World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
40
Citations
7351
World Ranking
8198
National Ranking
484

Neuroscience

D-Index
40
Citations
7386
World Ranking
8042
National Ranking
234

Paul E. Dux 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 Paul E. Dux 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: 160 publications — 47th percentile

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

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

Paul E. Dux 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 Paul E. Dux 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: 40 D-Index — 17th percentile

17% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Paul E. Dux is affiliated with the University of Queensland in Australia and has a research focus primarily within the field of Neuroscience. Their work spans interdisciplinary subfields including Cognitive Neuroscience, Neurology, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Biomedical Engineering, and Education.

Their research contributions cover a broad set of topics:

  • Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Mind wandering and attention
  • Motor Control and Adaptation

Frequently publishing in venues such as bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), Neuropsychologia, Cerebral Cortex, Scientific Reports, and the Journal of Neuroscience, Dux has contributed to the dissemination of knowledge within neuroscience and related fields.

Recent prominent papers include:

  • "State-dependent effects of neural stimulation on brain function and cognition" (2022, Nature Reviews Neuroscience)
  • "The influence of tDCS intensity on decision-making training and transfer outcomes" (2020, Journal of Neurophysiology)
  • "Evidence against benefits from cognitive training and transcranial direct current stimulation in healthy older adults" (2020, Nature Human Behaviour)
  • "Knowledge generalization and the costs of multitasking" (2022, Nature Reviews Neuroscience)
  • "On the relationship between GABA+ and glutamate across the brain" (2022, NeuroImage)

Throughout their career, Paul E. Dux has collaborated frequently with several researchers, notably Hannah L. Filmer, Jason B. Mattingley, Shane E. Ehrhardt, Li-Ann Leow, and Yohan Wards. These coauthors illustrate an extensive network of professional partnerships within the neuroscience community.

Best Publications

  • The attentional blink: A review of data and theory

    Paul E. Dux;René Marois

  • Applications of transcranial direct current stimulation for understanding brain function

    Hannah L. Filmer;Paul E. Dux;Jason B. Mattingley

  • Isolation of a Central Bottleneck of Information Processing with Time-Resolved fMRI

    Paul E. Dux;Jason Ivanoff;Christopher L. Asplund;René Marois

  • The Neural Correlates of Third-Party Punishment

    Joshua W. Buckholtz;Christopher L. Asplund;Paul E. Dux;David H. Zald

  • Training Improves Multitasking Performance by Increasing the Speed of Information Processing in Human Prefrontal Cortex

    Paul E. Dux;Michael N. Tombu;Stephenie Harrison;Baxter P. Rogers

  • A Unified attentional bottleneck in the human brain

    Michael N. Tombu;Christopher L. Asplund;Paul E. Dux;Douglass Godwin

  • Cognitive Load Disrupts Implicit Theory-of-Mind Processing

    Dana Schneider;Rebecca Lam;Andrew P. Bayliss;Paul E. Dux

  • State-dependent effects of neural stimulation on brain function and cognition

    Unknown

  • A temporally sustained implicit theory of mind deficit in autism spectrum disorders

    Dana Schneider;Virginia P. Slaughter;Andrew P. Bayliss;Paul E. Dux

  • Eye movements reveal sustained implicit processing of others' mental states

    Dana Schneider;Andrew P. Bayliss;Stefanie I. Becker;Paul E. Dux

  • Computations underlying confidence in visual perception.

    Morgan L. Spence;Paul E. Dux;Derek H. Arnold

  • Current evidence for automatic Theory of Mind processing in adults

    Dana Schneider;Virginia P. Slaughter;Paul E. Dux

  • Improved multitasking following prefrontal tDCS

    Hannah L. Filmer;Jason B. Mattingley;Paul E. Dux

  • Implicit false-belief processing in the human brain

    Dana Schneider;Dana Schneider;Virginia P. Slaughter;Stefanie I. Becker;Paul E. Dux

  • Task instructions and implicit theory of mind

    Dana Schneider;Dana Schneider;Zoie E. Nott;Paul E. Dux

  • Distractor inhibition predicts individual differences in the attentional blink.

    Paul E. Dux;René Marois

  • Detecting Unattended Stimuli Depends on the Phase of Prestimulus Neural Oscillations.

    Anthony M. Harris;Paul E. Dux;Jason B. Mattingley

  • Modulating brain activity and behaviour with tDCS: Rumours of its death have been greatly exaggerated

    Hannah L. Filmer;Jason B. Mattingley;Paul E. Dux

  • What do we know about implicit false-belief tracking?

    Dana Schneider;Dana Schneider;Virginia P. Slaughter;Paul E. Dux

  • Disrupting Prefrontal Cortex Prevents Performance Gains from Sensory-Motor Training

    Hannah L. Filmer;Jason B. Mattingley;René Marois;Paul E. Dux

  • On the role of working memory in spatial contextual cueing.

    Susan L. Travis;Jason B. Mattingley;Paul E. Dux

  • Accounting for individual differences in the response to tDCS with baseline levels of neurochemical excitability.

    Hannah L. Filmer;Shane E. Ehrhardt;Saskia Bollmann;Jason B. Mattingley

  • Orientation-invariant object recognition: evidence from repetition blindness.

    Irina M. Harris;Paul E. Dux

Frequent Co-Authors

Jason B. Mattingley
Jason B. Mattingley University of Queensland
René Marois
René Marois Vanderbilt University
Ottmar V. Lipp
Ottmar V. Lipp Curtin University
Marta I. Garrido
Marta I. Garrido University of Melbourne
Virginia Slaughter
Virginia Slaughter University of Queensland
Roberto Dell'Acqua
Roberto Dell'Acqua University of Padua
Annemaree Carroll
Annemaree Carroll University of Queensland
Karen M. Arnell
Karen M. Arnell Brock University
David H. Zald
David H. Zald Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
John C. Gore
John C. Gore Vanderbilt University Medical Center

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 opens up diverse career options in mental health, therapy, research, and social services. For those interested in direct client support and therapy, there are online mft programs accredited to professional standards, allowing you to become a licensed marriage and family therapist while studying remotely.

Psychology is another popular pathway. If you’re looking for a cost-effective way to broaden your understanding or advance your career, consider an affordable online master's in psychology. For undergraduate study, there are also online psychology degree cheap options, making it possible to begin your academic journey in behavioral sciences without significant financial burden.

Those passionate about community impact may choose a master’s in social work. To maximize accessibility, there are masters in social work online programs designed to streamline admissions for qualified applicants. These pathways complement Neuroscience studies by expanding your expertise in human behavior, therapy, and client advocacy, leading to rewarding roles across healthcare, education, and social services.

Best Scientists Citing Paul E. Dux

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles