World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Engineering and Technology

D-Index
55
Citations
8613
World Ranking
3090
National Ranking
199

Robert P. Carlyon publication distribution in Engineering and Technology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Engineering and Technology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Robert P. Carlyon sits on this spectrum.

38–47 publications: 20 scientists 48–57 publications: 35 scientists 58–67 publications: 96 scientists 68–77 publications: 135 scientists 78–87 publications: 190 scientists 88–97 publications: 259 scientists 98–107 publications: 283 scientists 108–117 publications: 369 scientists 118–127 publications: 341 scientists 128–137 publications: 386 scientists 138–147 publications: 372 scientists 148–157 publications: 457 scientists 158–167 publications: 415 scientists 168–177 publications: 407 scientists 178–187 publications: 421 scientists 188–197 publications: 378 scientists 198–207 publications: 403 scientists 208–217 publications: 317 scientists 218–227 publications: 346 scientists 228–237 publications: 321 scientists 238–247 publications: 260 scientists 248–257 publications: 280 scientists 258–267 publications: 240 scientists 268–277 publications: 214 scientists 278–287 publications: 242 scientists 288–297 publications: 203 scientists 298–307 publications: 166 scientists 308–317 publications: 154 scientists 318–327 publications: 175 scientists 328–337 publications: 159 scientists 338–347 publications: 99 scientists 348–357 publications: 131 scientists 358–367 publications: 106 scientists 368–377 publications: 118 scientists 378–387 publications: 97 scientists 388–397 publications: 108 scientists 398–407 publications: 82 scientists 408–417 publications: 71 scientists 418–427 publications: 64 scientists 428–437 publications: 55 scientists 438–447 publications: 54 scientists 448–457 publications: 60 scientists 458–467 publications: 47 scientists 468–477 publications: 40 scientists 478–487 publications: 30 scientists 488–497 publications: 29 scientists 498–507 publications: 38 scientists 508–517 publications: 40 scientists 518–527 publications: 32 scientists 528–537 publications: 23 scientists 538–547 publications: 28 scientists 548–557 publications: 23 scientists 558–567 publications: 19 scientists 568–577 publications: 16 scientists 578–587 publications: 17 scientists 588–597 publications: 18 scientists 598–607 publications: 22 scientists 608–617 publications: 15 scientists 618–627 publications: 9 scientists 628–637 publications: 11 scientists 638–647 publications: 21 scientists 648–657 publications: 12 scientists 658–667 publications: 9 scientists 668–677 publications: 11 scientists 678–687 publications: 9 scientists 688–697 publications: 6 scientists 698–707 publications: 14 scientists 708–717 publications: 7 scientists 718–727 publications: 8 scientists 728–737 publications: 10 scientists 738–747 publications: 9 scientists 748–757 publications: 5 scientists 758–767 publications: 5 scientists 768–777 publications: 11 scientists 778–787 publications: 7 scientists 788–797 publications: 2 scientists 798–803 publications: 4 scientists 804+ publications: 100 scientists
38 publications 804+

This scientist: 269 publications — 69th percentile

69% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 804 publications or more.

Robert P. Carlyon D-index placement in Engineering and Technology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Engineering and Technology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Robert P. Carlyon sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 59 scientists 31 D-Index: 114 scientists 32 D-Index: 129 scientists 33 D-Index: 189 scientists 34 D-Index: 200 scientists 35 D-Index: 262 scientists 36 D-Index: 311 scientists 37 D-Index: 312 scientists 38 D-Index: 350 scientists 39 D-Index: 385 scientists 40 D-Index: 348 scientists 41 D-Index: 362 scientists 42 D-Index: 426 scientists 43 D-Index: 380 scientists 44 D-Index: 310 scientists 45 D-Index: 341 scientists 46 D-Index: 301 scientists 47 D-Index: 306 scientists 48 D-Index: 271 scientists 49 D-Index: 246 scientists 50 D-Index: 210 scientists 51 D-Index: 253 scientists 52 D-Index: 213 scientists 53 D-Index: 221 scientists 54 D-Index: 195 scientists 55 D-Index: 186 scientists 56 D-Index: 170 scientists 57 D-Index: 167 scientists 58 D-Index: 166 scientists 59 D-Index: 144 scientists 60 D-Index: 152 scientists 61 D-Index: 141 scientists 62 D-Index: 138 scientists 63 D-Index: 131 scientists 64 D-Index: 118 scientists 65 D-Index: 114 scientists 66 D-Index: 119 scientists 67 D-Index: 95 scientists 68 D-Index: 87 scientists 69 D-Index: 77 scientists 70 D-Index: 89 scientists 71 D-Index: 69 scientists 72 D-Index: 54 scientists 73 D-Index: 46 scientists 74 D-Index: 55 scientists 75 D-Index: 54 scientists 76 D-Index: 49 scientists 77 D-Index: 53 scientists 78 D-Index: 46 scientists 79 D-Index: 28 scientists 80 D-Index: 39 scientists 81 D-Index: 36 scientists 82 D-Index: 24 scientists 83 D-Index: 26 scientists 84 D-Index: 36 scientists 85 D-Index: 18 scientists 86 D-Index: 25 scientists 87 D-Index: 19 scientists 88 D-Index: 26 scientists 89 D-Index: 27 scientists 90 D-Index: 23 scientists 91 D-Index: 15 scientists 92 D-Index: 12 scientists 93 D-Index: 9 scientists 94 D-Index: 15 scientists 95 D-Index: 10 scientists 96 D-Index: 13 scientists 97 D-Index: 13 scientists 98 D-Index: 9 scientists 99 D-Index: 7 scientists 100 D-Index: 7 scientists 101 D-Index: 8 scientists 102 D-Index: 7 scientists 103 D-Index: 7 scientists 104 D-Index: 9 scientists 105 D-Index: 6 scientists 106 D-Index: 9 scientists 107+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 107+

This scientist: 55 D-Index — 70th percentile

70% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 107 D-Index or more.

Overview

Robert P. Carlyon is affiliated with the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, where their research primarily focuses on neuroscience with a particular emphasis on auditory science. Their work spans multiple specialized subfields, including cognitive neuroscience, sensory systems, speech and hearing, signal processing, and cellular and molecular neuroscience.

The main topics of their research include hearing loss and rehabilitation, hearing, cochlea, tinnitus, genetics, noise effects and management, neuroscience and music perception, speech and audio processing, neural dynamics and brain function, and neuroscience and neural engineering.

Frequent publication venues for Carlyon's work include the Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, where they have published extensively. Other notable venues include The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Ear and Hearing, Scientific Reports, and Hearing Research.

Some of the recent papers authored or coauthored by Carlyon include:

  • Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update, 2021, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
  • Detection of Extracochlear Electrodes in Cochlear Implants with Electric Field Imaging/Transimpedance Measurements:, 2020, Ear and Hearing
  • The Panoramic ECAP Method: Estimating Patient-Specific Patterns of Current Spread and Neural Health in Cochlear Implant Users, 2021, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
  • Evaluating and Comparing Behavioural and Electrophysiological Estimates of Neural Health in Cochlear Implant Users, 2020, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
  • The effect of increased channel interaction on speech perception with cochlear implants, 2021, Scientific Reports

Carlyon has collaborated frequently with a number of researchers, including François Guérit, Tobias Goehring, John M. Deeks, Manohar Bance, and Charlotte Garcia. These collaborations highlight ongoing interdisciplinary work within the auditory neuroscience and cochlear implant research communities.

Best Publications

  • Effects of Location, Frequency Region, and Time Course of Selective Attention on Auditory Scene Analysis

    Rhodri Cusack;John Deeks;Genevieve Aikman;Robert P Carlyon

  • The role of resolved and unresolved harmonics in pitch perception and frequency modulation discrimination

    Trevor M. Shackleton;Robert P. Carlyon

  • Swinging at a Cocktail Party: Voice Familiarity Aids Speech Perception in the Presence of a Competing Voice

    Ingrid S. Johnsrude;Allison Mackey;Hélène Hakyemez;Elizabeth Alexander

  • Comparing the fundamental frequencies of resolved and unresolved harmonics: Evidence for two pitch mechanisms?

    Robert P. Carlyon;Trevor M. Shackleton

  • Intensity discrimination: A severe departure from Weber’s law

    Robert P. Carlyon;Brian C. J. Moore

  • Syntax as a reflex: neurophysiological evidence for early automaticity of grammatical processing.

    Friedemann Pulvermüller;Yury Shtyrov;Anna S. Hasting;Robert P. Carlyon

  • Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation

    Ying-Yee Kong;Robert P. Carlyon

  • Pitch Comparisons between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Normal-hearing Contralateral Ear

    Robert P. Carlyon;Olivier Macherey;Johan H. M. Frijns;Patrick R. Axon

  • Asymmetric Pulses in Cochlear Implants: Effects of Pulse Shape, Polarity, and Rate

    Olivier Macherey;Astrid van Wieringen;Robert P. Carlyon;John M. Deeks

  • Chapter 11 – Auditory Grouping

    Unknown

  • Higher Sensitivity of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers to Positive Electrical Currents

    Olivier Macherey;Olivier Macherey;Robert P. Carlyon;Astrid van Wieringen;John M. Deeks

  • Continuous versus gated pedestals and the ‘‘severe departure’’ from Weber’s law

    Robert P. Carlyon;Brian C. J. Moore

  • Limits of temporal pitch in cochlear implants.

    Ying-Yee Kong;John M. Deeks;Patrick R. Axon;Robert P. Carlyon

  • Place and temporal cues in pitch perception: are they truly independent?

    Colette M. McKay;Hugh J. McDermott;Robert P. Carlyon

  • Temporal pitch mechanisms in acoustic and electric hearing.

    Robert P. Carlyon;Astrid van Wieringen;Christopher J. Long;John M. Deeks

  • Extending the limits of place and temporal pitch perception in cochlear implant users.

    Olivier Macherey;John M. Deeks;Robert P. Carlyon

  • Generalization of perceptual learning of vocoded speech.

    Alexis G. Hervais-Adelman;Matthew H. Davis;Ingrid S. Johnsrude;Karen J. Taylor

  • Excitation produced by Schroeder-phase complexes: Evidence for fast-acting compression in the auditory system

    Robert P. Carlyon;A. Jaysurya Datta

  • Illusory vowels resulting from perceptual continuity: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study

    Antje Heinrich;Robert P. Carlyon;Matthew H. Davis;Ingrid S. Johnsrude

  • Encoding the fundamental frequency of a complex tone in the presence of a spectrally overlapping masker.

    Robert P. Carlyon

  • Temporal pitch perception at high rates in cochlear implants

    Ying-Yee Kong;Robert P. Carlyon

  • Dual temporal pitch percepts from acoustic and electric amplitude-modulated pulse trains

    Colette M. McKay;Robert P. Carlyon

  • The frequency following response (FFR) may reflect pitch-bearing information but is not a direct representation of pitch

    Hedwig E. Gockel;Robert P. Carlyon;Anahita Mehta;Christopher J. Plack

  • Limitations on rate discrimination

    Robert P. Carlyon;John M. Deeks

Frequent Co-Authors

Christopher J. Plack
Christopher J. Plack Lancaster University
Jan Wouters
Jan Wouters KU Leuven
Brian C. J. Moore
Brian C. J. Moore University of Cambridge
Rhodri Cusack
Rhodri Cusack Trinity College Dublin
Matthew H. Davis
Matthew H. Davis University of Cambridge
Ingrid S. Johnsrude
Ingrid S. Johnsrude University of Western Ontario
Colette M. McKay
Colette M. McKay Bionics Institute
Ian H. Robertson
Ian H. Robertson Trinity College Dublin
Lionel Collet
Lionel Collet Claude Bernard University Lyon 1

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

Exploring engineering and technology in the USA opens doors to a variety of online degree options and career pathways. Many universities now offer 6 week courses in technical and related fields, allowing students to accelerate their progress and balance their studies alongside work or family commitments.

For those looking to broaden their expertise, consider fast-paced programs beyond pure engineering. Areas such as finance and business play a crucial role in technology-driven industries. A fast track finance degree or an accelerated mba programs usa can help engineering professionals gain leadership, analytical, and strategic skills highly valued by employers.

Additionally, a solid understanding of law can be vital for tech innovators, especially in fields like intellectual property or regulatory compliance. Pursuing an accelerated paralegal program online can enhance your legal literacy, opening new career opportunities within technology companies.

Whichever path you choose, these online degrees offer flexible, industry-relevant routes to advance your skills and career in the evolving landscape of engineering and technology.

Best Scientists Citing Robert P. Carlyon

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles