficits in Post-stroke Aphasia: Neurologic and Demographic Correlates of Outcome and Recovery" (2021) published in Frontiers in Neurology

The scientist frequently publishes in several venues, including:

  • Frontiers in Neurology
  • NeuroImage Clinical
  • Brain Communications
  • Frontiers in Language Sciences
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Collaboration is a significant aspect of their work, with frequent co-authors being:

  • Maria V. Ivanova
  • Juliana V. Baldo
  • Timothy J. Herron
  • Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini
  • Zachary Miller

The scope of Nina F. Dronkers's research integrates advanced neuroimaging methods, language processing, and clinical neurology to investigate brain-behavior relationships. The interdisciplinary nature of their work intersects cognitive processes with neurological conditions, supporting research in brain connectivity, language comprehension, and disorders related to stroke and neurodegeneration.

Best Publications

  • Classification of primary progressive aphasia and its variants

    M L Gorno-Tempini;M L Gorno-Tempini;A E Hillis;S Weintraub;A Kertesz

  • Cognition and Anatomy in Three Variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia

    Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini;Nina F. Dronkers;Katherine P. Rankin;Jennifer M. Ogar

  • A new brain region for coordinating speech articulation

    Nina F. Dronkers

  • Voxel-based lesion–symptom mapping

    Elizabeth Bates;Stephen M. Wilson;Ayse Pinar Saygin;Frederic Dick

  • Lesion analysis of the brain areas involved in language comprehension.

    Nina F. Dronkers;David P. Wilkins;Robert D. Van Valin Jr.;Brenda B. Redfern

  • The Neural Architecture of the Language Comprehension Network: Converging Evidence from Lesion and Connectivity Analyses

    And Umit Turken;Nina F. Dronkers;Nina F. Dronkers

  • The logopenic/phonological variant of primary progressive aphasia

    Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini;Simona Maria Brambati;Valeria Ginex;Jennifer M. Ogar;Jennifer M. Ogar;Jennifer M. Ogar

  • Role of frontal versus temporal cortex in verbal fluency as revealed by voxel-based lesion symptom mapping.

    Juliana V. Baldo;Sophie Schwartz;David Wilkins;Nina F. Dronkers

  • Paul Broca's historic cases: high resolution MR imaging of the brains of Leborgne and Lelong

    Nina Dronkers;O. Plaisant;M. T. Iba-Zizen;E. A. Cabanis

  • Behavioural analysis of an inherited speech and language disorder: comparison with acquired aphasia

    Kate E. Watkins;Nina Dronkers;F. Vargha-Khadem

  • Connected speech production in three variants of primary progressive aphasia.

    Stephen M. Wilson;Maya L. Henry;Max Besbris;Jennifer M. Ogar

  • Cognitive processing speed and the structure of white matter pathways: Convergent evidence from normal variation and lesion studies

    And U. Turken;Susan L. Whitfield-Gabrieli;Susan L. Whitfield-Gabrieli;Roland Bammer;Juliana V. Baldo

  • Aβ amyloid and glucose metabolism in three variants of primary progressive aphasia

    Gil D Rabinovici;William J Jagust;Ansgar J Furst;Ansgar J Furst;Jennifer M Ogar;Jennifer M Ogar

  • Redefining the role of Broca’s area in speech

    Adeen Flinker;Anna Korzeniewska;Avgusta Y. Shestyuk;Piotr J. Franaszczuk;Piotr J. Franaszczuk

  • Conduction aphasia, sensory-motor integration, and phonological short-term memory - An aggregate analysis of lesion and fMRI data

    Bradley R. Buchsbaum;Juliana Baldo;Kayoko Okada;Karen F. Berman

  • Language deficits, localization, and grammar: Evidence for a distributive model of language breakdown in aphasic patients and neurologically intact individuals.

    Frederic Dick;Elizabeth Bates;Beverly Wulfeck;Jennifer Aydelott Utman;Jennifer Aydelott Utman

  • Retrieval from semantic memory in Alzheimer-type dementia

    Beth A. Ober;Nina F. Dronkers;Elisabeth Koss;Dean C. Delis

  • White matter damage in primary progressive aphasias: a diffusion tensor tractography study

    Sebastiano Galantucci;Maria Carmela Tartaglia;Stephen M. Wilson;Stephen M. Wilson;Maya L. Henry

  • A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Use of Amphetamine in the Treatment of Aphasia

    Delaina Walker-Batson;Delaina Walker-Batson;Sandra Curtis;Rajeshwari Natarajan;Jean Ford

  • Grey and white matter correlates of picture naming: Evidence from a voxel-based lesion analysis of the Boston Naming Test

    Juliana V. Baldo;Analía Arévalo;Janet P. Patterson;Nina F. Dronkers;Nina F. Dronkers

Frequent Co-Authors

Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini
Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini University of California, San Francisco
Juliana V. Baldo
Juliana V. Baldo VA Northern California Health Care System
Jennifer M. Ogar
Jennifer M. Ogar University of California, San Francisco
Bruce L. Miller
Bruce L. Miller University of California, San Francisco
Robert T. Knight
Robert T. Knight University of California, Berkeley
Stephen M. Wilson
Stephen M. Wilson Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Elizabeth Bates
Elizabeth Bates University of California, San Diego
Maya L. Henry
Maya L. Henry The University of Texas at Austin
Frederic Dick
Frederic Dick Birkbeck, University of London
Simona Maria Brambati
Simona Maria Brambati University of Montreal

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 opens diverse pathways, especially in school counseling and social work. Each state has unique degree and licensing requirements for these roles, so aspiring professionals should select their education carefully.

For example, those interested in counseling young people should review the requirements to be a school counselor in Wisconsin to understand that a master's degree and specialized certification are often necessary. Similarly, becoming a school counselor in Wyoming also demands a graduate degree and state-approved field experience.

For those drawn to social work, it's important to recognize that academic and licensure prerequisites differ across states. In the South, Alabama education requirements for social workers typically require a Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) or higher. Meanwhile, you can discover the degree needed to be a social worker in Alaska, which also emphasizes accredited programs and state-specific licensing exams.

Exploring these requirements will help you choose the right online degree and map out your ideal career in psychology or social services.

Best Scientists Citing Nina F. Dronkers

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles