Schmidt et al.

, Perception of fetal movements 313

Original articles

J. Perinat. Med.
12(1984)313
Maternal perception of fetal movements and real-time ultrasound
findings

W. Schmidt, L Cseh*, K. Kara**, F. Kubli

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Heidelberg,

F.R.Germany
* Postgraduate Medical School, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Budapest (Head: Prof. Dr. I. Gati), Hungary
** Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tokyo
(Head: Prof. Dr. S. Sakamoto), Japan

Introduction Materials and methods

The registration of fetal movements by the mother Fifty patients in the second half of pregnancy
is traditionally considered to be a useful method were monitored simultaneously with two ultra-
of monitoring the fetal well-being [8, 17]. Over the sound instruments. Thirty-three patients showed
past decade the interest in recording fetal activity an uncomplicated course of pregnancy, seven
has increased both by semiquantitative standard- suffered from threatened premature labor. The
ization of maternal perception and by the develop- study included also one patient with toxemia, one
ment and application of new technologies [2, 7, patient with diabetes mellitus, and eight patients
15]. with growth retarded fetuses below the 10th
In the past, the monitoring of fetal motor activity percentile according to THOMSON et al., 1968
has been based on indirect methods of detection. [20]. The age of the patients ranged from 18 to
These methods have included maternal perception 39 years. All patients except nine had a meal
[12], electromagnetic pressure sensors [2], observer before the examination. Thirty-nine examinations
palpation, strain gauge devices [23], tocodyno- were done between 8 and 10 a.m. and 11 examina-
metric transducers [21] and piezo-electric crystals tions between 4 and 6 p.m. The examinations
[18]. were performed in a semi-recumbent position
Simultaneous monitoring of fetal movements with tilted to the left with a pillow to prevent vena cava
maternal perception and ultrasound was done by occlusion syndrome. The design of monitoring the
GETTINGER et al. for the first time [3] using one total fetal motor activity is shown in Fig. 1. This
real-time ultrasound transducer. This was later involved the use of two ultrasound instruments:
repeated by HERTOGS et al. [4] applying two i.e., M 2130 ADR, 3.5 MHz and Superscan 50
transducers simultaneously. Beginning in 1981 a ROCHE-bioelectronics, 2.8 MHz. Monitoring also
prospective study was started in our department included registration of trunk movements, thoracic
with simultaneous assessment of fetal motor movements (breathing movements), movements of
activity by real-time ultrasound and maternal the upper and lower extremities, fetal heart fre-
perception. A comparison of these two methods quency, and tocography. One ultrasound trans-
is described below. ducer with 10.7cm active length was placed to
record cross-sections of the lower thoracic region,
the arms, and the trunk. Another transducer with
11.7 cm length likewise was placed to record the
* *# Supported by A. von Humboldt-Stiftung legs.
© by Walter de Gruyter & Co. Berlin · New York
314 Schmidt et al., Perception of fetal movements

ιΟΟ
MATERNAL PERCEPTION
Tab. I. Number of examined patients according to gesta-
tional age (weeks).
;j .
Gestational age < 31 32-34 35-37 38-40
(weeks)
Number of patients 6 10 22 12

fetal "breathing") could be detected sonographic-

ally. Most of the movements of the extremities
(1515/1920 = 79%) were part of "gross" move-
ments of the fetuses. Later analysis of magnetic
tape recordings showed altogether 822 discernable
single movements.
A mean of 17.1 mvts/22min, could be observed
Fig. 1. Scheme of monitoring "total" fetal body move- with a range of 0 to 60 mvts. There was one case
ments with two ultrasound transducers and maternal with an intrauterine growth retarded fetus in
perception of fetal movements simultaneously. In addi-
tion to this FHR and also tocographic findings were which no fetal movement activity could be detected
stored synchronously on a magnetic tape recorder. during the whole examination time. But there was
also one unaffected fetus which showed no move-
Cases with fetal hiccoughs were excluded from the ments at all. Tab. II shows the relationship of fetal
study. Movements were recorded as a single move- trunk movements to movements of the extremities.
ment when the interval between two movements In 86 % of all body movements the "gross" body
was less than two seconds. The beginning and the movements were registered sonographically.
end of each fetal movement was marked by the Isolated movements of the extremities occurred in
patients and by the observers — "breathing" move- only 14% (upper extremities) and in 7% (lower
ments, body movements, movements of the upper extremities) respectively. Of all discernable single
and lower extremities were stored synchronously movements monitored by ultrasound the mothers
but separately on magnetic tape — using a push registered 37%. A maximum maternal perception
button system. Fetal movements were defined as of 63 % was noted in the group of fetal "gross"
"gross" movements when movements of the upper
and/or lower limbs occurred simultaneously with
body movements. Tab. II. Incidence of body movements, "gross" move-
ments (i.e. movements of fetal body and simultaneous
movements of the extremities) and movements of the
upper and lower extremities detected by ultrasound
Results examination.

The distribution of all 50 examined patients Number

according to gestational age is shown in Tab. I. We All body movements observed 417 100%
Body movements combined with
observed 31 nulliparous and 19 multiparous movements of the extremities, i.e.
women. In 23 cases the placental location was the "gross" movements 361 86%
posterior, in 27 cases mainly anterior of the uterus. Body movements without
movements of the extremities 56 14%
The mean weight of all examined patient was
65 kg (50.5 kg to 93.4kg). In a total registration All movements of the extremities
time of 18 hours 29 minutes 417 fetal body move- observed 1920 100%
Movements of the upper and/or
ments and 1,920 movements of the extremities lower extremities with body
were detected by ultrasound. A total of 2,337 movements synchronously 1515 79 %
movements (i.e. combined or isolated movements Upper extremities only 270 14 %
Lower extremities only 135 7%
of fetal body and/or the extremities excluding
J. Perinat. Med. 12 (1984)
Schmidt et al., Perception of fetal movements 315

Tab. III. Maternal perception of different fetal single maternal perception

movements ("gross" movements, trunk movements and fetal body movements
isolated movements of the extremities). 67%(η·19)

Perception of all single movements 65 _

(excluding "breathing") 305/822 37%
Perception of "gross" movements 226/361 63%
Perception of isolated trunk
movements 18/56 32%
Perception of movements of the upper 60 -
extremities 40/270 15%
Perception of movements of the lower
extremities 21/135 16%
Γ56%(η-20)
55 -

movements. Fetal body movements without simul-

taneous movements of the extremities were felt by
the mothers in 32% and isolated movements of the
extremities were felt in only 15 % (cf. Tab. III). I I
<33 >36 weeks
The push button system was used by the mothers 33- 36

764 times (the pusti-button systems were used Fig. 2. Maternal perception of fetal body movements and
gestational age (p < 0.01 between both groups < 33 weeks
several times by the mothers during fetal "gross" and > 36 weeks).
body movements), indicating correct perception
of fetal movements in 536/764 (70%) whereas the
push button system was used without sonographic-
ally detectable movements of the fetus in 228/764 no reason could be ascertained in 47%. Fetal
(30%) instances (cf. also Tab. IV). Most instances "breathing" was present in 35% and contrac-
of correct maternal perception occurred with tions demonstrated by tocography was noted in
synchronous fetal body movements (81%). Of the remaining 18 %. With increasing gestational age
those patients with falsely registered movements, the mothers showed a more accurate perception of
fetal movements (cf. Fig. 2) (p < 0.01 between
< 33 weeks and > 37 weeks, chi2-test). According
Tab. IV. Correct positive and false positive maternal per- to parity, multiparous women registered fetal
ception of fetal movements. body movements in 73 % whereas nulliparous
women detected only 51% of fetal body move-
Push-botton system used by the ments (p< 0.001, chi2-test). No difference of
mother (including several
perceptions during "gross" maternal perception of fetal movements could be
movements) 764 100% shown with reference to placental location or
Correct maternal perception 536 70% obesity of the mother.
False positive maternal perception 228 30%

Correct positive perception in

relation to body movements with/or
without limb movements 435/536 81% Discussion
Isolated movements of the upper
and/or lower limbs 101/536 19 % The usefulness of maternal perception of daily
False positive maternal perception fetal motor activity has been proposed by many
in relation to contractions 42/228 18 % authors [1, 5, 10, 13, 16]. Other methods of
Fetal "breathing" 80/228 35 % recording fetal movements have also been de-
Without detectable reason 106/228 47 %
scribed [6, 11, 14, 15, 19, 23]. The difficulties of
J. Perinat. Med. 12 (1984)
316 Schmidt et al., Perception of fetal movements

retrospective evaluation of fetal movements by of the maternally perceived movements were with-
cardiotocography have been pointed out [9]. It out a sonographically detectable fetal movement.
was reported that 90% of fetal movements were jln 18% of false positive maternal assessments, a
overlooked. Another group [15] using an electro- uterine contraction was registered on the toco-
magnetic device stated that on the average, patients graphic chart. Another 35% demonstrated fetal
felt 87% of the observed movements. With two "breathing" activity and in 47% the mother used
highly sensitive piezo-electric sensors they were the push button without a detectable reason.
able to improve the detection rate of fetal move- To a great extent our findings are in agreement
ment to 90.4% [18]. with the results of HERTOGS et al. [4]. They are
The subjective maternal perception was compared contradictive to other data [13] where only one
with the real-time ultrasound assessment of fetal ultrasound transducer was utilized. This may have
movements by another study group [3]. There was ι been due to an unknown number of fetal move-
a significant positive correlation between the num- jments missed by the observer himself. The same
ber of movements recorded by both methods. One author [13] found no false positive reporting of
problem with this study was that the 95% con- fetal movements by the mothers. This, however,
fidence limits were rather wide. Additionally, a we could not confirm. In our study, besides mater-
mean of 57% of fetal movements detected by nal perception, real-time ultrasqnography and
ultrasound were not perceived by the respective tocodynometry were employed to monitor syn-
mothers. HERTOGS et al. (1979) [4] were the first chronously all combined or isolated fetal move-
to assess "total" fetal motor activity simultane- ments, "breathing" movements and uterine con-
ously with two ultrasound transducers. They com- tractions. It is our opinion that the use of these
pared their findings to maternal perception. In additional techniques helps to assess maternal
their study the patients perceived a mean of 33 % perception more reliably and objectively.
of all movements detected by real-time ultrasound. In contrast to HERTOGS et al. (1979) [4] we
They showed that the probability of a movement found a higher rate of perception of fetal move-
being perceived increased with the number of fetal ments in multiparous patients than in nulliparas
parts moved. A maternal perception of only 8 % (p < 0.01). A more accurate perception of fetal
for movements of an isolated fetal part to a high body movements was also observed with increasing
of 63 % for major movements; i.e., movements of gestational age (p < 0.01). Maternal sensitivity to
all four fetal extremities was demonstrated. They fetal movements did not seem to depend on mater-
found no statistically significant differences in nal age, placental location or obesity. The results
maternal perception with regard to parity, gesta- of this study suggest that most mothers are reli-
tional age, placental location and obesity of the ably reporting "gross" fetal body movements
mother. whereas isolated movements of the extremities or
In our study a modified examination procedure the fetal trunk might not be felt by the mothers.
comparable to that of HERTOGS et al. (1979) [4] Furthermore, fetal "breathing", BRAXTON-HlCKS
was used first. "Total" fetal motor activity was contractions and perhaps passive fetal displace-
registered by two observers and maternal percep- ment may lead to false registration of fetal move-
tion of fetal movements was stored simultane- ments by the mother. Psychological as well as
ously. Of all movements detected by ultrasound physical factors may also increase maternal sensi-
the mothers perceived a mean of 37%. "Gross" tivity to fetal movements [22]. These factors along
body movements were perceived in 71% whereas with the relatively high rate of false positive
isolated movements of the trunk and isolated perceptions should be considered if the mother's
movements of the extremities were perceived in record of daily fetal movements is used as a
only 32% and 15% respectively. Thirty percent method of fetal monitoring.

J. Perinat. Med. 12 (1984)

Schmidt et al., Perception of fetal movements 317

Summary

Two real-time ultrasound instruments were used simulta- regard to gestational age (p < 0.01). With multiparity or
neously for comprehensive recording of "total" fetal an increasing gestational age the body movements of the
motor activity in 50 patients in the second half of preg- fetuses were felt more accurately by the mothers. In 30%
nancy. Synchronously, cardiotocographic findings and of all cases the mothers perceived movements without
maternal perception of fetal movements were stored on sonographic confirmation.
magnetic tape. In most cases fetal "gross*' movements The findings of this study suggest that maternal percep-
were perceived by the mothers (mean: 63%). Isolated tion of major fetal body movements is accurate in the
movements of fetal extremities were reported by the majority of cases. However, the relatively high rate of
mother in only about 15 % of all cases. Mothers registered false positive maternal perception should be taken into
a total of all movements in 37%. We found a statistically consideration if the maternal record of daily fetal move-
significant difference in the percentage of perceived fetal ments is to be used for fetal monitoring.
movements with regard to parity (p < 0.001) and with
Keywords: Fetal monitoring, fetal motor activity, maternal perception, real-time ultrasound.

Zusammenfassung
Mütterliche Perception der fetalen Bewegungen und Real- nulli- und multiparen Frauen festgestellt werden
Time-Ultraschall-Ergebnisse (p < 0.001). Ebenso wurden Fetalbewegungen gegen
Die totale fetale Bewegungsaktivität wurde bei 50 Müttern Ende der Schwangerschaft signifikant deutlicher wahr-
in der zweiten Schwangerschaftshälfte durch die simul- genommen als zu Beginn des letzten Schwangerschafts-
tane Untersuchung mit zwei Ultraschallgeräten erfaßt. drittels (p < 0.01). In 30% betätigten die Mütter das
Zeitsynchron hierzu wurde ein Kardiotokogramm abge- Knopf-Druck-System ohne den sonographischen Nach-
leitet und die mütterliche Perzeption fetaler Bewegun- weis einer fetalen Bewegung.
gen auf Magnetband gespeichert. In der Vielzahl der Diese Ergebnisse zeigen, das sog. fetale Ganzkörper-
Fälle wurden sog. „Gross"-Körperbewegungen durch die bewegungen zumeist durch die Mütter selbst erkannt
Mütter selbst festgestellt (durchschnittlich: 63%). Dage- werden können. Allerdings sollte die relativ hohe Rate
gen wurden isolierte Extremitätenbewegungen nur in 15 % falsch-positiver mütterlicher Registrierungen immer mit
von den Müttern registriert. Von allen sonographisch berücksichtigt werden falls zur fetalen Zustandsdiagnostik
nachweisbaren Bewegungen fühlten die Mütter nur 37%. die Registrierung fetaler Bewegungen durch die Mütter
Statistisch signifikante Unterschiede konnten zwischen verwendet wird.
Schlüsselwörter: Fetale Bewegungsaktivität, fetale Zustandsdiagnostik, mütterliche Perzeption, Real-Time-Ultraschall.

Resume
Perception maternelle des mouvements foetaux et donnees pourcentages des mouvements foetaux pergus en ce qui
echographiques en temps reel concerne la parite (p 0,001) et Tage gestationnel (p 0,01).
Deux appareils d'echographie en temps reel ont ete En cas de multiparite ou ä mesure que Tage gestationnel
utilises simultanement afin d'enregistrer la totalite de progresse, les mouvements foetaux furent perqus plus
Factivite foetale motrice chez 50 patientes au cours de la distinctement par les meres. Dans 30 % des cas, les meres
seconde moitie de la grossesse. On a enregistre simultane- perqoivent des mouvements sans qu'il y ait confirmation
ment sur bände magnetique les donnees caidiotocogra- echographique.
phiques et la perception maternelle des mouvements Les donnees de cette etude suggerent que la perception
foetaux. Dans la plupart des cas, les mouvements globaux maternelle des mouvements importants du corps du foetus
du foetus sont pergus par les meres (en moyenne: 63%). est appropriee dans la majorite des cas. Neanmoins, on
Les meres ne signalent les mouvements isoles des extremi- devrait prendre en compte le pourcentage relativement
tes du foetus que dans 15 % des cas. Les meres pergoivent eleve de faux positifs dans la perception maternelle
37 % de la totalite des mouvements foetaux seulement. On lorsque utilise Fenregistrement quotidien par la mere
a trouve des differences statistiques significatives entre les des mouvements foetaux pour la surveillance du foetus.
Mots-cles: Activite motrice du foetus, echographie en temps reel, monitoring foetal, perception maternelle.

Bibliography
[3] GETTINGER, A., A. B. ROBERTS, S. CAMPBELL:
[1] BIRGER, M., R. HOMBURG, V. INSLER: Clinical Comparison between subjective and ultrasound
evaluation of fetal movements. Int. J. Gynecol. assessments of fetal movement. Br. Med. J. 2 (1978)
Obstet. 18(1980)377 88
[2] BODDY, K., C. MANTELL: Observation of fetal [4] HERTOGS, K., A. B. ROBERTS, D. COOPER et al:
breathing movements transmitted through maternal Maternal perception of fetal motor activity. Br
abdominal wall. Lancet I (1972) 1219 Med. 1.2(1979)1183

J. Perinat. Med. 12 (1984)

318 Schmidt et al., Perception of fetal movements

[5] HOMBURG, R., A. MATZKEL, M. BIRGER etal: [17] SADOVSKY, E., W. Z. POLISHUK: Fetal movements
Management of patients with a live fetus and cessa- in utero. Obstet. Gynecol. 50 (1976) 49
tion of fetal movements. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 87 [18] SADOVSKY,E., Z.WO*LFE, w.z. POLISHUK et al.:
(1980)804 Fetal movements recorder, use and indications. Int.
[6] MANNING, F. A., L. D. PLATT et al.: Antepartum J. Gynecol. Obstet. 15 (1977) 20
fetal evaluation: Development of a fetal biophysical [19] SCHMIDT, W., H. J. HENDRIK, L. GAROFF et al.:
profile. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 136 (1980) 787 Significance of fetal body movements in early and
[7] MATHEWS, D. D.: Measuring placental function. in late pregnancy as assessed by real-time ultrasound.
Br.Med. J.I (1972) 439 Eur. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Reprod. Biol. 1984 (sub-
[8] NELDAM, S.: Fetal movements as an indicator of mitted for publication)
fetal well-being. Lancet I (1980) 1222 [20] THOMSON, A. M., W. Z. BILLIEWICZ, F. E. HYT-
[9] NELDAM, S., P. JESSEN: Fetal movements regis- f EN: The assessment of fetal growth. Br. J. Obstet.
tered by the pregnant women correlated to retro- Gynaecol. 75(1968)903
spective estimations of fetal movements from cardio- [21] TIMOR-TRITSCH, J.,I. ZADOR, R.H.HERTZ etal.:
tocographic tracings. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 136 Classification of human fetal movement. Am. J.
(1980) 1051 Obstet. Gynecol. 126 (1976) 70
[10] PAYNE, P. ., . . GORDON et al.: Fetal death [22] WENDERLEIN, J. M.: Erleben der Fetalbewegungen.
without preceding fetal movement. N. Engl. J. Med. Z. Geburtsh. Perinat. 179 (1975) 377
303(1980)1419 [23] WOOD, C., W. A. W. WALTERS, P.TRIGG: Methods
[11] PATRICK, J., K. CAMPBELL, L. CARMICHAEL of recording fetal movement. Br. J. Obstet. Gyne-
et al.: Patterns of human breathing during the last col. 84 (1977) 561
10 weeks of pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. 56 (1980)
24 Received October 10, 1983. Revised December 28, 1983. jj
!
[12] PEARSON, G. F., J. B. WEAVER: Fetal activity and Accepted March 3, 19 84. i
fetal wellbeing: An evaluation. Br. Med. J. (1976)
1305
[13] RAYBURN, W. F.: Clinical significance of percepti-
ble fetal motion. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 138 (1980)
210 Priv. Doz. Dr. med. W. Schmidt .
[14] ROBERTS, A. B., D. GRIFFIN, R. MOONEY et al.: Universitäts-Frauenklinik
Fetal activity in 100 normal third trimester preg- Voßstraße 9
nancies. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 87 (1980) 480 6900 Heidelberg, F. R. Germany
[15] SADOVSKY, E., H. YAFFE: Daily movement
recording and fetal prognosis. Obstet. Gynecol. 41 Present address:
(1973)845 Yale University
[16]'SADOVSKY, E., H. YAFFE, w. z. POLISHUK: Dept Ob/Gyn, School of Medicine
Fetal movements monitoring in normal and patho- 333 Cedar Street
logic pregnancy. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 12 (1974) New Haven, Connecticut 06510
75 USA

J. Perinat. Med. 12(1984)