CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 862Motor Control and AdaptationTactile and Sensory InteractionsStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

MANUAL MOTOR PERFORMANCE IN A DEAFFERENTED MAN

ROTHWELL, J. C., TRAUB, M. M., DAY, B. L., OBESO, J. A., THOMAS, P. K., MARSDEN, C. D.·1982·Brain
DOI 10.1093/brain/105.3.515
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We have studied manual motor function in a man deafferented by a severe peripheral sensory neuropathy. Motor power was almost unaffected. Our patients could produce a very wide range of preprogrammed finger movements with remarkable accuracy, involving complex muscle synergies of the hand and forearm muscles. He could perform individual finger movements and outline figures in the air with high eyes closed. He had normal pre- and postmovement EEG potentials, and showed the normal bi/triphasic pattern of muscle activation in agonist and antagonist muscles during fast limb movements. He could also move his thumb accurately through three different distances at three different speeds, and could produce three different levels of force at his thumb pad when required. Although he could not judge the weights of objects placed in his hands without vision, he was able to match forces applied by the experimenter to the pad of each thumb if he was given a minimal indication of thumb movement. Despite his success with these laboratory tasks, his hands were relatively useless to him in daily life. He was unable to grasp a pen and write, to fasten his shirt buttons or to hold a cup in one hand. Part of hist difficulty lay in the absence of any automatic reflex correction in his voluntary movements, and also to an inability to sustain constant levels of muscle contraction without visual feedback over periods of more than one or two seconds. He was also unable to maintain long sequences of simple motor programmes without vision.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/105.3.515

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Without tactile somatosensory feedback, even simple manipulation tasks become clumsy and slow.

    “without tactile somatosensory feedback, even simple manipulation tasks become clumsy and slow (12, 13).”

    From A brain-computer interface that evokes tactile sensations improves robotic arm control (2021) · cites this paper as [13]

  • With the current participant, these scores were only exceeded when ICMS-evoked tactile feedback was provided, suggesting that without artificial tactile feedback, control is impaired, much as it is when tactile sensations are absent in people with otherwise normal motor control capabilities.

    “With the current participant, these scores were only exceeded when ICMS-evoked tactile feedback was provided (Fig. 2A), suggesting that without artificial tactile feedback, control is impaired, much as it is when tactile sensations are absent in people with otherwise normal motor control capabilities (13, 29).”

    From A brain-computer interface that evokes tactile sensations improves robotic arm control (2021) · cites this paper as [13]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
ROTHWELL, J. C., TRAUB, M. M., DAY, B. L., OBESO, J. A., THOMAS, P. K., & MARSDEN, C. D.
Affiliations
The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Brain
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1982
Volume
105
Issue
3
Pages
515-542
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
DOI
10.1093/brain/105.3.515
OpenAlex
W2054093267
Cited by
862
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 21
FWCI
5.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
deafferentation, peripheral sensory neuropathy, motor power, finger movement, muscle synergies, muscle activation patterns, force matching, weight perception, visual feedback, motor programs, hand function
MeSH terms
Adult, Afferent Pathways, Feedback, Fingers, Hand, Humans, Male, Motor Activity, Motor Skills, Muscle Contraction, Muscle Denervation, Peripheral Nervous System Diseases, Sensation, Thumb, Touch, Vision, Ocular

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review