Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 182

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Mirror movements studied in a patient with Klippel‐Feil syndrome.

Open access
Farmer, S F, Ingram, D A, Stephens, J A·1990·The Journal of Physiology

Abstract

1. Electromyographic (EMG) recordings have been made from upper limb muscles in a patient with well‐defined congenital mirror movements occurring in association with Klippel‐Feil syndrome and the results compared to those obtained in normal control subjects. 2. In the patient, liminal percutaneous electrical or magnetic brain stimulation applied over either hemisphere elicited bilateral and symmetrical short‐latency muscle responses in relaxed intrinsic hand muscles. In the normal subjects unilateral brain stimulation only elicited contralateral muscle responses. 3. F response and H reflex studies for the patient's ulnar‐supplied intrinsic hand muscles were normal. No crossed responses were recorded in the homologous muscles of the contralateral hand. 4. Scalp‐recorded somatosensory‐evoked responses following ulnar or median nerve stimulation were of normal latency and distribution in the patient. 5. In the patient, cross‐correlation analysis of on‐going single and multiunit needle EMGs recorded between muscles of left and right hands revealed a central peak in the cross‐correlogram. No cross‐correlogram peaks were found between left‐ and right‐hand muscles in normal subjects. The magnitude and time course of the central peaks in the cross‐correlograms constructed between the firing of motor units on opposite sides of the body in the patient were similar to those found in cross‐correlograms constructed between the firing of motor units from muscles on the same side of the body in the patient and in normal subjects. 6. The magnitude of cross‐correlogram peaks detected within a muscle and those detected between left and right homologous muscles showed a gradient in which the largest peaks were found in the intrinsic hand and forearm extensor muscles. The smallest peaks were observed in the forearm flexor muscles. No peaks were detected between left and right biceps brachii muscles. In intrinsic hand muscles, the size of the cross‐correlogram peak detected between the EMGs of homologous muscle pairs was greater than that found for non‐homologous muscle pairs. 7. Cutaneous reflex responses were recorded from first dorsal interosseous muscle following unilateral electrical stimulation of the digital nerves of the index finger. In the patient, this produced an early excitatory (E1) response on the stimulated side. Later excitatory (E2 and E3) responses, of approximately equal size and latency, were distributed bilaterally. In the normal subjects, reflex responses were confined to the stimulated side.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1113/jphysiol.1990.sp018222

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 182

Metadata

Authors
Farmer, S. F., Ingram, D. A., & Stephens, J. A.
Venue
The Journal of Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1990-09
Volume
428
Issue
1
Pages
467-484
ISSN
  • 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7793
OpenAlex
W1980233301
Cited by
182
References
0
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mirror movements studied in a patient with Klippel‐Feil syndrome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1113/jphysiol.1990.sp018222
The paper
Farmer, S. F., Ingram, D. A., & Stephens, J. A. (1990). Mirror movements studied in a patient with Klippel‐Feil syndrome. The Journal of Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1990.sp018222

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.