Ward, J;
(2002)
What Can Studies of Brain-Damaged Patients Tell Us That Other Methods Can't?
[Review].
Contemporary Psychology / PsycCRITIQUES
, 47
(745)
pp. 745-747.
10.1037/001295.
Abstract
Patient-based studies have played a pivotal role in developing theories of brain and cognitive functioning. In the 19th century, patient-based studies championed the notion that mental functions could be localized and in the last 30 years or so they have been used to uncover the fine-grained structure of cognition. Farah and Feinberg have assembled an impressive review of this literature covering topics from traditional neuropsychological areas such as aphasia, agnosia, and amnesia through less-studied areas such as acalculia, disorders of body representation, and amusia. The aim of this review is to evaluate critically the assumptions behind the patient-based approach, contrasting it with other approaches and drawing on evidence presented in the various chapters in the book. Times have changed: Functional imaging and other methods have become the darling of cognitive neuroscientists. It is, therefore, worthwhile to speculate as to how patient-based studies will sit alongside such methods and whether patient-based studies will, in fact, be supplanted by them.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | What Can Studies of Brain-Damaged Patients Tell Us That Other Methods Can't? |
| DOI: | 10.1037/001295 |
| Publisher version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/001295 |
| Language: | English |
| UCL classification: | UCL > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences UCL > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences > Psychology and Language Sciences (Division of) > Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience UCL > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Life Sciences |
| URI: | http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/183392 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |