Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T11:40:39.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in Porteus Maze Scores of Brain-Operated Schizophrenics After an Eight-Year Interval

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

Aaron Smith
Aaron Smith*
Affiliation:
Oxford University Institute of Experimental Psychology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The voluminous literature reporting the effects of cortical lesions has shown contradictory and diverse findings from the earliest studies to the present (Franz, 1907; Klebanoff, 1945; Klebanoff, Singer and Wilensky, 1954; Meyer, 1957). Some investigators found no losses in intellectual function regardless of the locus of the lesion; others, a temporary loss followed by recovery of original capacity. Still others have reported significant losses following brain damage in the forebrain or other portions of the central nervous system. But for investigators in all three categories, what did “brain damage” consist of? The neurologists Brain and Strauss have observed “The study of psychological problems without an adequate knowledge of the physiology and pathology of the central nervous system can be likened to the exploration of the uncharted seas without the aid of a compass; and yet there are many psychologists who undertake the rash venture” (1955, p. vi). And what of the criteria on which the conclusions were based? An additional source of ambiguity is indicated by the fact that the overwhelming majority of conclusions on “mental” changes by psychiatrists and neurologists have generally been based on clinical or subjective estimates. Measurement, a crucial factor in any study, is of special importance in studies of brain damage and brain function, although despite a multiplicity of tests, there are few measures designed with attention to their unique problems. Tests employed in many psychological studies of brain damage were originally oriented toward quite different problems and had been carefully developed and standardized on non-brain damaged populations.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 106 , Issue 444 , July 1960 , pp. 967 - 978
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1960 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Brain, R., and Strauss, E. B., Recent Advances in Neurology and Neuropsychiatry, 1955. London: Churchill.Google Scholar
2 Cajal, R. S., Degeneration and Regeneration of the Nervous System, 1928. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
3 Crown, S., “Psychological Changes following Prefrontal Lobotomy. A Review”, J. Ment. Sci., 1951, 97, 49–83.Google Scholar
4 Eie, N., “Macroscopical Investigations of Twenty-nine Brains Subjected to Frontal Leucotomy”, Acta Psychiat. et Neurol. Scandina., 1954, 90, 3–40.Google Scholar
5 Frank, J., “Clinical Survey and Results of 200 Cases of Prefrontal Lobotomy”, J. Ment. Sci., 1946, 92, 497–508.Google Scholar
6 Franz, S. I., “On the Functions of the Cerebrum. The Frontal Lobes”, Archives of Psychology, March, 2007.Google Scholar
7 Goldstein, K., The Organism, 1939. New York: American Book Co. Google Scholar
8 Greenblatt, M., Arnot, R. E., Poppen, J. L., and Chapman, W. P., “Report on Lobotomy Studies at the Boston Psychopathic Hospital”, Amer. J. Psychiat., 1947, 104, 361–368.Google Scholar
9 Head, H., Aphasia and Kindred Disorders of Speech, 1926. Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
10 Klebanoff, S. G., “Psychological Changes in Organic Brain Lesions and Ablations”, Psychol. Bull., 1945, Vol. 42, 9, pp. 585–623. November.Google Scholar
11 Idem , Singer, J. C., and Wilensky, H., “Psychological Consequences of Brain Lesions and Ablations”, ibid., 1954, 51, 1–41.Google Scholar
12 Lashley, K. S., “Factors Limiting Recovery after Central Nervous Lesions”, J. Nerv. Mental Dis., 1938, 88, 733–755.Google Scholar
13 Le Beau, J., “The Surgical Uncertainties of Prefrontal Topectomy and Leucotomy”, J. Menu Sci., 1951, 97, 408–504.Google Scholar
14 Idem , “Post-operative Syndromes in Selective Prefrontal Surgery”, ibid., 1952, 98, 12–22.Google Scholar
15 Idem , Psychosurgerie et Fonctions Mentales, 1954. Paris: Masson et Cie.Google Scholar
16 Lewis, N. D. S., Landis, C., and King, H. E. (Eds.), Studies in Topectomy, 1956. New York: Grune ' Stratton.Google Scholar
17 Malmo, R. B., “Psychological Aspects of Frontal Gyrectomy and Frontal Lobotomy in Mental Patients”, Ass. Res. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 1947, 27, 537–564.Google Scholar
18 Mettler, F. A., and Curry, M. A., “Nature of the Project”, in Mettler, (Ed.), Selective Partial Ablation of the Frontal Cortex, 1949. New York: Hoeber, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
19 Idem , Psychosurgical Problems, 1952. Philadelphia: Blakiston.Google Scholar
20 Meyer, A., Beck, E., and McLardy, T., “Prefrontal Leucotomy: A Neuroanatomical Report”, Brain, 1947, 70, 18–49.Google Scholar
21 Meyer, Margaret, “A Study of Efferent Connexions of the Frontal Lobe in the Human Brain after Leucotomy”, ibid., 1949, 72, 265–296.Google Scholar
22 Meyer, V., “Critique of Psychological Approaches to Brain Damage”, J. Ment. Sci., 1957, 103, 80–109.Google Scholar
23 Milner, Brenda, “Intellectual Functions of the Temporal Lobes”, Psychol. Bull., 1954, 51, 1, 42–62. January.Google Scholar
24 Penfield, W., “Symposium on Gyrectomy”, Proc. Ass. Rev. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 1948, 27, 519–534.Google Scholar
25 Petrie, Asenath, “A Comparison of the Psychological Effect of Different Types of Operations on the Frontal Lobes”, J. Ment. Sci., 1952, 98, 326–329.Google Scholar
26 Pool, J. L., “Topectomy 1946–1951. Report on 106 Consecutive Non-project Topectomy Operations”, Transactions and Studies Coll. Physicians, 1951, 18, 49–67. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
27 Porteus, S. D., “Medical Applications of the Maze Test”, Med. J. Australia, 1944, 1, 558–560.Google Scholar
28 Idem , “Some Common Sense Implications of Psychosurgery”, Brit. J. of Med. Psychol., 1955, 28, 167–176.Google Scholar
29 Idem , “Recent Maze Studies”, ibid., 1959, 32, 1, 38–43.Google Scholar
30 Idem and Kepner, R. M., “Mental Changes after Bilateral Prefrontal Lobotomy”, Genet. Psychol. Monogr., 1944, 29.Google Scholar
31 Idem and Peters, H. N., “Maze Test Validation and Psychosurgery”, ibid., 1947, 36.Google Scholar
32 Proceedings of the Third Research Conference on Psychosurgery (1951), Publn No. 221. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare.Google Scholar
33 Russell, W. R., “After-Effects of Head Injury”, Edinb. Med. J., 1934, 41, 129.Google Scholar
34 Idem , “Late Effects of Head Injury”, Trans. Med. Chirurg. Soc. Edinb., 1939, 88.Google Scholar
35 Idem , “Transient Disturbances Following Gunshot Wounds of the Head”, Brain, 1945, 68, 79.Google Scholar
36 Idem , “Studies of Head Injury”, Brit. Med. Bull, 1954, 10, 1, 65–69.Google Scholar
37 Idem , “Disability Caused by Brain Wounds”, J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiat., 1951, 14, 35–39.Google Scholar
38 Smith, A., and Kinder, E., “Changes in Psychological Test Performances of Brain-Operated Schizophrenics After 8 Years”, Science, 1959, 129, 149–150.Google Scholar
39 von Monakow, C., and Mourgue, R., Introduction Biologique a L'Etude de la Neurologie et de la Psychopathologie Librairie, 1928. Paris: Felix Alcon.Google Scholar
40 Walker, H., and Lev, J., Statistical Inference, 1953. New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41 Yakovlev, P. I., “Fronto-pontine Bundle and Associated Projection Fibers of the Frontal Lobe Following Frontal Leucotomy”, Trans. Amer. Neurol. Ass., 1953, 78, 286–291.Google Scholar
42 Idem , “Anatomical Studies in Frontal Leucotomies”, ibid., 1954, 173 (a).Google Scholar
43 Idem , “Anatomical Studies in Frontal Leucotomies”, ibid., 1954, 53–56 (b).Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.