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 accessOverview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
18 Own interpretation · 8 Sources not found · 7 No basis given · 6 No full text of the sources · 2 Not checked yet
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This compares with the first homunculus, which was not drawn in relation to the hemispheres at all.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there are formidable cartographic diffi- culties in using a device such as an homunculus as a type of map.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“patients with damage affecting somatosensory systems show evidence of marked somatotopic reorganisation at thalamic level.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [12]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Penfield's data obtained using comparatively large-diameter stimulating electrodes in patients with brain disease”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] Hassler R, Mundinger F, Riechert T. Stereotaxis in Parkinson syndrome. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1979: (front cover). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Penfield and Jasper3 were the first to place a homunculus in this subcortical region”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Penfield W, Rasmussen T. The cerebral corltex of man. New York: Macmillan, 1950:44, 56, 214-15.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“maps of cortical potentials evoked peripherally are not identical to maps of perceived sensa- tions induced by direct cortical stimulation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“They described their work on the effects of stimulation of the cerebral cortex in man, the procedures being carried out as exploratory manoeuvres to delineate the appropriate area for subsequent surgical intervention.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] Hassler R, Mundinger F, Riechert T. Stereotaxis in Parkinson syndrome. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1979: (front cover). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It was the first time pictorial means of illustrating cortical representation had been attempted; it was thus an entire- ly new concept”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] Hassler R, Mundinger F, Riechert T. Stereotaxis in Parkinson syndrome. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1979: (front cover). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The homunculus, however, is outlined by an imaginary 'envelope' which does not exist.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“From experi- ments using electrical stimulation techniques in monkeys, however, it seems probable that the concept of simple somatotopic organisation is inadequate.8”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [8] Dennett DC. Brainstornms. Philosophical essayNs on miind and psychology. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press 1979:57-59.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“draped along the cortical surface and interhemispheric fissure.In this homunculus, however, the motor and sensory representations have been separat- ed, slightly modified and corrected”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“responses have been transposed to the same side of the brain for the purposes of representation, and it is not possible from the illustra- tion to distinguish unilateral from bilateral effects of cor- tical stimulation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was symmetrical in shape and illustrated both motor and sensory features together”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Penfield's homunculus is shown with an outline which encompasses the area of cortical representation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whilst the homunculus appears to relate to length rather than width, the parts illustrated are in fact enlarged in both dimensions.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All these animal representations are more figurative than accurate, contrasting with the extremely accurate mapping of localised evoked potentials illustrat- ed diagrammatically rather than by means of figurines.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It suggests that the homunculus has taken over from its authors, and illustration has out- stripped the scientific evidence available.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“At cortical level, plasticity of maps of outputs of the human motor system has been demonstrated after amputation, paraplegia and hemispherectomy, and changes in sensorimotor represen- tation have been demonstrated in blind braille readers”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pascual-Leone et at
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Penfield and Jasper now illustrated three sets of homun- culi (fig 3), the first set (motor and sensory) in relation to the Rolandic fissure, a second apparently purely sensory homunculus in the secondary sensory area near the Sylvian fissure, and a third homunculus (virtually only motor) in the supplementary motor cortex.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Penfield W, Rasmussen T. The cerebral corltex of man. New York: Macmillan, 1950:44, 56, 214-15.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“They confirmed the precise topography of cortical localisation, and were able to relate stimulation of a discrete part of the brain with motor and sensory phenomena affecting a particular part of the body.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] Hassler R, Mundinger F, Riechert T. Stereotaxis in Parkinson syndrome. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1979: (front cover). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Penfield was aware not only of this individual variation but also that the effects of cortical stimulation could change after surgery.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] Hassler R, Mundinger F, Riechert T. Stereotaxis in Parkinson syndrome. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1979: (front cover). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thirteen years later, in their monograph entitled The cerebral cortex of man, Penfield and Rasmussen made another attempt to illustrate cortical representation.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2] Creutzfeldt OD. Cortex cerebri. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1983: 216.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These difficulties include two-dimensional repre- sentation of diverse, three-dimensional information both in the periphery and in the brain, the representation of multiple and sometimes overlapping images, and simulta- neous representation of bilateral and unilateral data.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is this unresolvable difficulty which makes the homunculus an unsatisfactory and per- haps even misleading image.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Scientific illustrations of brain function should be accurate and unambiguous to be scientifically valuable.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“inappropriate representation could actually impede scientific advance.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus Penfield's homunculus is not only ambiguous in what exactly it does represent, but also gives an unjustified impression of cortical representation which is both single and established.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The homunculus appears now to have degenerated into a purely artistic device vaguely based on animal experimental work, without any scientific basis to justify the human form portrayed.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For the sensory homunculus, Merzenich et aO provide evidence for multi- ple maps representing different functions, and there is evidence in non-human primates that there are as many as seven or more somatosensory areas”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Merzenich et aO
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] Welker C. Receptive fields of barrels in the somatosensory neocortex of the rat. 7 Comtparative Neuirol 1976;166: 173-190. source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The essence of all such drawings is that they are forms of maps, which represent how one collection of points is linked to another.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] Welker C. Receptive fields of barrels in the somatosensory neocortex of the rat. 7 Comtparative Neuirol 1976;166: 173-190. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“what actually was represented, however, was ambiguous and confusing.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is uncertainty as to what actually was being represented.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some patients report that the phantom that follows amputation often fades, but it does so in a non-sequential manner.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the first figurine was human, with Penfield's homunculus the precedent for the profusion of illustrations of experimental work on animals.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The border between fact and imagination has been blurred: the homunculus has been imbued with character”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the homunculus as represented by Penfield gives the impres- sion of single motor and sensory maps.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is clear that both scientifically and graphically there is considerable ambiguity in what Penfield was intending to illustrate.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With this stated aim, however, it seems curiously contradictory to represent meticulous scientific observa- tions by means of an homunculus.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“the length of the bars giving an indication of the relative cortical areas from which the corresponding responses were elicited.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2] Creutzfeldt OD. Cortex cerebri. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1983: 216.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
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”
Citations
Cites
Gould, H. J., Cusick, C. G., Pons, T. P., & Kaas, J. H. (1986) · The Journal of Comparative Neurology · doi:10.1002/cne.902470303 · Cited by 520
Receptive fields of barrels in the somatosensory neocortex of the rat
Welker, C. (1976) · Journal of Comparative Neurology · doi:10.1002/cne.901660205 · Cited by 519
Creutzfeldt, O. D. (1983) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-68962-8 · Cited by 156
Stereotaxis in Parkinson Syndrome
Hassler, R., Mundinger, F., & Riechert, T. (1979) · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-66521-9 · Cited by 133
The biological origin of human values
Pugh, G. E. (1978) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 121
Wall, J. T. (1988) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/0166-2236(88)90184-1 · Cited by 116
Simmel, M. L. (1956) · Archives of Neurology And Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archneurpsyc.1956.02330240075007 · Cited by 49
STIMULATION OF THE MEDIAL SURFACE OF THE HUMAN CEREBRAL HEMISPHERE AFTER HEMISPHERECTOMY
BATES, J. A. V. (1953) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/76.3.405 · Cited by 46
Cortical map plasticity in humans
Pascual‐Leone, Á., Cohen, L. G., & Hallett, M. (1992) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/0166-2236(92)90341-5 · Cited by 16
Gooddy, W. (1956) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/79.1.167 · Cited by 14
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Penfield W, Jasper H. Epilepsy and the fiunctional aniatomyii, of the humolani brain. London: J and A Churchill, 1954:105-106; 159.
- Melzack R. Phantom limbs, the self and the brain. Canadian Psychology 1989;30,1-16.
- Dennett DC. Brainstornms. Philosophical essayNs on miind and psychology. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press 1979:57-59.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Plasticity and Primary Motor Cortex
Sanes, J. N., & Donoghue, J. P. (2000) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.393 · Cited by 1,202
“Although the general medial-to-lateral leg, arm, and face representation appeared consistently in all early studies, one doubts that the level of somatotopic detail was ever intended by the near omnipresent homunculus cartoon (Schott 1993).”
BackgroundConstraints on Somatotopic Organization in the Primary Motor Cortex
Schieber, M. H. (2001) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.2001.86.5.2125 · Cited by 595
“These icons of neuroscience commonly are interpreted as showing a systematic, spatially organized, point-to-point mapping of control of ifferent body parts by different pieces of M1 cortex (Schott 1993).”
BackgroundHow Often Is Low Back Pain Not Coming From the Back?
Sembrano, J. N., & Polly, D. W. (2008) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31818b8882 · Cited by 386
“In part, this may be because of the relatively smaller cortical region in the sensory homunculus dedicated to this relatively large region of the body, in contrast to those dedicated to areas like the hands and face.(26) Clinically, this is evidenced by a much higher threshold for 2-point discrimination over the skin…”
BackgroundWrigley, P. J., Gustin, S. M., Macey, P. M., Nash, P. G., Gandevia, S. C., Macefield, V. G., Siddall, P. J., & Henderson, L. A. (2008) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn072 · Cited by 241
A little man of some importance
Catani, M. (2017) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awx270 · Cited by 152
“Forced to think out a way of displaying their findings they conceived the controversial homunculus (Schott, 1993).”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Schott, G. D.
- Corresponding author
- Schott, G D
- ORCID
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC1014945
- OpenAlex
- W1977511501
- Semantic Scholar
- 8e4cf6a9481532759799d868ea788a5ac066c05d
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
