World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Neuroscience

D-Index
69
Citations
18730
World Ranking
2610
National Ranking
258

Peter Redgrave 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 Peter Redgrave 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: 202 publications — 63rd percentile

63% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Peter Redgrave 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 Peter Redgrave 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: 69 D-Index — 73rd percentile

73% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Peter Redgrave is affiliated with the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. Their research primarily spans the fields of neuroscience and medicine, with a notable focus on cognitive neuroscience, neurology, and cellular and molecular neuroscience. Additional interests include cell biology and experimental and cognitive psychology.

The scientist has published extensively on a variety of topics, including neurological disorders and treatments, neural dynamics and brain function, neurotransmitter receptor influence on behavior, and Parkinson's disease mechanisms and treatments. Other areas of study include neural and behavioral psychology and biomedical applications using zebrafish as a research model, as well as photoreceptor and optogenetics research.

Frequent coauthors collaborating with Peter Redgrave include Ignacio Obeso, Pasqualina Guida, Tadashi Isa, Mario Michiels, and David Luque.

Their work has been published in several scientific venues, with multiple papers appearing in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews and bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), along with publications in the Annual Review of Neuroscience, eNeuro, and Neurobiology of Disease.

  • "The Neural Basis of Escape Behavior in Vertebrates," 2020, Annual Review of Neuroscience
  • "Dissecting the Tectal Output Channels for Orienting and Defense Responses," 2020, eNeuro
  • "An fMRI meta-analysis of the role of the striatum in everyday-life vs laboratory-developed habits," 2022, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
  • "Selective activation of striatal indirect pathway suppresses levodopa induced-dyskinesias," 2022, Neurobiology of Disease
  • "Visual instrumental learning in blindsight monkeys," 2021, Scientific Reports

Best Publications

  • The basal ganglia: a vertebrate solution to the selection problem?

    P. Redgrave;T.J. Prescott;K. Gurney

  • Goal-directed and habitual control in the basal ganglia: implications for Parkinson's disease

    Peter Redgrave;Manuel Rodriguez;Manuel Rodriguez;Yoland Smith;Yoland Smith;Maria C. Rodriguez-Oroz;Maria C. Rodriguez-Oroz

  • The short-latency dopamine signal: a role in discovering novel actions?

    Peter Redgrave;Kevin Gurney

  • A computational model of action selection in the basal ganglia. I. A new functional anatomy.

    Kevin N. Gurney;Tony J. Prescott;Peter Redgrave

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

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

  • Is the short-latency dopamine response too short to signal reward error?

    Peter Redgrave;Tony J. Prescott;Kevin Gurney

  • Subcortical loops through the basal ganglia.

    John G. McHaffie;Terrence R. Stanford;Barry E. Stein;Véronique Coizet

  • Cerebral Vasomotion: A 0.1-Hz Oscillation in Reflected Light Imaging of Neural Activity

    J E Mayhew;S Askew;Y Zheng;J Porrill

  • A computational model of action selection in the basal ganglia. II. Analysis and simulation of behaviour.

    Kevin N. Gurney;Tony J. Prescott;Peter Redgrave

  • A direct projection from superior colliculus to substantia nigra for detecting salient visual events

    Eliane Comoli;Véronique Coizet;Justin Boyes;J Paul Bolam

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

    N Sahibzada;P Dean;P Redgrave

  • How visual stimuli activate dopaminergic neurons at short latency.

    Eleanor Dommett;Véronique Coizet;Véronique Coizet;Charles D Blaha;Charles D Blaha;John Martindale;John Martindale

  • What is reinforced by phasic dopamine signals

    Peter Redgrave;Kevin Gurney;John Reynolds

  • Layered control architectures in robots and vertebrates

    Tony J. Prescott;Peter Redgrave;Kevin Gurney

  • 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

  • A robot model of the basal ganglia: Behavior and intrinsic processing

    Tony J. Prescott;Fernando M. Montes González;Kevin Gurney;Mark D. Humphries

  • Functional properties of the basal ganglia's re-entrant loop architecture: selection and reinforcement

    P. Redgrave;N. Vautrelle;J.N.J. Reynolds

  • Computational models of the basal ganglia: from robots to membranes.

    Kevin Gurney;Tony J. Prescott;Jeffery R. Wickens;Peter Redgrave

  • 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

  • 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

Frequent Co-Authors

Paul Dean
Paul Dean University of Sheffield
Kevin Gurney
Kevin Gurney University of Sheffield
Jason Berwick
Jason Berwick University of Sheffield
Tony J. Prescott
Tony J. Prescott University of Sheffield
Paul G. Overton
Paul G. Overton University of Sheffield
John G. McHaffie
John G. McHaffie Wake Forest University
Tadashi Isa
Tadashi Isa Kyoto University
Barry E. Stein
Barry E. Stein Wake Forest University
Jose A. Obeso
Jose A. Obeso CEU San Pablo University
Philip Winn
Philip Winn University of Strathclyde

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

Neuroscience is an exciting field with numerous opportunities for growth. For those interested in advancing their education, exploring most profitable degrees is crucial. Many STEM-focused majors, including neuroscience, are linked to high-paying careers in research, healthcare, and technology.

Choosing an affordable, flexible program can make a significant difference. There are several accredited online colleges that accept fafsa, allowing students to apply for federal financial aid and pursue their degrees remotely.

Not everyone opts for a traditional four-year degree. Some choose online certificate programs that pay well, which can lead to solid career pathways in healthcare support, psychology, or biotech.

Students with time or academic constraints might also consider easy university majors. These can offer quicker entry into the workforce and foundational knowledge for specialty fields related to neuroscience.

Best Scientists Citing Peter Redgrave

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles