World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Neuroscience

D-Index
33
Citations
5587
World Ranking
9428
National Ranking
698

Michael Armstrong-James 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 Michael Armstrong-James 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: 49 publications — 1st percentile

1% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Michael Armstrong-James 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 Michael Armstrong-James 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: 33 D-Index — 2nd percentile

2% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Michael Armstrong-James is affiliated with Queen Mary University of London in the United Kingdom. This association places them within an academic environment known for research and education in various scientific disciplines.

There is no publicly available record of recent papers authored by Armstrong-James, nor is there information on frequent co-authors, publication venues, book publications, or awards. Additionally, no data detailing their main fields of study, subfields, or research topics has been provided.

The lack of specific research outputs or thematic areas in the available data means that the precise scope and focus of Armstrong-James's work remain undisclosed within this profile.

Despite limited detailed information, Armstrong-James's professional position at Queen Mary University of London suggests involvement in research and academic activities associated with this institution.

Best Publications

  • Flow of excitation within rat barrel cortex on striking a single vibrissa.

    M. Armstrong-James;K. Fox;A. Das-Gupta

  • Spatiotemporal convergence and divergence in the rat S1 "barrel" cortex.

    Michael Armstrong‐James;Kevin Fox

  • Carbon fibre microelectrodes

    Unknown

  • Experience-dependent plasticity in adult rat barrel cortex.

    Mathew E. Diamond;Michael Armstrong-James;Ford F. Ebner

  • Somatic sensory responses in the rostral sector of the posterior group (POm) and in the ventral posterior medial nucleus (VPM) of the rat thalamus : dependence on the barrel field cortex

    Mathew E. Diamond;Michael Armstrong-James;Matthew J. Budway;Ford F. Ebner

  • Somatic sensory responses in the rostral sector of the posterior group (POm) and in the ventral posterior medial nucleus (VPM) of the rat thalamus.

    Mathew E. Diamond;Michael Armstrong-James;Ford F. Ebner

  • The contribution of NMDA and non-NMDA receptors to fast and slow transmission of sensory information in the rat SI barrel cortex.

    M Armstrong-James;E Welker;CA Callahan

  • Thalamo-cortical processing of vibrissal information in the rat. I. Intracortical origins of surround but not centre-receptive fields of layer IV neurones in the rat S1 barrel field cortex.

    Michael Armstrong-James;Christopher A. Callahan;Michael A. Friedman

  • An innocuous bias in whisker use in adult rats modifies receptive fields of barrel cortex neurons.

    M Armstrong-James;ME Diamond;FF Ebner

  • Thalamo-cortical processing of vibrissal information in the rat. II. spatiotemporal convergence in the thalamic ventroposterior medial nucleus (VPm) and its relevance to generation of receptive fields of S1 cortical "barrel" neurones.

    Michael Armstrong-James;Christopher A. Callahan

  • Effects of ionophoresed noradrenaline on the spontaneous activity of neurones in rat primary somatosensory cortex.

    M Armstrong-James;K Fox

  • Altered Sensory Processing in the Somatosensory Cortex of the Mouse Mutant Barrelless

    E. Welker;M. Armstrong-James;G. Bronchti;W. Ourednik

  • The functional status and columnar organization of single cells responding to cutaneous stimulation in neonatal rat somatosensory cortex S1.

    Unknown

  • Experience-dependent plasticity of adult rat S1 cortex requires local NMDA receptor activation

    V. Rema;M. Armstrong-James;F. F. Ebner

  • The Mode of Activation of a Barrel Column: Response Properties of Single Units in the Somatosensory Cortex of the Mouse upon Whisker Deflection

    E. Welker;M. Armstrong-James;H. Van der Loos;R. Kraftsik

  • Influence of anesthesia on spontaneous activity and receptive field size of single units in rat Sm1 neocortex

    Unknown

  • Intracortical processes regulating the integration of sensory information.

    Ford F. Ebner;Michael A. Armstrong-James

  • A method for etching the tips of carbon fibre microelectrodes

    Unknown

  • Contribution of Supragranular Layers to Sensory Processing and Plasticity in Adult Rat Barrel Cortex

    Wei Huang;Michael Armstrong-James;V. Rema;Mathew E. Diamond

  • The Nature and Plasticity of Sensory Processing within Adult Rat Barrel Cortex

    Michael Armstrong-James

  • Experience-dependent plasticity is impaired in adult rat barrel cortex after whiskers are unused in early postnatal life.

    V. Rema;Michael Armstrong-James;Michael Armstrong-James;Ford F. Ebner

  • Modulation of neostriatal activity by iontophoresis of ascorbic acid

    Thomas W. Gardiner;Michael Armstrong-James;A. Woodburn Caan;R. Mark Wightman

  • Short exposure to an enriched environment accelerates plasticity in the barrel cortex of adult rats.

    V. Rema;M. Armstrong-James;N. Jenkinson;F.F. Ebner

  • Modified Sensory Processing in the Barrel Cortex of the Adult Mouse After Chronic Whisker Stimulation

    Charles Quairiaux;Michael Armstrong-James;Egbert Welker

  • Quantitative studies of postnatal changes in synapses in rat superficial motor cerebral cortex

    Unknown

Frequent Co-Authors

Ford F. Ebner
Ford F. Ebner Vanderbilt University
Mathew E. Diamond
Mathew E. Diamond International School for Advanced Studies
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox Cardiff University
Egbert Welker
Egbert Welker University of Lausanne
Christopher I. Moore
Christopher I. Moore Brown University
Friedhelm C. Hummel
Friedhelm C. Hummel École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Jon H. Kaas
Jon H. Kaas Vanderbilt University
Ned Jenkinson
Ned Jenkinson University of Birmingham
Malgorzata Kossut
Malgorzata Kossut Polish Academy of Sciences
Reha S. Erzurumlu
Reha S. Erzurumlu University of Maryland, Baltimore

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

Exploring Neuroscience often inspires students to consider various online degrees. A cheap online psychology degree can be a practical first step—these programs are widely available, flexible, and help students build a strong foundation in human behavior.

For those drawn to social work or clinical roles, it’s important to ask how long does it take to get a msw online. Most online MSW programs can be completed in two years, but some accelerated tracks may offer even quicker pathways to a rewarding career in mental health support.

If your interests align with advanced clinical practice or research, an online psyd program could be a perfect fit. These programs are designed for those pursuing licensure as psychologists and combine rigorous academics with practical field experience.

Another in-demand specialty is marriage and family therapy. Flexible online marriage and family therapy programs help graduates quickly enter this fulfilling field, enabling them to make a difference in family dynamics and mental wellness.

Best Scientists Citing Michael Armstrong-James

Recently Published Articles