Sensory Systems

225.4k papers and 7.0M indexed citations i.

About

225.4k papers covering Sensory Systems have received a total of 7.0M indexed citations since 1950. Papers on subfields are most often about the specific topic of Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies, Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics and Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation and also cover the fields of Cognitive Neuroscience, Neurology and Nutrition and Dietetics. Papers citing papers on subfields are usually about Cognitive Neuroscience, Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience and Molecular Biology. Some of the most active scholars covering Sensory Systems are Michael J. Berridge, David E. Clapham, M. Charles Liberman, David Julius, Edmund T. Rolls, Richard Morris, Thomas Hummel, Charles Spence, Richard L. Doty and A. J. Hudspeth.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers citing papers about Sensory Systems

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers covering Sensory Systems. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers covering Sensory Systems.

Countries where authors publish papers about Sensory Systems

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research in Sensory Systems. 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 about Sensory Systems with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Sensory Systems more than expected).

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 fields with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2025