World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Neuroscience

D-Index
41
Citations
6888
World Ranking
7849
National Ranking
3368

Thad A. Polk 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 Thad A. Polk 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: 100 publications — 17th percentile

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

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

Thad A. Polk 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 Thad A. Polk 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: 41 D-Index — 19th percentile

19% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Thad A. Polk is affiliated with the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor in the United States. Their research primarily spans the field of neuroscience, with a focus on cognitive neuroscience as the predominant subfield. Additional areas of study include neurology, cellular and molecular neuroscience, radiology, nuclear medicine and imaging, and experimental and cognitive psychology.

The scientist's work covers several main topics, notably:

  • Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Face Recognition and Perception
  • Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Thad A. Polk has published extensively in several key venues, with frequent contributions to:

  • NeuroImage
  • Clinical Neurophysiology
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • Cerebral Cortex
  • Imaging Neuroscience

Their recent papers illustrate a focus on brain imaging, neural function, and aging, including:

  • Person-specific and precision neuroimaging: Current methods and future directions, 2022, NeuroImage
  • Higher performers upregulate brain signal variability in response to more feature-rich visual input, 2020, NeuroImage
  • GABA levels in ventral visual cortex decline with age and are associated with neural distinctiveness, 2021, Neurobiology of Aging
  • Network segregation varies with neural distinctiveness in sensorimotor cortex, 2020, NeuroImage
  • Neural correlates of working memory training: Evidence for plasticity in older adults, 2020, NeuroImage

The scientist collaborates frequently with several researchers across their work, including:

  • Stephan F. Taylor
  • Molly Simmonite
  • Michael Vesia
  • Joseph A. Deluisi
  • Dalia Khammash

Best Publications

  • Aging reduces neural specialization in ventral visual cortex

    Denise C. Park;Thad A. Polk;Rob Park;Meredith Minear

  • A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study of Neural Dissociations between Brand and Person Judgments

    Carolyn Yoon;Angela H. Gutchess;Fred Feinberg;Thad A. Polk

  • Cerebral aging: integration of brain and behavioral models of cognitive function.

    Denise C. Park;Thad A. Polk;Joseph A. Mikels;Stephan F. Taylor

  • Neural Specialization for Letter Recognition

    Thad A. Polk;Matthew Stallcup;Geoffrey K. Aguirre;David C. Alsop

  • Deduction as verbal reasoning.

    Thad A. Polk;Allen Newell

  • Self-related neural response to tailored smoking-cessation messages predicts quitting.

    Hannah Faye Chua;S. Shaun Ho;Agnes J. Jasinska;Thad A. Polk

  • Age differences in neural distinctiveness revealed by multi-voxel pattern analysis

    Joshua Carp;Joonkoo Park;Thad A. Polk;Denise C. Park

  • The neural development and organization of letter recognition: Evidence from functional neuroimaging, computational modeling, and behavioral studies

    Thad A. Polk;Martha J. Farah

  • Functional MRI evidence for an abstract, not perceptual, word-form area.

    Thad A. Polk;Martha J. Farah

  • Neural Broadening or Neural Attenuation? Investigating Age-Related Dedifferentiation in the Face Network in a Large Lifespan Sample

    Joonkoo Park;Joshua Carp;Kristen M. Kennedy;Karen M. Rodrigue

  • Working Memory for Complex Scenes: Age Differences in Frontal and Hippocampal Activations

    Denise C. Park;Robert C. Welsh;Christy Marshuetz;Angela H. Gutchess

  • Age-related neural dedifferentiation in the motor system.

    Joshua Carp;Joonkoo Park;Andrew Hebrank;Denise C. Park

  • Neural Specificity Predicts Fluid Processing Ability in Older Adults

    Joonkoo Park;Joshua Carp;Andrew Hebrank;Denise C. Park

  • Sensorimotor network segregation declines with age and is linked to GABA and to sensorimotor performance.

    Kaitlin Cassady;Holly C. Gagnon;Poortata Lalwani;Molly Simmonite

  • Nature versus Nurture in Ventral Visual Cortex : A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study of Twins

    Thad A. Polk;Joonkoo Park;Mason R. Smith;Denise C. Park

  • Age differences in default mode activity on easy and difficult spatial judgment tasks

    Denise C. Park;Thad A. Polk;Andrew C. Hebrank;Lucas J. Jenkins

  • Attention Enhances the Neural Processing of Relevant Features and Suppresses the Processing of Irrelevant Features in Humans: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study of the Stroop Task

    Thad A. Polk;Robert M. Drake;John J. Jonides;Mason R. Smith

  • Evaluating Functional Localizers: The Case of the FFA

    Marc G. Berman;Joonkoo Park;Richard D. Gonzalez;Thad A. Polk

  • Both left and right posterior parietal activations contribute to compensatory processes in normal aging

    Chih Mao Huang;Thad A. Polk;Joshua O. Goh;Denise C. Park

  • Neural dissociation of number from letter recognition and its relationship to parietal numerical processing

    Joonkoo Park;Andrew Hebrank;Thad A. Polk;Denise C. Park

Frequent Co-Authors

Denise C. Park
Denise C. Park The University of Texas at Dallas
Rachael D. Seidler
Rachael D. Seidler University of Florida
Stephan F. Taylor
Stephan F. Taylor University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Scott Peltier
Scott Peltier University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Richard L. Lewis
Richard L. Lewis University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Ulman Lindenberger
Ulman Lindenberger Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Daniel H. Weissman
Daniel H. Weissman University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Martha J. Farah
Martha J. Farah University of Pennsylvania
Shu-Chen Li
Shu-Chen Li TU Dresden
Allen Newell
Allen Newell Carnegie Mellon 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:

Best Scientists Citing Thad A. Polk

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles