Talk:Neuropsychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] ADHD

Moved from article (as first-person and POV):

"Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD or ADD) is one such problem that they can help people with.

I know. I'm using it myself.

JDG"

I rewrote the mention of ADHD. Vicki Rosenzweig 01:06, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections

The following information in this article is incorrect:

"The majority of work involves studying healthy humans in a laboratory setting, although a minority of researchers may conduct animal experiments. Human work in this area often takes advantage of specific features of our nervous system (for example that visual information presented to a specific visual field is preferentially processed by the cortical hemisphere on the opposite side) to make links between neuroanatomy and psychological function.

Animal work often involves vivisection and is particularly controversial both from the moral angle (see animal rights) and from the scientific angle, with some scientists skeptical of the claims that findings from animal neuropsychology can be extrapolated to humans while others claim such work is essential to understand neural systems and related medical problems."

1) Neuropsychological research involves healthy humans, humans with brain disease, and experimental animals. Although there has been an increase in functional brain imaging research using healthy humans in the past decade, traditionally neuropsychologists have studied patients with brain disease and experimental animals.

2) The specific features of the nervous system referred to above apply not only to humans, but to animals as well. In particular, the visual system example applies equally to humans and to animals. This is why animal research has been essential to the development of neuropsychology and continues to be conducted in laboratories around the world.

3) The use of animals in neuropsychological research or for biomedical research in general is controversial among vocal anti-vivisectionists. In other words, it is a political issue. It is not controversial among scientists. The only exception to this would be the study of higher forms of consciousness that may not be shared across species.

I revised this article twice but my revisions were reversed. The second time they were reversed within seconds. So I am giving up. I am a clinical neuropsychologist and a scientist with 15 years experience in the field. For a more accurate version of neuropsychology, see the Kolb and Wishaw text cited at the end of the article.

Hi there,
I'm also a neuropsychologist, and I think you're being a little one-sided here by not representing the entire debate on these issues. I'll address the specific points below...
1) Neuropsychological research involves healthy humans, humans with brain disease, and experimental animals. Although there has been an increase in functional brain imaging research using healthy humans in the past decade, traditionally neuropsychologists have studied patients with brain disease and experimental animals.
The majority of neuropsychological research is not done on animals. This can easily be demonstrated. By searching PubMed using the search term neuropsycholog* (click here to do so) it is possible to list all the articles nominally on neuropsychology. By restricting the studies to animal only or human only (via the 'Limits' option) it returns 21,254 human studies and 1,296 animal studies at the time of this posting. This shows over 16 times the amount of human studies are completed compared to animal studies.
2) The specific features of the nervous system referred to above apply not only to humans, but to animals as well. In particular, the visual system example applies equally to humans and to animals. This is why animal research has been essential to the development of neuropsychology and continues to be conducted in laboratories around the world.
While there certainly is some commonality between species, there are no perfect matches (why neuroscientists talk of 'homologous areas' when comparing cross-species) and much of the task of animal research is knowing the shortcomings of the animal model in question to be aware of where the limits of application to human function are.
The statement that "the visual system example applies equally to humans and to animals" is just ridiculous however. In certain species there seem to be some strong parallels (for example Hubel and Weisel's findings on the physiology of the early visual system seem to be common through many animals) but in others the findings are restricted. For example, Ungerleider and Mishkin's findings of two post-occipital visual pathways in monkeys seems to have a parallel in humans (as demonstrated by Milner and Goodale) but not in some less complex mammals. Furthermore, some aspects of the visual system seem unique to humans - for example, many of the top-down connections from memory areas identified by Kosslyn.
Such controversies and considerations are the mainstay of much of the animal literature and the more general theoretical issues a common topic of discussion in review articles. Indeed, the issue has been tackled in the Oxford Companion to the Mind (a single volume aiming to review the most important aspects of contemporary cognitive science), which suggests it is certainly not as obscure an issue as you imply.
3) The use of animals in neuropsychological research or for biomedical research in general is controversial among vocal anti-vivisectionists. In other words, it is a political issue. It is not controversial among scientists. The only exception to this would be the study of higher forms of consciousness that may not be shared across species.
Again, this is easy to dispute. Searching PubMed shows there are over 200 articles which have discussed this issue.
see the Kolb and Wishaw text cited at the end of the article.
If the issue was really so non-controversial, we might be forgiven for asking why do Kolb and Wishaw spend four pages of their introductory chapter defending the use of animals in neuropsychological research ? Perhaps because both Kolb and Whishaw have done much animal research themselves, and aren't necessarilly going to give the most balanced account.
The original paragraph reads...
Animal work often involves vivisection and is particularly controversial both from the moral angle (see animal rights) and from the scientific angle, with some scientists skeptical of the claims that findings from animal neuropsychology can be extrapolated to humans while others claim such work is essential to understand neural systems and related medical problems.
With the aboove points in mind I don't see how the queried paragraph could be described as 'anti-vivisectionist propoganda' (see page history) , when it seems it captures the debate quite succinctly.
- Vaughan 18:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your response. I would like to respond to what you have said. However I do not wish to engage in a debate, so this will be my last response on this matter.
My statement about the amount of animal research concerns EXPERIMENTAL neuropsychology, which is the subheading in question. The PubMed search pulls up all neuropsychological research. It is important to make a distinction between all neuropsychological research and the subset of that research that is experimental, meaning that the independent variable was manipulated by the experimenter. Indeed, this is the entire point of experimental research with animals. If you want to know what proportion of experimental neuropsychological research is animal vs. human, you have to do another search. I don't make any claims about this proportion, I simply stated that neuropsychological research involves humans and animals.
With respect to the visual system example, let me repeat what is written in the definition:
"Human work in this area often takes advantage of specific features of our nervous system (for example that visual information presented to a specific visual field is preferentially processed by the cortical hemisphere on the opposite side) to make links between neuroanatomy and psychological function."
Surely you would agree that the example of crossed visual pathways apply equally to humans and animals, yet this is written as though crossed visual pathways is unique to humans! I didn't say anything about higher visual systems. If you want to highlight human/animal differences, at least choose an appropriate example.
With respect to the controversy surrounding animal research, I wonder what proportion of the 200 scientific articles you found (itself a very tiny number relative to the some 22,000 articles you found on neuropsychology) actually took an animal rights persepective, as implied in the definition. The fact that aspects of animal research are debated among scientists does not mean that the conduct of animal research itself is controversial. Similar arguements are used by creationtists who argue that the fact that scientists do not agree about all aspects of evolution undermines the construct of evolution itself. In fact, every research approach to neuropsychology is debated. Functional neuroimaging is criticized because it shows all activated areas, not just necessary ones. Research on patients with brain disease is criticized because human lesions are messy and do not always respect boundaries of interest to neuropsychologists. I could go on. The fact that animal research was singled out in this manner suggests a political motivation.
The professional perspective on the significance of animal research to the understanding of human brain functioning can be found in any standard text on neuroscience and neuropsychology. This includes Kolb and Whishaw, which is in its 5th edition and is very highly regarded in the field. I would not agree with the ad hominem argument that Kolb and Whishaw are incapable of giving a balanced acount because they conduct animal research. My research is strictly focused on humans, but that does not mean I am incapable of defending animal research.
Everyone, please sign your posts. A quick response: First of all, the main article need only mention that neuropsychology uses both animal and human subjects, and that some people find this controversial, with link from "controversial" to a neutrally written wiki article describing the controversy. That above statement is perfectly accurate, and anything more draws attention away from the topic at hand. Second, as for the pubmed search, it is very difficult to get an accurate number of studies that use animals, but a quick search using the term "Neuropsychology" returned 2651 hits and "Neuropsychology AND Animal" returned 281 hits. This is just over 10%, and that can be reported in the article if need be, but what is the point? Finally, as for the controversy surrounding animals in research and the usefulness of what is gained from it, it has absolutely no place on this page (period). Yes, there are some scientists who are animal rights activists, or don't believe in animal research. I wouldn't want to make up numbers, but I can tell you that very, very few such people exist. You can't simply point to a single example text book and make an argument out of it. Anecdotes, of all things, do not belong in debate! --Dentate 01:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychiatry vs. psychology article?

