World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Neuroscience

D-Index
59
Citations
11205
World Ranking
4039
National Ranking
354

Paul Dean 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 Paul Dean 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: 146 publications — 41st percentile

41% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Paul Dean 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 Paul Dean 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: 59 D-Index — 59th percentile

59% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Paul Dean is a researcher affiliated with the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom, specializing primarily in the field of Neuroscience. Their research contributions focus on areas including Neurology, Sensory Systems, and Cognitive Neuroscience. The scientist's work covers several main topics such as Vestibular and auditory disorders, Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics, Tactile and Sensory Interactions, and Visual perception and processing mechanisms.

Their recent publications include two papers from 2020 and 2021. These are:

  • A multizone cerebellar chip for bioinspired adaptive robot control and sensorimotor processing, published in 2021 in the Journal of The Royal Society Interface
  • World Statistics Drive Learning of Cerebellar Internal Models in Adaptive Feedback Control: A Case Study Using the Optokinetic Reflex, published in 2020 in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience

Paul Dean has collaborated with several frequent co-authors throughout their research career. These include:

  • John Porrill
  • Sean Anderson
  • Emma D. Wilson
  • Tareq Assaf
  • Jonathan Rossiter

The scientist's work has been published primarily in the following venues:

  • Journal of The Royal Society Interface
  • Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience

Paul Dean's research interests intersect biological systems and computational modeling, particularly focusing on adaptive feedback control and sensorimotor processing. The overlap of their work with robotic control systems and sensory neuroscience highlights a multidisciplinary approach to understanding neurological and sensory mechanisms.

Best Publications

  • Developmental dyslexia: the cerebellar deficit hypothesis

    Roderick I Nicolson;Angela J Fawcett;Paul Dean

  • Event or emergency? Two response systems in the mammalian superior colliculus.

    P. Dean;P. Redgrave;G.W.M. Westby

  • Association of abnormal cerebellar activation with motor learning difficulties in dyslexic adults

    Roderick I Nicolson;Angela J Fawcett;Emma L Berry;I Harri Jenkins

  • The cerebellar microcircuit as an adaptive filter: experimental and computational evidence

    Paul Dean;John Porrill;Carl‑Fredrik Ekerot;Henrik Jörntell

  • Impaired performance of children with dyslexia on a range of cerebellar tasks.

    Angela J. Fawcett;Roderick I. Nicolson;Paul Dean

  • Movements resembling orientation or avoidance elicited by electrical stimulation of the superior colliculus in rats

    N Sahibzada;P Dean;P Redgrave

  • Time estimation deficits in developmental dyslexia: evidence of cerebellar involvement

    Roderick I. Nicolson;Angela J. Fawcett;Paul Dean

  • Descending projections from the superior colliculus in rat: a study using orthograde transport of wheatgerm-agglutinin conjugated horseradish peroxidase.

    P. Redgrave;I. J. Mitchell;P. Dean

  • Dyslexia, development and the cerebellum.

    R. I. Nicolson;A. J. Fawcett;P. Dean

  • Head and body movements produced by electrical stimulation of superior colliculus in rats: Effects of interruption of crossed tectoreticulospinal pathway

    P Dean;P Redgrave;N Sahibzada;K Tsuji

  • Modelling the role of the cerebellar fastigial nuclei in producing accurate saccades: the importance of burst timing

    P. Dean

  • Output pathways from the rat superior colliculus mediating approach and avoidance have different sensory properties.

    G. W. M. Westby;K. A. Keay;P. Redgrave;P. Dean

  • Topographical organization of the nigrotectal projection in rat: Evidence for segregated channels

    P. Redgrave;L. Marrow;P. Dean

  • Dissociation of d-amphetamine-induced locomotor activity and stereotyped behaviour by lesions of the superior colliculus

    S. G. Pope;P. Dean;P. Redgrave

  • The projection from superior colliculus to cuneiform area in the rat. II. Defence-like responses to stimulation with glutamate in cuneiform nucleus and surrounding structures.

    I. J. Mitchell;P. Dean;P. Redgrave

  • Gnawing and changes in reactivity produced by microinjections of picrotoxin into the superior colliculus of rats.

    Peter Redgrave;Paul Dean;Walid Souki;Gary Lewis

  • Superior colliculus and visual neglect in rat and hamster. III. Functional implications.

    Paul Dean;Peter Redgrave

  • The superior colliculus and visual neglect in rat and hamster. I. Behavioural evidence.

    Paul Dean;Peter Redgrave

  • Learning and maintaining saccadic accuracy: A model of brainstem--cerebellar interactions

    Paul Dean;John E. W. Mayhew;Pat Langdon

  • Recurrent cerebellar architecture solves the motor-error problem.

    John Porrill;Paul Dean;James V. Stone

  • Tectal cells of origin of predorsal bundle in rat: location and segregation from ipsilateral descending pathway.

    Peter Redgrave;A Odekunle;P Dean

Frequent Co-Authors

Peter Redgrave
Peter Redgrave University of Sheffield
John Porrill
John Porrill University of Sheffield
Jonathan Rossiter
Jonathan Rossiter University of Bristol
Roderick I. Nicolson
Roderick I. Nicolson Edge Hill University
Angela J. Fawcett
Angela J. Fawcett Swansea University
Chris Melhuish
Chris Melhuish University of the West of England
Tony J. Prescott
Tony J. Prescott University of Sheffield
Christopher H. Yeo
Christopher H. Yeo University College London
Anthony G. Pipe
Anthony G. Pipe University of the West of England
Henrik Jörntell
Henrik Jörntell Lund 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:

Best Scientists Citing Paul Dean

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles