Thomas G. Sugar

4.4k total citations · 1 hit paper
116 papers, 3.4k citations indexed

About

Thomas G. Sugar is a scholar working on Biomedical Engineering, Control and Systems Engineering and Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. According to data from OpenAlex, Thomas G. Sugar has authored 116 papers receiving a total of 3.4k indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 77 papers in Biomedical Engineering, 25 papers in Control and Systems Engineering and 16 papers in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Recurrent topics in Thomas G. Sugar's work include Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics (52 papers), Muscle activation and electromyography studies (45 papers) and Robot Manipulation and Learning (14 papers). Thomas G. Sugar is often cited by papers focused on Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics (52 papers), Muscle activation and electromyography studies (45 papers) and Robot Manipulation and Learning (14 papers). Thomas G. Sugar collaborates with scholars based in United States, Germany and Belgium. Thomas G. Sugar's co-authors include Kevin W. Hollander, Matthew Holgate, Dirk Lefeber, Bram Vanderborght, Ronald Van Ham, Vijay Kumar, Joseph K. Hitt, D.E. Herring, Jeffrey A. Ward and Edward J. Koeneman and has published in prestigious journals such as SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología, Experimental Brain Research and Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.

In The Last Decade

Thomas G. Sugar

114 papers receiving 3.2k citations

Hit Papers

Compliant actuator designs 2009 2026 2014 2020 2009 200 400 600

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
Thomas G. Sugar United States 28 2.6k 786 565 417 292 116 3.4k
William Harwin United Kingdom 28 1.5k 0.6× 470 0.6× 1.2k 2.2× 405 1.0× 310 1.1× 141 3.1k
Thomas Seel Germany 24 1.1k 0.4× 726 0.9× 351 0.6× 164 0.4× 197 0.7× 117 2.5k
Caihua Xiong China 31 1.8k 0.7× 953 1.2× 387 0.7× 619 1.5× 132 0.5× 177 2.9k
Joonbum Bae South Korea 29 2.4k 0.9× 871 1.1× 583 1.0× 661 1.6× 171 0.6× 145 3.2k
Samer Mohammed France 24 1.7k 0.6× 247 0.3× 651 1.2× 131 0.3× 660 2.3× 90 2.6k
Gill A. Pratt United States 21 3.2k 1.2× 1.6k 2.0× 253 0.4× 586 1.4× 245 0.8× 39 3.9k
Yasuhisa Hirata Japan 25 1.2k 0.5× 1.2k 1.5× 172 0.3× 747 1.8× 836 2.9× 238 2.4k
Kazuo Kiguchi Japan 27 3.3k 1.3× 886 1.1× 1.7k 2.9× 326 0.8× 301 1.0× 254 4.3k
Yoky Matsuoka United States 28 1.8k 0.7× 1.1k 1.4× 431 0.8× 313 0.8× 526 1.8× 95 3.4k
Elena García Spain 25 1.2k 0.5× 511 0.7× 303 0.5× 286 0.7× 191 0.7× 90 2.0k

Countries citing papers authored by Thomas G. Sugar

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Thomas G. Sugar's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Thomas G. Sugar with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Thomas G. Sugar more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Thomas G. Sugar

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Thomas G. Sugar. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Thomas G. Sugar. The network helps show where Thomas G. Sugar may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Thomas G. Sugar

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Thomas G. Sugar. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Thomas G. Sugar based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with Thomas G. Sugar. Thomas G. Sugar is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Miller, Emily J., Paul H. Kane, Kevin W. Hollander, et al.. (2025). Enhanced Functionality Using a Powered Upper Extremity Exoskeleton in Patients With Brachial Plexus Injuries. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 33. 780–786. 1 indexed citations
2.
Sugar, Thomas G., et al.. (2022). Origami-Inspired Wearable Robot for Trunk Support. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics. 28(3). 1466–1476. 7 indexed citations
3.
Hollander, Kevin W., et al.. (2022). Development and testing of the aerial porter exoskeleton. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología. 3. e1–e1. 3 indexed citations
4.
Sugar, Thomas G., Sangram Redkar, & Kevin W. Hollander. (2020). Phase controller outperforms impedance controller for a hip exoskeleton. 4(1). 25–28. 1 indexed citations
5.
Roberts, Chell, et al.. (2020). An Update On The Implementation Of A New Multidisciplinary Engineering Program. 12.236.1–12.236.10. 3 indexed citations
6.
Redkar, Sangram, et al.. (2018). Development of a Passive Prosthetic Ankle With Slope Adapting Capabilities. 3 indexed citations
7.
Grimmer, Martin, Matthew Holgate, Jeffrey A. Ward, et al.. (2016). A powered prosthetic ankle joint for walking and running. BioMedical Engineering OnLine. 15(S3). 141–141. 47 indexed citations
8.
Wang, Wei, Michael K. McBeath, & Thomas G. Sugar. (2015). Optical angular constancy is maintained as a navigational control strategy when pursuing robots moving along complex pathways. Journal of Vision. 15(3). 16–16. 5 indexed citations
9.
Wang, Wei, Michael K. McBeath, & Thomas G. Sugar. (2014). Navigational strategy used to intercept fly balls under real-world conditions with moving visual background fields. Attention Perception & Psychophysics. 77(2). 613–625. 3 indexed citations
10.
Bernardin, Delphine, Hideki Kadone, Daniel Bennequin, et al.. (2012). Gaze anticipation during human locomotion. Experimental Brain Research. 223(1). 65–78. 48 indexed citations
11.
Ham, Ronald Van, Thomas G. Sugar, Bram Vanderborght, Kevin W. Hollander, & Dirk Lefeber. (2009). Compliant actuator designs. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine. 16(3). 81–94. 643 indexed citations breakdown →
12.
Shaffer, Dennis M., et al.. (2008). Evidence for a generic interceptive strategy. Perception & Psychophysics. 70(1). 145–157. 16 indexed citations
14.
Sugar, Thomas G., Jiping He, Edward J. Koeneman, et al.. (2007). Design and Control of RUPERT: A Device for Robotic Upper Extremity Repetitive Therapy. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 15(3). 336–346. 229 indexed citations
15.
Oberle, Crystal D., et al.. (2005). The Galileo bias: A naive conceptual belief that influences people's perceptions and performance in a ball-dropping task.. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition. 31(4). 643–653. 24 indexed citations
16.
Sugar, Thomas G. & Vijay Kumar. (2003). Multiple cooperating mobile manipulators. 2. 1538–1543. 37 indexed citations
17.
Sugar, Thomas G.. (2002). Decentralized control of cooperating mobile manipulators. IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 18. 94–103. 8 indexed citations
18.
Kumar, V., et al.. (2002). Design and control of a 3-DOF in-parallel actuated manipulator. 1659–1664. 22 indexed citations
19.
Sugar, Thomas G. & Michael K. McBeath. (2001). Robotic modeling of mobile ball-catching as a tool for understanding biological interceptive behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 24(6). 1078–1080. 9 indexed citations
20.
Sugar, Thomas G. & Vijay Kumar. (1998). Metrics for analysis and optimization of grasps and fixtures. The International Journal of Robotics Research. 17(1). 28–37. 2 indexed citations

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026