I'm going to be posting this around at a few of the affected articles, but I was thinking of creating a separate article comparing psychiatry and psychology and counseling in general. I think there is a lot of confusion in the world as to the differences and similarities and Wikipedia could be a great resource to come to for those who aren't professionals in these related fields.

Kind of an example, psychiatrists carry a MD doctorate whereas psychologists & clinical psychologists carry a PhD doctorate. Perhaps we could explain differences in training and specialties. (ie you'll find more psychologists counseling marriages then psychiatrists, but you'll find more psychiatrists treating mental illnesses then psychologists.)

Anyway, I wanted to create this article and perhaps link to it on many of the related articles. Thoughts??? Chupper 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Zachorious 23:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where does this fall?

It seems like you can't major in neuropsychology. So where does neuropsychology fall? Do you major in pyschology to learn and cover neuropsychology? Or do you major in neuroscience? Or do both majors overlap with neuropsychology? Zachorious 23:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If your intent is to become a Neuropsychologist, the usual path in the United States is

  • complete a Doctoral Degree in Psychology, usually Clinical Psychology; during doctoral training it is advisable to take relevant courses in neuroscience, neuropsychology, neurophysiology, pharmacology, neuropsychological assessment, and neuroanatomy, if available.
  • complete a 1-yr intenrship in Psychology; go to http://www.appic.org/ to learn about internships in Psychology
  • complete a Residency/Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Neuropsychology (currently, ranges from 2-4 years)
  • one may become Board Certified in Neuropsychology by going through a peer review and testing process. This usually occurs approximately 5 years after completing the doctoral degree.

Sawiki44 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

On the same note, I'm a bit puzzled by the desciption of neuropsychology as a branch of psychology AND neurology. To the best of my understanding neuropsychology is a branch of psychology, not neurology. Neuroscience might (although this would be debatable) be considered an overarching term for neurology and psychology (including neuropsychology). I propose that the introduction to this article be altered accordingly.--Crimse 18:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. The confusion stems from the fact that many of these fields are multi-disciplinary. Neuroscience, for example, is a branch of biology because it ultimately investigates an anatomical system, the nervous system, even though it employs methodology from Biology, Psychology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Philosophy, and various medical fields, such as Neurology, Psychiatry, Pathology, and Surgery. Someone who works in any one of these disciplines might rightly call their self a Neuroscientist only if their work is primarily focused within the nervous system at some level.
Neuropsychology is also multi-disciplinary; employing methods from clinical and cognitive psychology. Anyone who calls their self a "Neuropsychologist" in the U.S. must have a Ph.D. in Psychology, and, as such, can also call their self a neuroscientist! If the neuropsycholgist comes from a cognitive background, then he/she is likely to conduct research, which could be anything from development of tests and measures, to studying memory decline in Alzheimer's disease (and many things in-between). If the neuropsycholgist comes from a clinical background, then they are likely to apply the research in innumerate ways, but one example might be to work with a person who experienced brain damage in an accident; to help them regain lost skills. There are other fields, such as Neurology, that employ neuropsychological methods, such as pencil and paper tests that help to reveal impairments in thought, reasoning, memory, etc that could be caused by anything from disease to traumatic brain injury. This does not make the neurologist a neuropsycholgist, because neurology is a branch of medicine. By the way, many neuropsychologists use methods commonly used in medicine, like fMRI, PET, etc, but this does not make them neurologists. Examples of people who work in neuropsychology that may not be considered neuropsychologists are anyone who does not have a doctoral degree. This is true for the US only. I can't speak for other countries.
So, recap: Neuroscience is a branch of biology. Neuropsychology is a branch of psychology. Neurology is a branch of medicine. They use each other's methods. A neurologist and a neuropsychologist can both neuroscientists. A neurologist would never call him/herself a neuropsychologist, and the reverse is true, too. Hope that helps.--Dentate 01:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does neuropsychology have results?

I can see that it has "Approaches" and "Methods" - does it have any results? If so, can someone please include two or three of the most notable results of this line of inquiry? I ask this with sincerity and respect. Thanks! NuclearWinner 19:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)