World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Neuroscience

D-Index
36
Citations
11442
World Ranking
8891
National Ranking
3762

Matthias Ringkamp 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 Matthias Ringkamp 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: 76 publications — 6th percentile

6% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Matthias Ringkamp 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 Matthias Ringkamp 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: 36 D-Index — 7th percentile

7% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Matthias Ringkamp is affiliated with Johns Hopkins University in the United States. Their research focuses primarily on medicine and neuroscience, with key subfields including physiology, sensory systems, surgery, molecular biology, and dermatology.

Ringkamp's work covers a variety of topics within these fields, notably:

  • Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Dermatology and Skin Diseases
  • Ion Channels and Receptors
  • Acupuncture Treatment Research Studies
  • Neuroscience of respiration and sleep
  • Ion channel regulation and function
  • Nerve Injury and Rehabilitation

The scientist has published in a range of journals, with frequent contributions appearing in:

  • Pain
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • eLife
  • The Journal of Physiology
  • Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

Selected recent papers include:

  • The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises, 2020, Pain
  • John J. Bonica Award Lecture: Peripheral neuronal hyperexcitability: the "low-hanging" target for safe therapeutic strategies in neuropathic pain, 2020, Pain
  • Pruriception and neuronal coding in nociceptor subtypes in human and nonhuman primates, 2021, eLife
  • Maximum axonal following frequency separates classes of cutaneous unmyelinated nociceptors in the pig, 2020, The Journal of Physiology
  • Enhanced sodium channel inactivation by temperature and FHF2 deficiency blocks heat nociception, 2022, Pain

The scientist frequently collaborates with colleagues in their field. Notable coauthors include:

  • Gang Wu
  • Timothy V. Hartke
  • Mark A. Hoon
  • Srinivasa N. Raja
  • Amanda H. Klein

Best Publications

  • The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises.

    Srinivasa N. Raja;Daniel B. Carr;Milton Cohen;Nanna B. Finnerup;Nanna B. Finnerup

  • Novel classes of responsive and unresponsive C nociceptors in human skin

    Roland Schmidt;Martin Schmelz;Clemens Forster;Matthias Ringkamp

  • Early onset of spontaneous activity in uninjured C-fiber nociceptors after injury to neighboring nerve fibers.

    Gang Wu;Matthias Ringkamp;Timothy V. Hartke;Beth B. Murinson

  • Peripheral mechanisms of cutaneous nociception

    Richard A. Meyer;Matthias Ringkamp;James N. Campbell;Srinivasa N. Raja

  • Thermoreceptors and thermosensitive afferents.

    Raf J. Schepers;Matthias Ringkamp

  • Degeneration of myelinated efferent fibers induces spontaneous activity in uninjured C-fiber afferents

    Gang Wu;Matthias Ringkamp;Beth B. Murinson;Esther M. Pogatzki

  • Separate peripheral pathways for pruritus in man.

    Barbara Namer;Richard Carr;Lisa M. Johanek;Martin Schmelz

  • Sensory neurons and circuits mediating itch

    Robert H. LaMotte;Xinzhong Dong;Matthias Ringkamp

  • Uninjured C-Fiber Nociceptors Develop Spontaneous Activity and α-Adrenergic Sensitivity Following L6 Spinal Nerve Ligation in Monkey

    Z. Ali;M. Ringkamp;T. V. Hartke;H. F. Chien

  • Psychophysical and Physiological Evidence for Parallel Afferent Pathways Mediating the Sensation of Itch

    Lisa M. Johanek;Richard A. Meyer;Tim Hartke;Joseph Greg Hobelmann

  • A Role for Polymodal C-Fiber Afferents in Nonhistaminergic Itch

    Lisa M. Johanek;Richard A. Meyer;Robert M. Friedman;Kenneth W. Greenquist

  • Innervation territories of mechanically activated C nociceptor units in human skin.

    Roland Schmidt;Martin Schmelz;Matthias Ringkamp;Hermann O. Handwerker

  • A Role for Nociceptive, Myelinated Nerve Fibers in Itch Sensation

    Matthias Ringkamp;Raf J. Schepers;Steven G. Shimada;Lisa M. Johanek

  • Sensitization of insensitive branches of C nociceptors in human skin.

    M Schmelz;R Schmidt;M Ringkamp;H O Handwerker

  • Delayed responses to electrical stimuli reflect C-fiber responsiveness in human microneurography

    M. Schmelz;C. Forster;R. Schmidt;M. Ringkamp

  • Peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor agonist attenuates neuropathic pain in rats after L5 spinal nerve injury.

    Yun Guan;Lisa M. Johanek;Timothy V. Hartke;Beom Shim

  • Lumbar sympathectomy failed to reverse mechanical allodynia- and hyperalgesia-like behavior in rats with L5 spinal nerve injury.

    Matthias Ringkamp;Sebastian Eschenfelder;Erich J. Grethel;Heinz Joachim Häbler

  • Capsaicin Responses in Heat-Sensitive and Heat-Insensitive A-Fiber Nociceptors

    Matthias Ringkamp;Yuan B. Peng;Gang Wu;Timothy V. Hartke

  • Three functionally distinct classes of C-fibre nociceptors in primates.

    Matthew Wooten;Hao Jui Weng;Timothy V. Hartke;Jasenka Borzan

  • Limitation of sensitization to injured parts of receptive fields in human skin C-nociceptors

    M. Schmelz;R. Schmidt;M. Ringkamp;C. Forster

Frequent Co-Authors

Richard A. Meyer
Richard A. Meyer Johns Hopkins University
Martin Schmelz
Martin Schmelz Heidelberg University
Srinivasa N. Raja
Srinivasa N. Raja Johns Hopkins University
James N. Campbell
James N. Campbell Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Xinzhong Dong
Xinzhong Dong Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Robert H. LaMotte
Robert H. LaMotte Yale University
Yun Guan
Yun Guan Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Gang Wu
Gang Wu St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
Joseph L. Mankowski
Joseph L. Mankowski Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
John W. Griffin
John W. Griffin Johns Hopkins University

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

If you are considering a future in neuroscience, exploring related online degrees can greatly expand your career options. Many students choose paths that offer flexibility and a multidisciplinary approach.

Pursuing a psychology degree online is a popular choice for those interested in the behavioral or cognitive aspects of neuroscience. These programs often provide foundational knowledge applicable to various advanced roles.

For those leaning toward clinical or social work settings, enrolling in online msw programs can lead to impactful positions working directly with individuals and communities. Social work and neuroscience often overlap in areas like mental health advocacy and counseling.

If your goal is clinical practice, consider advanced credentials such as psyd online programs for specialized training in psychological assessment and intervention. Those interested in therapy and relationship dynamics may find accelerated online mft programs offer a fast track to becoming a licensed marriage and family therapist.

These options complement neuroscience study and can prepare you for diverse roles in research, healthcare, and counseling.

Best Scientists Citing Matthias Ringkamp

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles