Back

Functional neurological symptoms occur commonly in healthy adults: implications for the pathophysiology of FND

Palmer, D. D. G.; Edwards, M. J.; Mattingley, J. B.

2026-02-28 neurology
10.64898/2026.02.26.26347208 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesFunctional neurological symptoms which do not meet clinical definitions of functional neurological disorder (FND) are common in clinical practice. Understanding the distinction between these benign functional symptoms and FND is crucial in defining FND as an entity for study, and as a clinical syndrome. We aimed to measure the frequency of functional symptoms in people who do not have FND. MethodsA survey was administered to 95 clinicians who attended an international conference on FND. Participants were asked to report the occurrence and characteristics of experiences with features of functional sensory or motor symptoms, or dissociation. ResultsOf the 95 people who responded to the survey, 57.4% reported having experienced any functional symptoms, and 47.9% reported having experienced functional motor or sensory symptoms. The symptoms reported were generally short-lived and caused only mild distress and disruption. Most respondents who reported having experienced a functional symptom reported having had multiple events through their lives. InterpretationThe results suggest that the lifetime occurrence of functional neurological symptoms is at least two orders of magnitude higher than the prevalence of FND. The high prevalence of functional symptoms in people who have never had FND challenges the common assumption that the occurrence of functional neurological symptoms is synonymous with FND. We propose that FND is better conceived of as a failure of the mechanisms by which functional neurological symptoms resolve, rather than the occurrence of functional symptoms per se. This reconceptualization implies new research directions for the underlying aetiology of FND.

Published in CNS Spectrums · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.