ABSTRACT
In investigating the dermatoglyphics of hyperactive subjects, it was proposed that if similar hyperactives were sampled and significant differences were found from suitable controls, a genetic effect could be responsible. From two clinical populations, we ascertained 26 subjects in 24 sibships comprising the hyperactive study group. The control subjects came from an earlier study. Tables 2-9 contain summaries of the dermatoglyphic analyses of both subjects and controls. Data were grouped following a dermatoglyphic principle of complexity of pattern, specifically, and the number of triradii present. The scheme for reporting the results is: selection of the characteristic (pattern, ridge count); determination of the areas (digit, palm, sole); and comparison of the frequencies or counts in the two populations (hyperactives, controls). Among the 45 statistical tests, four achieved a 5% level of significance. Thus, with a seemingly homogeneous sample of hyperactive males and with criteria for comparisons, no characteristic dermatoglyphic features emerged. Considering the highly characteristic effects of chromosomal abnormality on dermatoglyphics as well as the features associated with an early intrauterine developmental disturbance, the lack of dermatoglyphic similarities in these hyperactive males reduces the likelihood of such a profound factor as a causal mechanism.
