On pp.78 of these notes live TEX-ed by Arun Debray for Dan Freed's K-theory course (lecture 23 given by Andrew Blumberg), there is a comment about how Hyman Bass initially started from the topological $K_1$ to define the algebraic $K_1$ as the Grothendieck group of the automorphism category. It claims that his definition was based on the analogy of the suspension and clutching functions from topology. I really cannot see this analogy and how it plays a role in the categorical definition of algebraic $K_1$ in the notes.
I think it would be very useful to know the analogy between topological and algebraic $K$-theory. Thus could somebody clarify the analogy and its role in the definition? In addition is there any attempt of generalizing this analogy to $K_i$ with $i > 1$ (despite a natural definition by Quillen exists) and why it fails?