World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Neuroscience

D-Index
46
Citations
7328
World Ranking
6733
National Ranking
188

Nigel C. Rogasch 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 Nigel C. Rogasch 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: 129 publications — 33rd percentile

33% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Nigel C. Rogasch 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 Nigel C. Rogasch 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: 46 D-Index — 32nd percentile

32% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Nigel C. Rogasch is affiliated with the University of Adelaide in Australia. Their research primarily spans the field of Neuroscience, with a focus on several subfields including Cognitive Neuroscience, Neurology, Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, and Clinical Psychology.

The main topics of Nigel C. Rogasch's work include:

  • Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Neural dynamics and brain function
  • EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Vestibular and auditory disorders
  • Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Some of their recent papers are:

  • TMS combined with EEG: Recommendations and open issues for data collection and analysis (2023), Brain Stimulation
  • Dynamical consequences of regional heterogeneity in the brain's transcriptional landscape (2021), Science Advances
  • Do age-related differences in aperiodic neural activity explain differences in resting EEG alpha? (2022), Neurobiology of Aging
  • Large-scale analysis of interindividual variability in theta-burst stimulation data: Results from the 'Big TMS Data Collaboration' (2020), Brain Stimulation
  • Introducing RELAX: An automated pre-processing pipeline for cleaning EEG data - Part 1: Algorithm and application to oscillations (2023), Clinical Neurophysiology

Nigel C. Rogasch frequently publishes in the following venues:

  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • Brain Stimulation
  • Clinical Neurophysiology
  • Mindfulness
  • The Cerebellum

Among the notable co-authors they have collaborated with multiple times are:

  • Mana Biabani
  • Paul B. Fitzgerald
  • Aron T. Hill
  • Alex Fornito
  • Mitchell R. Goldsworthy

Best Publications

  • Clinical utility and prospective of TMS–EEG

    Sara Tremblay;Sara Tremblay;Nigel C. Rogasch;Isabella Premoli;Daniel M. Blumberger

  • Analysing concurrent transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalographic data: A review and introduction to the open-source TESA software

    Nigel C. Rogasch;Caley Sullivan;Richard H. Thomson;Nathan S. Rose

  • Removing artefacts from TMS-EEG recordings using independent component analysis: Importance for assessing prefrontal and motor cortex network properties

    Nigel Craig Rogasch;Richard Hilton Siddall Thomson;Faranak Farzan;Bernadette Fitzgibbon

  • Use of theta-burst stimulation in changing excitability of motor cortex: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Sung Wook Chung;Aron Hill;Nigel Craig Rogasch;Kate Elizabeth Hoy

  • Assessing cortical network properties using TMS–EEG

    Nigel Craig Rogasch;Paul Bernard Fitzgerald

  • TMS combined with EEG: Recommendations and open issues for data collection and analysis

    Unknown

  • Corticomotor plasticity and learning of a ballistic thumb training task are diminished in older adults

    Nigel Craig Rogasch;Tamara J Dartnall;John Cirillo;Michael A Nordstrom

  • Do age-related differences in aperiodic neural activity explain differences in resting EEG alpha?

    Unknown

  • Cortical inhibition of distinct mechanisms in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is related to working memory performance: A TMS-EEG study

    Nigel Craig Rogasch;Zafiris Jeff Daskalakis;Paul Bernard Fitzgerald

  • Characterizing and minimizing the contribution of sensory inputs to TMS-evoked potentials.

    Mana Biabani;Alex Fornito;Tuomas P. Mutanen;James Morrow

  • Responders to rTMS for depression show increased fronto-midline theta and theta connectivity compared to non-responders

    N.W. Bailey;K.E. Hoy;N.C. Rogasch;R.H. Thomson

  • Dynamical consequences of regional heterogeneity in the brain's transcriptional landscape

    Gustavo Deco;Morten L. Kringelbach;Morten L. Kringelbach;Aurina Arnatkeviciute;Stuart Oldham

  • Mechanisms underlying long-interval cortical inhibition in the human motor cortex: a TMS-EEG study.

