Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:15:43.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The clinical neuropsychologist's dilemma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2005

BARBARA A. WILSON
BARBARA A. WILSON
Affiliation:
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, UK and The Oliver Zangwill Centre, Ely, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Academic neuropsychologists are increasingly engaged in (and are part of) cognitive neuroscience. Neuroimaging is currently high on the agenda, neuroplasticity is a very topical field within neuroscience, and a number of neuropsychologists work on animal models of brain injury. Clinical neuropsychologists, particularly those involved in rehabilitation, will usually tell you that their work needs to be guided by theory or else they risk the accusation of being simply pragmatic. The fundamental question for clinical neuropsychologists is which theory or theories are most relevant and useful for the patients and families with whom they work? While it would seem that most clinical neuropsychologists consider cognitive neuroscience to be of direct or at least indirect benefit to clinical neuropsychological practice, it is part of the argument of this paper to suggest that the benefits are less substantial than is sometimes claimed. As I work with both academic and clinical neuropsychologists, I hold the conviction that theory should be relevant to clinical practice while, at the same time, wanting neuropsychological rehabilitation to be respectable in the eyes of the academic community. However, when treating a patient with brain injury it is sometimes a struggle to implement, or even see the relevance of findings from cognitive neuroscience.

Type
DIALOGUE
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , July 2005 , pp. 488 - 493
Copyright
© 2005 The International Neuropsychological Society

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

REFERENCES

Baddeley, A.D. (1993). A theory of rehabilitation without a model of learning is a vehicle without an engine: A comment on Caramazza and Hillis. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 3, 235–244.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A.D. & Wilson, B.A. (1994). When implicit learning fails: Amnesia and the problem of error elimination. Neuropsychologia, 32, 53–68.Google Scholar
Ben-Yishay, Y. (Ed.) (1978). Working approaches to remediation of cognitive deficits in brain damaged persons (Rehabilitation Monograph). New York: New York University Medical Center.
Clare, L., Wilson, B.A., Carter, G., Breen, E.K., Gosses, A., & Hodges, J.R. (2000). Intervening with everyday memory problems in Dementia of Alzheimer Type: An errorless learning approach. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22, 132–146.Google Scholar
Evans, J.J. (2001). Rehabilitation of the dysexecutive syndrome. In R.L. Wood & T.M. McMillan (Eds.), Neurobehavioural disability and social handicap following Traumatic Brain Injury (pp. 209–227). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Evans, J.J., Emslie, H., & Wilson, B.A. (1998). External cueing systems in the rehabilitation of executive impairments of action. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4, 399–408.Google Scholar
Gainotti, G. (1993). Emotional and psychosocial problems after brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 3, 259–277.Google Scholar
Manly, T., Hawkins, K., Evans, J.J., Woldt, K., & Robertson, I.H. (2001). Rehabilitation of executive function: Facilitation of effective goal management on complex tasks using periodic auditory alerts. Neuropsychologia, 40, 271–281.Google Scholar
Molginer, A., Grossman, J.A.I., Ribary, U., Joliot, M., Volkmann, J., Rapaport, D., Beasley, R.W., & Llinas, R.R. (1993). Somatosensory cortical plasticity in adult humans revealed by magnetoencephalography. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 90, 3593–3597.Google Scholar
Prigatano, G.P. (1986). Personality and psychosocial consequences of brain injury. In G.P. Prigatano, D.J. Fordyce, H.K. Zeiner, J.R. Roueche, M. Pepping, & B.C. Wood (Eds.), Neuropsychological rehabilitation after brain injury (pp. 29–50). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Prigatano, G.P. (1999). Principles of neuropsychological rehabilitation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Robertson, I.H. (2002). Cognitive neuroscience and brain rehabilitation: A promise kept. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 73, 357.Google Scholar
Robertson, I.H., Hogg, K., & McMillan, T.M. (1998). Rehabilitation of unilateral neglect: Improving function by contralesional limb activation. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 8, 19–29.Google Scholar
Robertson, I.H. & Murre, J.M.J. (1999). Rehabilitation of brain damage: Brain plasticity and principles of guided recovery. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 544–575.Google Scholar
Sabel, B.A. (1997). Unrecognized potential of surviving neurons: Within-systems plasticity, recovery of function and the hypothesis of minimal residual structure. Neuroscientist, 3, 366–370.Google Scholar
Schacter, D.L., Rich, S.A., & Stampp, M.S. (1985). Remediation of memory disorders: Experimental evaluation of the spaced-retrieval technique. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 7, 79–96.Google Scholar
Sohlberg, M.M. & Mateer, C.A. (1989). Introduction to cognitive rehabilitation: Theory and practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Sohlberg, M.M. & Mateer, C.A. (2001). Cognitive rehabilitation: An Integrative Neuropsychological Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Terrace, H.S. (1963). Discrimination learning with and without “errors.” Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 1–27.Google Scholar
Terrace, H.S. (1966). Stimulus control. In W.K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 271–344). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Williams, W.H., Evans, J.J., & Wilson, B.A. (2003). Neurorehabilitation for two cases of post-traumatic stress disorder following traumatic brain injury. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 8, 1–18.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.A. (1991). Behaviour therapy in the treatment of neurologically impaired adults. In P.R. Martin (Ed.), Handbook of behavior therapy and psychological science: An integrative approach (pp. 227–252). New York: Pergamon Press.
Wilson, B.A. (1997). Cognitive rehabilitation: How it is and how it might be. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 3, 487–496.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.A. (2002). Towards a comprehensive model of cognitive rehabilitation. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 12, 97–110.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.A., Baddeley, A.D., Evans, J.J., & Shiel, A. (1994). Errorless learning in the rehabilitation of memory impaired people. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 4, 307–326.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.A., Emslie, H., Quirk, K., & Evans, J. (1999). George: Learning to live independently with NeuroPage®. Rehabilitation Psychology, 44, 284–296.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.A., Emslie, H.C., Quirk, K., & Evans, J.J. (2001). Reducing everyday memory and planning problems by means of a paging system: A randomised control crossover study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 70, 477–482.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.A. & Evans, J.J. (2003). Does cognitive rehabilitation work? Clinical and economic considerations and outcomes. In G. Prigatano (Ed.), Clinical neuropsychology and cost-outcome research: An introduction (pp. 329–349). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Wilson, B.A., Evans, J.J., Emslie, H., & Malinek, V. (1997). Evaluation of NeuroPage: A new memory aid. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 63, 113–115.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.A., Evans, J.J., & Keohane, C. (2002). Cognitive rehabilitation: A goal-planning approach. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 17, 542–555.Google Scholar
Zangwill, O.L. (1947). Psychological aspects of rehabilitation in cases of brain injury. British Journal of Psychology, 37, 60–69.Google Scholar