当前的分类系统使用术语“卡顿”和“精神运动现象”作为纯粹的理论描述符,忘记了他们的理论嵌入。这是临床医生和研究人员对精神分裂症和其他精神病或ECSP的运动和感觉运动/精神运动功能的欧洲合作的误解的根源。这里,我们回顾了不同的观点,他们的历史根源和突出差异。1844年,WilhelmGriesinger创造了“精神运动”一词来命名负责意志的生理过程。从这个想法出发,术语“精神运动”实际上是指接收各种内在心理输入的系统,将它们转换为发送到电机系统的连贯行为输出。最近,感觉运动方法利用神经科学重新定义了在精神病中观察到的运动体征和症状。1874年,KarlKahlbaum认为卡顿多尼亚是一种脑部疾病,强调其躯体-特别是运动-特征。在将痴呆症praecoxEmilKraepelin概念化时,以纯粹的精神术语重新表述了卡顿现象,撇开不能用这种方式解释的马达标志。相反,Wernicke-Kleist-Leonhard学校追求Kahlbaum的神经精神病学方法,并描述了许多新的精神运动迹象,例如,偏瘫,Gegenhalten.他们区分了8种精神运动表型,其中只有7种是卡托尼氏菌。这些与共识分类几乎没有重叠,增加误解的风险。虽然来自不同的传统,作者一致认为,他们的分歧可能是相互丰富的来源,但概念澄清的重要努力仍有待作出。这种叙述性审查是朝这个方向迈出的第一步。
Current classification systems use the terms \"catatonia\" and \"
psychomotor phenomena\" as mere a-theoretical descriptors, forgetting about their theoretical embedment. This was the source of misunderstandings among clinicians and researchers of the European collaboration on movement and sensorimotor/psychomotor functioning in schizophrenia and other psychoses or ECSP. Here, we review the different perspectives, their historical roots and highlight discrepancies. In 1844, Wilhelm Griesinger coined the term \"psychic-motor\" to name the physiological process accounting for volition. While deriving from this idea, the term \"
psychomotor\" actually refers to systems that receive miscellaneous intrapsychic inputs, convert them into coherent behavioral outputs send to the motor systems. More recently, the sensorimotor approach has drawn on neuroscience to redefine the motor signs and symptoms observed in psychoses. In 1874, Karl Kahlbaum conceived catatonia as a brain disease emphasizing its somatic - particularly motor - features. In conceptualizing dementia praecox Emil Kraepelin rephrased catatonic phenomena in purely mental terms, putting aside motor signs which could not be explained in this way. Conversely, the Wernicke-Kleist-Leonhard school pursued Kahlbaum\'s neuropsychiatric approach and described many new
psychomotor signs, e.g. parakinesias, Gegenhalten. They distinguished 8
psychomotor phenotypes of which only 7 are catatonias. These barely overlap with
consensus classifications, raising the risk of misunderstanding. Although coming from different traditions, the authors agreed that their differences could be a source of mutual enrichment, but that an important effort of conceptual clarification remained to be made. This narrative review is a first step in this direction.