World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
38
Citations
16763
World Ranking
8689
National Ranking
4620

Neuroscience

D-Index
38
Citations
16763
World Ranking
8416
National Ranking
3590

Philip A. Gable 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 Philip A. Gable 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: 90 publications — 12th percentile

12% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Philip A. Gable 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 Philip A. Gable 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: 38 D-Index — 12th percentile

12% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Philip A. Gable is affiliated with the University of Delaware in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on psychology and neuroscience, with a significant number of publications in related subfields such as cognitive neuroscience, experimental and cognitive psychology, applied psychology, clinical psychology, and developmental and educational psychology.

The scientist's recent research papers include:

  • How Does Emotion Influence Time Perception? A Review of Evidence Linking Emotional Motivation and Time Processing, 2022, Frontiers in Psychology
  • The role of valence, arousal, stimulus type, and temporal paradigm in the effect of emotion on time perception: A meta-analysis, 2022, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
  • Approach motivation and positive affect, 2021, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
  • Finding a balance: modulatory effects of positive affect on attentional and cognitive control, 2021, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
  • Test-retest reliability of a smartphone-based approach-avoidance task: Effects of retest period, stimulus type, and demographics, 2022, Behavior Research Methods

Frequent coauthors collaborating with Philip A. Gable include:

  • Ricardo A. Wilhelm
  • Hayley V. MacDonald
  • Micayla F. Lacey
  • Battogtokh Zagdsuren
  • Mark T. Richardson

Their work has been published regularly in several academic venues, notably:

  • International Journal of Psychophysiology
  • Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
  • Psychophysiology
  • Frontiers in Psychology
  • Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Philip A. Gable's research covers a range of main topics, including:

  • Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Psychological and Temporal Perspectives Research
  • Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

The scientist's work has contributed to understanding emotional motivation, approach motivation, affective processes, and time perception, especially in relation to cognitive control and behavioral responses.

Best Publications

  • Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

    Alexander A. Aarts;Joanna E. Anderson;Christopher J. Anderson;Peter R. Attridge;Peter R. Attridge

  • The role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in emotion-related phenomena: a review and update.

    Eddie Harmon-Jones;Philip A. Gable;Carly K. Peterson

  • Approach-Motivated Positive Affect Reduces Breadth of Attention

    Philip A. Gable;Eddie Harmon-Jones

  • The motivational dimensional model of affect: Implications for breadth of attention, memory, and cognitive categorisation

    Philip Gable;Eddie Harmon-Jones

  • The Blues Broaden, but the Nasty Narrows: Attentional Consequences of Negative Affects Low and High in Motivational Intensity

    Philip Gable;Eddie Harmon-Jones

  • On the role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in approach and withdrawal motivation: An updated review of the evidence

    Eddie Harmon‐Jones;Philip A. Gable

  • Does Negative Affect Always Narrow and Positive Affect Always Broaden the Mind? Considering the Influence of Motivational Intensity on Cognitive Scope

    Eddie Harmon-Jones;Philip A. Gable;Tom F. Price

  • Attitudes Toward Emotions

    Eddie Harmon-Jones;Cindy Harmon-Jones;David M. Amodio;Philip A. Gable

  • Neural Activity Underlying the Effect of Approach-Motivated Positive Affect on Narrowed Attention

    Eddie Harmon-Jones;Philip A. Gable

  • Time Flies When You’re Having Approach-Motivated Fun: Effects of Motivational Intensity on Time Perception

    Philip A. Gable;Bryan D. Poole

  • The Effect of Low Versus High Approach-Motivated Positive Affect on Memory for Peripherally Versus Centrally Presented Information

    Philip A. Gable;Eddie Harmon-Jones

  • Relative left frontal activation to appetitive stimuli: Considering the role of individual differences

    Philip Gable;Eddie Harmon-Jones

  • Late positive potential to appetitive stimuli and local attentional bias.

    Philip A. Gable;Eddie Harmon-Jones

  • Attentional consequences of pregoal and postgoal positive affects.

    Philip A. Gable;Eddie Harmon-Jones

  • The influence of affective states varying in motivational intensity on cognitive scope

    Eddie Harmon-Jones;Philip A. Gable;Tom F. Price

  • Anger perceptually and conceptually narrows cognitive scope.

    Philip A. Gable;Bryan D. Poole;Eddie Harmon-Jones

  • The Influence of Affective States on Cognitive Broadening⁄Narrowing: Considering the Importance of Motivational Intensity

    Eddie Harmon-Jones;Tom F. Price;Philip A. Gable

  • Leaning embodies desire: Evidence that leaning forward increases relative left frontal cortical activation to appetitive stimuli

    Eddie Harmon-Jones;Philip A. Gable;Tom F. Price

  • The effects of reward magnitude on reward processing: An averaged and single trial event-related potential study

    Caroline C. Meadows;Philip A. Gable;Keith R. Lohse;Matthew W. Miller

  • Asymmetrical frontal ERPs, emotion, and behavioral approach/inhibition sensitivity.

    Carly K. Peterson;Philip Gable;Eddie Harmon-Jones

  • Neural Activity Underlying the Effect of Approach-Motivated Positive Affect on Narrowed

    Attention Harmon-Jones;Philip A. Gable

  • BRIEF REPORTS Late Positive Potential to Appetitive Stimuli and Local Attentional Bias

    Philip A. Gable;Eddie Harmon-Jones

Frequent Co-Authors

Eddie Harmon-Jones
Eddie Harmon-Jones University of New South Wales
Cindy Harmon-Jones
Cindy Harmon-Jones Western Sydney University
Joshua A. Hicks
Joshua A. Hicks Texas A&M University
Andy T. Woods
Andy T. Woods University of Oxford
Gilles Pourtois
Gilles Pourtois Ghent University
Gesine Dreisbach
Gesine Dreisbach University of Regensburg
Brian A. Nosek
Brian A. Nosek Center for Open Science
Jeffrey Burgdorf
Jeffrey Burgdorf Northwestern University
Denny Borsboom
Denny Borsboom University of Amsterdam
Michael C. Frank
Michael C. Frank Stanford 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 opens doors to a wide range of career opportunities, especially for those interested in mental health, counseling, and behavioral sciences. Many students explore related degrees that provide versatile skills for supporting individuals, families, or communities.

One popular pathway is counseling, which requires recognized credentials. If you’re looking for flexible options, consider enrolling in cacrep-accredited programs to ensure both quality and broad professional recognition. There are also cheapest online masters in mental health counseling for those seeking affordable and accredited routes into the field.

Students interested in working with couples and families may consider a marriage and family therapy degree online. These programs prepare graduates for therapeutic roles in a variety of settings. For broader psychological careers, a cheapest online master's in psychology can serve as a solid foundation for diverse pathways in research, education, and clinical services.

Choosing the right degree depends on your professional interests and desired impact in the world of neuroscience and mental health.

Best Scientists Citing Philip A. Gable

Trending Scientists