    Nigel Craig Rogasch;Zafiris Jeff Daskalakis;Paul Bernard Fitzgerald

  • Impact of different intensities of intermittent theta burst stimulation on the cortical properties during TMS-EEG and working memory performance

    Sung Wook Chung;Nigel C. Rogasch;Kate E. Hoy;Caley M. Sullivan

  • Reproducibility in TMS–EEG studies: A call for data sharing, standard procedures and effective experimental control

    Paolo Belardinelli;Mana Biabani;Daniel M. Blumberger;Marta Bortoletto

  • Altered Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation-Electroencephalographic Markers of Inhibition and Excitation in the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Major Depressive Disorder.

    Daphne Voineskos;Daniel M. Blumberger;Reza Zomorrodi;Nigel C. Rogasch

  • Measuring Brain Stimulation Induced Changes in Cortical Properties Using TMS-EEG

    Sung Wook Chung;Nigel Craig Rogasch;Kate Elizabeth Hoy;Paul Bernard Fitzgerald

  • TMS-EEG: A window into the neurophysiological effects of transcranial electrical stimulation in non-motor brain regions

    Aron Hill;Nigel Craig Rogasch;Paul Bernard Fitzgerald;Kate Elizabeth Hoy

  • Large-scale analysis of interindividual variability in theta-burst stimulation data: Results from the 'Big TMS Data Collaboration'.

    Daniel T. Corp;Daniel T. Corp;Hannah G.K. Bereznicki;Gillian M. Clark;George J. Youssef

  • Enhancement of Working Memory and Task-Related Oscillatory Activity Following Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation in Healthy Controls

    Kate E. Hoy;Neil Bailey;Marco Michael;Bernadette Fitzgibbon

  • Short-Latency Artifacts Associated with Concurrent TMS–EEG

    Nigel Rogasch;Richard Hilton Siddall Thomson;Zafiris Jeff Daskalakis;Paul Bernard Fitzgerald

  • Demonstration of short-term plasticity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with theta burst stimulation: A TMS-EEG study

    Sung Wook Chung;Benjamin P. Lewis;Nigel C. Rogasch;Takashi Saeki

  • Effects of prefrontal bipolar and high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation on cortical reactivity and working memory in healthy adults

    Aron T. Hill;Nigel C. Rogasch;Paul B. Fitzgerald;Kate E. Hoy

Frequent Co-Authors

Paul B. Fitzgerald
Paul B. Fitzgerald Australian National University
Kate E. Hoy
Kate E. Hoy Bionics Institute
Zafiris J. Daskalakis
Zafiris J. Daskalakis University of California - San Diego School of Medicine
Alex Fornito
Alex Fornito Monash University
John G. Semmler
John G. Semmler University of Adelaide
Peter G. Enticott
Peter G. Enticott Deakin University
Faranak Farzan
Faranak Farzan Simon Fraser University
Michael C. Ridding
Michael C. Ridding University of South Australia
Murat Yücel
Murat Yücel QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute
Tarek K. Rajji
Tarek K. Rajji Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Studying neuroscience opens diverse avenues, from research roles to healthcare, tech, and beyond. If you want to accelerate your journey, consider accelerated online programs that allow you to complete your bachelor’s degree faster and start your career sooner.

Neuroscience is closely linked with several of the highest paying bachelor degrees entry-level, especially those in STEM and healthcare. For students thinking about long-term earning potential, it’s useful to explore what degrees make the most money and how neuroscience fits into these lucrative fields.

Affordability is another key concern. To minimize debt and maximize flexibility, look for online colleges that accept fafsa. These programs offer federally funded financial aid, which can make your neuroscience or related studies more accessible.

Whether you plan to move directly into the workforce or continue with graduate study, online neuroscience degrees give you options tailored to your goals—financially and professionally.

Best Scientists Citing Nigel C. Rogasch

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles