Coup and contrecoup injury
type of head injury
In head injury, a coup injury occurs under the site of impact with an object, and a contrecoup injury occurs on the side opposite the area that was hit. Coup and contrecoup injuries are associated with cerebral contusions, a type of traumatic brain injury in which the brain is bruised. Coup and contrecoup injuries can occur individually, or together as a coup–contrecoup injury. When a moving object impacts the stationary head, coup injuries are typical, while contrecoup injuries are produced when the moving head strikes a stationary object.
Coup and contrecoup injuries are considered focal brain injuries – those that occur in a particular spot in the brain – as opposed to diffuse injuries, which occur over a more widespread area. Diffuse axonal injury is the most prevalent pathology of coup contrecoup.
The exact mechanism for the injuries, especially contrecoup injuries, is a subject of much debate. In general, they involve an abrupt deceleration of the head, causing the brain to collide with the inside of the skull. It is likely that inertia is involved in the injuries, e.g. when the brain keeps moving after the skull is stopped by a fixed object or when the brain remains still after the skull is accelerated by an impact with a moving object.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Coup and contrecoup injury” as type of head injury. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as type of head injury. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 5, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q927547. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Coup and contrecoup injury”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Coup and contrecoup injury primary sources, Coup and contrecoup injury archive and Coup research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Coup and contrecoup injury”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Coup and contrecoup injury” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.