World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Neuroscience

D-Index
34
Citations
4482
World Ranking
9345
National Ranking
689

Bridget M. Lumb 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 Bridget M. Lumb 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: 93 publications — 14th percentile

14% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Bridget M. Lumb 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 Bridget M. Lumb 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: 34 D-Index — 4th percentile

4% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Bridget M. Lumb is affiliated with the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom and specializes primarily in Neuroscience and Medicine. Their research contributions span several subfields, including Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, Cognitive Neuroscience, Physiology, Behavioral Neuroscience, and Neurology.

Their work focuses on multiple research topics such as Pain Mechanisms and Treatments, Memory and Neural Mechanisms, Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior, Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research, Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology, Stress Responses and Cortisol, and Pain Management and Placebo Effect.

Lumb has published across several frequent venues, with a notable presence in eLife and bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), each hosting multiple publications. Other publication venues include Frontiers in Pain Research, Pain, and Brain Research.

Recent papers by Bridget M. Lumb include the following:

  • Loss of cortical control over the descending pain modulatory system determines the development of the neuropathic pain state in rats, 2021, eLife
  • Cerebellar modulation of memory encoding in the periaqueductal grey and fear behaviour, 2022, eLife
  • The partial saphenous nerve injury model of pain impairs reward-related learning but not reward sensitivity or motivation, 2021, Pain
  • Repeated exposure of naïve and peripheral nerve-injured mice to a snake as an experimental model of post-traumatic stress disorder and its co-morbidity with neuropathic pain, 2020, Brain Research
  • Loss of cortical control over the descending pain modulatory system determines the development of the neuropathic pain state in rats, 2020, bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Frequent collaborators in Lumb's research include Richard Apps, Robert AR Drake, Charlotte L. Lawrenson, Elena Paci, and Lucy F. Donaldson.

Best Publications

  • Descending control of nociception: Specificity, recruitment and plasticity.

    M M Heinricher;I Tavares;I Tavares;J L Leith;B M Lumb

  • Cerebellar Modules and Their Role as Operational Cerebellar Processing Units

    Richard Apps;Richard Hawkes;Sho Aoki;Sho Aoki;Fredrik Bengtsson

  • A rapamycin-sensitive signaling pathway is essential for the full expression of persistent pain states

    S. M. Geranton;L. Jimenez-Diaz;C. Torsney;K. K. Tochiki

  • Optoactivation of Locus Ceruleus Neurons Evokes Bidirectional Changes in Thermal Nociception in Rats

    Louise Hickey;Yong Li;Sarah J. Fyson;Thomas C. Watson

  • Local Translation in Primary Afferent Fibers Regulates Nociception

    Lydia Jiménez-Díaz;Lydia Jiménez-Díaz;Sandrine M. Géranton;Gayle M. Passmore;J. Lianne Leith

  • Neural substrates underlying fear-evoked freezing: the periaqueductal grey–cerebellar link

    Stella Koutsikou;Jonathan J. Crook;Emma V. Earl;J. Lianne Leith

  • Systemic inhibition of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway reduces neuropathic pain in mice

    Ilona Obara;Ilona Obara;Keri K. Tochiki;Sandrine M. Géranton;Fiona B. Carr

  • Neural Correlates of Fear in the Periaqueductal Gray

    Thomas C Watson;Nadia L Cerminara;Bridget M Lumb;Richard Apps

  • Endogenous analgesic action of the pontospinal noradrenergic system spatially restricts and temporally delays the progression of neuropathic pain following tibial nerve injury

    S. W. Hughes;L. Hickey;R. P. Hulse;Bridget M Lumb

  • Inescapable and escapable pain is represented in distinct hypothalamic-midbrain circuits: specific roles for Aδ- and C-nociceptors

    Bridget M. Lumb

  • The representation of prolonged and intense, noxious somatic and visceral stimuli in the ventrolateral orbital cortex of the cat.

    P. J. Snow;B. M. Lumb;F. Cervero

  • Effects of reversible spinalization on the visceral input to viscerosomatic neurons in the lower thoracic spinal cord of the cat.

    J. E. H. Tattersall;F. Cervero;B. M. Lumb

  • Descending control of spinal nociception from the periaqueductal grey distinguishes between neurons with and without C-fibre inputs

    Alexander J. Waters;Bridget M. Lumb

  • Viscerosomatic neurons in the lower thoracic spinal cord of the cat: excitations and inhibitions evoked by splanchnic and somatic nerve volleys and by stimulation of brain stem nuclei.

    J. E. H. Tattersall;F. Cervero;B. M. Lumb

  • Inhibitory effects evoked from both the lateral and ventrolateral periaqueductal grey are selective for the nociceptive responses of rat dorsal horn neurones.

    A.J. Waters;B.M. Lumb

  • The Periaqueductal Gray Orchestrates Sensory and Motor Circuits at Multiple Levels of the Neuraxis.

    Stella Koutsikou;Thomas C. Watson;Jonathan J. Crook;J. Lianne Leith

  • Hypothalamic and Midbrain Circuitry That Distinguishes Between Escapable and Inescapable Pain

    Bridget M Lumb

  • Brainstem control of visceral afferent pathways in the spinal cord.

    B.M. Lumb

  • An excitatory influence of dorsolateral pontine structures on urinary bladder motility in the rat

    B.M. Lumb;J.F.B. Morrison

  • A reliable method for the preferential activation of C- or A-fibre heat nociceptors.

    Simon McMullan;Daniel A.A. Simpson;Bridget M. Lumb

  • Cyclooxygenase-1-Derived Prostaglandins in the Periaqueductal Gray Differentially Control C- versus A-Fiber-Evoked Spinal Nociception

    JL Leith;A Wilson;LF Donaldson;Bridget M Lumb

Frequent Co-Authors

Richard Apps
Richard Apps University of Bristol
Anthony E. Pickering
Anthony E. Pickering University of Bristol
Roy V. Sillitoe
Roy V. Sillitoe Baylor College of Medicine
Stephen P. Hunt
Stephen P. Hunt University College London
Thelma A. Lovick
Thelma A. Lovick University of Bristol
Hidemasa Furue
Hidemasa Furue Hyogo College of Medicine
Henrik Jörntell
Henrik Jörntell Lund University
Izumi Sugihara
Izumi Sugihara Tokyo Medical and Dental University
Natalia Alenina
Natalia Alenina Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine
Anja G. Teschemacher
Anja G. Teschemacher University of Bristol

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:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Interested in exploring neuroscience from a broader perspective? There are a range of online degrees and career pathways that align closely with neuroscience studies, preparing graduates for diverse roles in healthcare, research, counseling, and social services.

Many students consider programs in psychology or social work. For those looking to fast-track their education, accelerated msw programs without bsw can enable learners to pursue a master’s in social work even if their undergraduate degree is unrelated. Similarly, an accelerated psychology degree online offers a flexible way to advance in psychology fields.

If mental health counseling interests you, there are online mental health counseling programs designed for convenience and affordability. For those prioritizing costs, the cheapest counseling degree online can help you start your counseling career with minimal financial burden.

Exploring these online degree options can expand your career pathways in neuroscience, giving you the flexibility to specialize and make a meaningful impact within the mental health and science sectors.

Best Scientists Citing Bridget M. Lumb

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles