Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung

Papers
(The H4-Index of Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung is 18. The table below lists those papers that are above that threshold based on CrossRef citation counts [max. 250 papers]. The publications cover those that have been published in the past four years, i.e., from 2022-01-01 to 2026-01-01.)
ArticleCitations
How general is ensemble perception?44
One more trip to Barcetona: on the special status of visual similarity effects in city names42
The impact of category-based retro-cues on representational prioritization in visual working memory: behavioral and EEG evidence41
Even with exposure to errors, motor imagery cannot update internal models36
Forward effects from action observation: the role of attentional focus31
The visual presentation of the trajectory does not cause any effects on three-dimensional versions of the Corsi task paradigm tests30
Repetition increases the perceived truth of inferred statements: evidence from transitive relations and non-transitive relations29
Emotion and motion: superior memory for emotional but not for moving stimuli24
Gesture production at encoding supports narrative recall23
Sensorimotor processing is dependent on observed speed during the observation of hand–hand and hand–object interactions22
Does mindfulness help to overcome stereotype threat in mental rotation in younger and older adolescents?22
A Bayesian computational model to investigate expert anticipation of a seemingly unpredictable ball bounce21
“That’s just like, your opinion, man”: the illusory truth effect on opinions20
Effects of global information on the estimation of point-light walker directions20
Neuromuscular effects suggest that imagery engages motor components directly – a commentary on Frank et al. (2023)19
Unintentional response priming from verbal action–effect instructions19
Is the future ahead or behind? How emotions influence the perception of front − back temporal orientation18
Imagery practice of motor skills without conscious awareness?: a commentary to Frank et al.18
0.10375595092773