• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of jnnpsycJournal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and PsychiatryVisit this articleSubmit a manuscriptReceive email alertsContact usBMJ
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. Apr 2005; 76(4): 545–549.
PMCID: PMC1739581

Detection of focal cerebral hemisphere lesions using the neurological examination


Objective: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of clinical tests for detecting focal lesions in a prospective blinded study.

Methods: 46 patients with a focal cerebral hemisphere lesion without obvious focal signs and 19 controls with normal imaging were examined using a battery of clinical tests. Examiners were blinded to the diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of each test were measured.

Results: The upper limb tests with the greatest sensitivities for detecting a focal lesion were finger rolling (sensitivity 0.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.47)), assessment of power (0.30 (0.19 to 0.45)), rapid alternating movements (0.30 (0.19 to 0.45)), forearm rolling (0.24 (0.14 to 0.38)), and pronator drift (0.22 (0.12 to 0.36)). All these tests had a specificity of 1.00 (0.83 to 1.00). This combination of tests detected an abnormality in 50% of the patients with a focal lesion. In the lower limbs, assessment of power was the most sensitive test (sensitivity 0.20 (0.11 to 0.33)). Visual field defects were detected in 10 patients with a focal lesion (sensitivity 0.22 (0.12 to 0.36)) and facial weakness in eight (sensitivity 0.17 (0.09 to 0.31)). Overall, the examination detected signs of focal brain disease in 61% of the patients with a focal cerebral lesion.

Conclusions: The neurological examination has a low sensitivity for detecting early cerebral hemisphere lesions in patients without obvious focal signs. The finger and forearm rolling tests, rapid alternating movements of the hands, and pronator drift are simple tests that increase the detection of a focal lesion without greatly increasing the length of the examination.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (62K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Sawyer RN, Jr, Hanna JP, Ruff RL, Leigh RJ. Asymmetry of forearm rolling as a sign of unilateral cerebral dysfunction. Neurology. 1993 Aug;43(8):1596–1598. [PubMed]
  • Weaver DF. A clinical examination technique for mild upper motor neuron paresis of the arm. Neurology. 2000 Jan 25;54(2):531–532. [PubMed]
  • Yamamoto T. Forearm-rolling test. Neurology. 1995 Dec;45(12):2299–2299. [PubMed]
  • Baloh RW, Honrubia V, Sills A. Eye-tracking and optokinetic nystagmus. Results of quantitative testing in patients with well-defined nervous system lesions. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1977 Jan-Feb;86(1 Pt 1):108–114. [PubMed]
  • David NJ. Optokinetic nystagmus. A clinical review. J Clin Neuroophthalmol. 1989 Dec;9(4):258–266. [PubMed]
  • Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med. 1998 Apr 30;17(8):857–872. [PubMed]
  • Stell R, Davis S, Carroll WM. Unilateral asterixis due to a lesion of the ventrolateral thalamus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1994 Jan;57(1):116–118. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • De Renzi E, Barbieri C. The incidence of the grasp reflex following hemispheric lesion and its relation to frontal damage. Brain. 1992 Feb;115(Pt 1):293–313. [PubMed]

Articles from Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group


Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...


  • MedGen
    Related information in MedGen
  • PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...