Cited by 224Neurology and Historical StudiesHistory of Medical PracticeHistory of Science and Medicine

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 17 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Penfield's homunculus: a note on cerebral cartography

Open access
Schott, G D·1993·Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Schott’s historical essay examines how Penfield’s homunculus illustrations, beginning in 1937, became highly influential but remained scientifically ambiguous and mixed observation with artistic convention. It traces their evolution and argues they gave an unjustified impression of single, established cortical maps.

Key findings

  • The first homunculus, published by Penfield and Boldrey in 1937 and drawn by Mrs H P Cantlie, combined motor and sensory features symmetrically; its sizing rationale was unclear, especially the undefined terms “perpendicular” and “vertical,” and the drawing did not distinguish unilateral from bilateral effects.
  • The 1950 Penfield and Rasmussen version separated motor and sensory representations, placed the figure along the cortical surface, and came closer to a map tied to surgically identified brain areas; by 1954, Penfield and Jasper presented multiple homunculi for Rolandic, secondary sensory, and supplementary motor regions while explicitly calling them memory aids or cartoons rather than topographically accurate.
  • Later homunculi in the thalamus and elsewhere, including those associated with Hassler et al. and Creutzfeldt, are described as increasingly artistic devices with doubtful scientific value; animal figurines such as the simiusculus followed the human precedent.
  • Schott argues the homunculus misleadingly suggests a single, settled cortical representation, whereas evidence from animal work indicates multiple somatosensory areas, plasticity, and possible differences between maps of evoked potentials and maps of perceived sensations.

Methods

  • Historical and critical commentary rather than an empirical study; no new experiments or primary data are reported.
  • The analysis draws on published works and illustrations by Penfield and collaborators from 1937, 1950, and 1954, along with related historical and experimental literature.
  • The main approach is interpretive: comparing visual conventions, terminology, cartographic problems, and the scientific claims attached to the homunculus.

Limitations

  • The paper states no formal limitations.
  • Evident from the text: as an editorial-style essay, it offers no systematic review, no new data, and relies on selected historical sources and reproductions.
  • Evident from the text: its central critique is interpretive, and the author acknowledges ongoing ambiguity about what the homunculus was intended to represent.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jnnp.56.4.329

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 17 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 13 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 20
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 18
28 of 28
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Scientific illustrations of brain function should be accurate and unambiguous to be scientifically valuable.

    “Maps, however, are designed to be accurate as well as informative”
1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 14 references

3 of the 14 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Penfield W, Jasper H. Epilepsy and the fiunctional aniatomyii, of the humolani brain. London: J and A Churchill, 1954:105-106; 159.
  2. Melzack R. Phantom limbs, the self and the brain. Canadian Psychology 1989;30,1-16.
  3. Dennett DC. Brainstornms. Philosophical essayNs on miind and psychology. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press 1979:57-59.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–224 of 224

Metadata

Authors
Schott, G. D.
Corresponding author
Schott, G D
Venue
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1993-04-01
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
329-333
ISSN
0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1977511501
Cited by
222
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neurology and Historical Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › History of Medical Practice
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › History of Science and Medicine
Keywords
homunculus, cortical mapping, sensory homunculus, motor homunculus
MeSH terms
Brain Mapping, Humans, Medical Illustration, Motor Cortex, Somatosensory Cortex, United States, History, 20th Century

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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