Philip DeCamp

607 citations
8 papers · 412 · h-index 8

Impact in

Papers in

Philip DeCamp

8 papers receiving 378 citations

Peers

Philip DeCamp
Comparison fields: 5 of 66
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology 200
  • Human-Computer Interaction 35
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 62
  • Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 97
  • Pharmacy 16
Replace Brandon Roy with:
Brandon Roy United States
Rony Kubat United States
Anna-Lisa Vollmer Germany
Clément Moulin-Frier France
Isabella Poggi Italy
Hannes Pirker Austria
Vincent Pagel Belgium
Sascha Fagel Germany
Kate Forbes-Riley United States
Reima Karhila Finland
Philip DeCamp relative to Brandon Roy United States Brandon Roy's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×
Brandon Roy · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Philip DeCamp

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Philip DeCamp's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Philip DeCamp with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Philip DeCamp more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Philip DeCamp

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Philip DeCamp. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Philip DeCamp. The network helps show where Philip DeCamp may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 16 scholars most cited alongside Philip DeCamp, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Philip DeCamp Line = papers co-authored together Philip DeCamp links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

8 of 8 papers shown
#Work
1 2015167
2 200686
3
The Human Speechome Project
200656
4 201038
5 200430
6 200717
7
Assessing Behavioral and Computational Approaches to Naturalistic Action Segmentation
201010
8 20098

About Philip DeCamp

Philip DeCamp is a scholar working on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Artificial Intelligence, Signal Processing, Developmental and Educational Psychology and Social Psychology, having authored 8 papers that have together received 412 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Video Analysis and Summarization (3 papers), Language Development and Disorders (3 papers), Music and Audio Processing (3 papers), Speech and dialogue systems (3 papers), Speech and Audio Processing (2 papers), Human Pose and Action Recognition (2 papers), Music Technology and Sound Studies (1 paper) and Video Surveillance and Tracking Methods (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Developmental and Educational Psychology (200 citations), Human-Computer Interaction (35 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (62 citations), Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (97 citations) and Pharmacy (16 citations). Philip DeCamp has collaborated with scholars based in United States and Mexico. Frequent co-authors include Deb Roy, Brandon Roy, Matthew P. Miller, Michael C. Frank, Rony Kubat, Nikolaos Mavridis, Rupal Patel, Peter Gorniak, Stefanie Tellex and Michael Fleischman. Their work appears in journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Cognitive Science, Lecture notes in computer science, DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and eScholarship (California Digital Library).

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact