Graham Pullin
Papers
3
Total Citations
33
H-Index
3
About
Graham Pullin is a researcher whose work in the early 1990s made meaningful strides in the field of rehabilitation robotics, focusing on developing assistive technologies for individuals with severe physical disabilities. His most recognized contribution centers on the design and clinical evaluation of a robotic workstation system built around a commercially available robotic arm, tested directly with patients at the Spinal Injuries Unit of Odstock Hospital in Salisbury. This hands-on, user-centered approach — gathering feedback through structured questionnaires from disabled users — helped ground his research in real-world clinical needs rather than purely theoretical ambition. His most cited paper, "Clinical experience in rehabilitation robotics" (1991, 18 citations), along with its developmental predecessor from 1990 (12 citations), established an early evidence base for practical rehabilitation robotics at a time when the field was still largely aspirational. His complementary survey of the broader landscape, "Current capabilities of rehabilitation robotics," offered a grounded and candid assessment of what the technology could realistically deliver. Pullin's work is notable for its pragmatism — prioritizing accessible, achievable solutions for disabled users over speculative futures — making him an early advocate for human-centered design in assistive technology development.
Research Focus
Key Achievements
Top Papers
- 1Clinical experience in rehabilitation robotics18 citations · 1991
- 2Development of a robot arm and workstation for the disabled12 citations · 1990
- 3Current capabilities of rehabilitation robots3 citations · 1991
Key Collaborators
Related papers
Researchers in this area
Labs working in this area
If you're exploring the applied side
Commercial systems in adjacent areas you may find useful as a starting point. This is not a claim that the research here is used in them — academia and industry often move on separate tracks.
Suggested by topic similarity — not advertising or endorsement.




