Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience.
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w71161279 →Countries where authors are citing Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience.
This map shows the geographic impact of Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience.. 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 Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience.
This network shows the impact of Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience..
About Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience.
This paper, published in 2001, received 521 indexed citations . Written by Charles G. Burgar, Peter S. Lum, P. Shor and H. F. Machiel Van der Loos covering the research area of Neurology, Rehabilitation and Cognitive Neuroscience. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Rehabilitation (450 citations), Biomedical Engineering (269 citations) and Neurology (165 citations). Published in PubMed.
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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w71161279.