PATH To Reading

11.5k citations
494 papers ·

Impact in

Papers in

PATH To Reading

414 papers receiving 10.9k citations

Peers

PATH To Reading
Comparison fields: 5 of 222
  • Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2.6k
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 1.6k
  • Sensory Systems 545
  • Cognitive Neuroscience 2.2k
  • Speech and Hearing 477
Replace Brain Mapping Foundation with:
Brain Mapping Foundation United States
USC Institute for Creative Technologies United States
Snap (United States) United States
Coleman University United States
Clinical Research Consortium United States
Silicon Valley University United States
Cypress College United States
Community Link United States
IDEO (United States) United States
Arizona Department of Education United States
PATH To Reading relative to Brain Mapping Foundation United States Brain Mapping Foundation's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×4.0×
Brain Mapping Foundation · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing scholars working at PATH To Reading

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research produced by authors working at PATH To Reading. 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 papers produced at PATH To Reading with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites PATH To Reading more than expected).

Fields of papers published by authors at PATH To Reading

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers affiliated with PATH To Reading at the time of their publication. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers affiliated with PATH To Reading at the time of their publication.

About PATH To Reading

In recent decades, authors affiliated with PATH To Reading have published 494 papers, which have received a total of 11.5k indexed citations . Scholars at this organization have produced 55 papers in Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, 81 papers in Cognitive Neuroscience, 80 papers in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 19 papers in Human-Computer Interaction and 56 papers in Food Science on the topics of Sensory Analysis and Statistical Methods (53 papers), Multisensory perception and integration (29 papers), Visual perception and processing mechanisms (25 papers), Biochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques (24 papers), Advanced Vision and Imaging (22 papers), Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation (21 papers), Neuroscience and Music Perception (18 papers) and Robotics and Sensor-Based Localization (17 papers). Their work is cited by papers focused on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2.6k citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (1.6k citations), Sensory Systems (545 citations), Cognitive Neuroscience (2.2k citations) and Speech and Hearing (477 citations). Authors at PATH To Reading collaborate with scholars in United States, China and France and have published in prestigious journals including Journal of Sensory Studies, Food Quality and Preference, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Ophthalmologica and Language and Speech. Some of PATH To Reading's most productive authors include Daniel M. Ennis, R. Plomp, A. M. Mimpen, John M. Ennis, Scott Young, A.F. Sanders, Haoxiang Wang, J. Wesley Hutchinson, Eric T. Bradlow and Pierre Chandon.

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 institutions with similar magnitude of impact