59Harris LJ: The corpus callosum and the question of hemispheric communication: an historical survey of theory and research; in Kitterle F (ed): Advances in Cerebral Laterality Research: Hemispheric Communication: Mechanisms and Models. New York, Erlbaum, 1995, pp 1–60.
60Harris LJ: Right-handers speak with the left hemisphere, left-handers with the right: the rise and fall of a neuropsychological hypothesis; in Barr WB, Bieliauskas LA (eds): The Oxford Handbook of History of Clinical Neuropsychology. Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016.
61Nishitani N, Schurmann M, Amunts K, Hari R: Broca’s region: from action to language. Physiology 2005;20:60–69.
62Dubois J, Hertz-Pannier L, Cachia A, Mangin JF, Le Bihan D, Dehaene-Lambertz G: Structural asymmetries in the infant language and sensori-motor networks. Cerebral Cortex 2009;19:414–423.
63McCartney G, Hepper P: Development of lateralized behaviour in the human fetus from 12 to 27 weeks’ gestation. Dev Med Child Neurol 1999;41:83–86.
64Mori S, Oishi K, Faria AV: White matter atlases based on diffusion tensor imaging. Curr Opin Neurol 2009;22:362–369.
65Rogers LJ, Zucca P, Vallortigara C: Advantages of having a lateralized brain. Proc Biol Sci 2004;271(suppl 6):S420–S422.
66Rogers LJ, Vallortigara C, Andrews RJ: Divided Brains: The Biology and Behaviour of Brain Asymmetries. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
67Frasnelli E: Brain and behavioral lateralization in invertebrates. Front Psychol 2013;4:939.
68MacNeilage PF, Rogers LJ, Vallortigara G: Origins of the left & right brain. Sci Am 2009;301:60–67.
69Patel AD: Language, music, syntax and the brain. Nat Neurosci 2003;6:674–681.
70Peretz I, Vuvan D, Lagrois MÉ, Armony JL: Neural overlap in processing music and speech. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2015;370:20140090.
71Kaplan HI, Sadock BJ, Grebb JA: Kaplan and Sadock’s Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences, Clinical Psychiatry, ed 7. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1994.
72Lane ZP, Singer A, Roffwarg DE, Messias E: Differentiating psychosis versus fluent aphasia. Clin Schizophr Relat Psychoses 2011;4:258–261.
Lauren Julius Harris
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University
316 Physics Road
East Lansing, MI 48824 (USA)
E-Mail HarrisL @ MSU.edu
Bogousslavsky J, Boller F, Iwata M (eds): A History of Neuropsychology.
Front Neurol Neurosci. Basel, Karger, 2019, vol 44, pp 15–22 (DOI: 10.1159/000494946)
______________________
The Introduction of Emotions and Behavior in the Assessment of Neurological Patients
Melanie Genetti Gatfielda Françoise Colomboa Jean-Marie Annonib, c
aNeuropsychology and Aphasiology Unit, Fribourg Hospital, Fribourg, Switzerland bNeurology Unit, Fribourg Hospital, Fribourg, Switzerland; cLaboratory for Cognitive and Neurological Sciences, Department of Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
______________________
Abstract
In neurology and neuropsychology, behavior refers to the way human beings act and make decisions in contact with their environment. Behavioral impairment is therefore defined as a pathology, following brain lesion, that impacts the interactions between the brain-lesioned individual and his/her surrounding social world. First descriptions of behavioral disorders, including neuroanatomical correlates, date back to the mid-19th century. However, attempts towards their systematic identification and analysis only began at the turn of the 19th to 20th century. In this chapter, we shall span 3 main themes by introducing the first case reports based on thorough clinical descriptions, dating back to the 19th century. We then examine the emergence of checklist questionnaires and their application to large cohorts of individuals starting after World War II. Finally, we outline how, over the last 3 decades, the pace has significantly accelerated in the pursuit of defining the fine-grained processes underlying behavioral functioning, as well as the development of new and more complex measures, along with the emergence of the social cognition and social brain concepts. As the assessment tools have expanded and become more specific, an increasing complexity of mechanisms underlying behavior has begun to emerge.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
Introduction
Starting in the 19th century, human behavior has been the subject of abundant studies and to a range of definitions. In neurology and neuropsychology, behavior refers to the way human beings act and make decisions in contact with their environment. Neurobehavioral impairment (for simplicity purposes, we shall only use the term “behavioral” in the following) is therefore defined as a pathology, following brain lesion, that impacts the interactions between the individual and his/her surrounding social world.
Inherent to the nature of clinical examination, behavioral assessment belongs nowadays formally to guidelines and recommendations for most neurological diseases. For example, the fifth major revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) has not only included behavior change as a criterion in the diagnosis of neurocognitive impairment, but has also determined social cognition as one of the cognitive domains to be assessed [1].
First descriptions of behavioral disorders including neuroanatomical correlates date back to the mid-19th century [2]. However, attempts towards their systematic identification and analysis only began around the turn of the 19th to 20th century. Some authors have argued that interest in the neural basis of behavior and moral reasoning might have been delayed due to the particular taboos existing at that time [3]. In an editorial about the frontal lobe and behavior, Mesulam discussed the difficulties encountered in behavioral assessments [
