David E. Tupper – författare

Alexander Romanovitch Luria is widely recognized as one of the most prominent neuropsychologists of the twentieth century. This book - written by his long-standing colleague and published in Russian by Moscow University Press in 1992, fifteen years after his death - is the first serious volume from outside the Luria family devoted to his life and work and includes the most comprehensive bibliography available anywhere of Luria's writings.

"Communication Disorders and Personality" analyzes the interrelation and interdependence between personality changes, which differ in their nature and phenomenology, and disorders of certain aspects of communicative ability. Author Glozman's approach is an interdisciplinary and comprehensive study of neuropsychological, psychopathological and special education data on the basis of communication theories. Presented are certain methodological problems as well as a number of experimental methodologies for the study of the personality of patients with speech disorders. Examined are communication as a curative factor and a possible prophylaxis or regression of disorders of personality in the process of the training and restoration of communicative ability. "Communication Disorders and Personality" will be a valuable resource for psychologists, social workers, psycholinguists, physicians, and speech and language therapists.

For a period of some fifteen years following completion of my internship training in clinical psychology (1950-1951) at the Washington University School of Medicine and my concurrent successful navigation through that school's neuroanatomy course, clinical work in neuropsychology for me and the psychologists of my generation consisted almost exclusively of trying to help our physician colleagues differentiate patients with neurologic from those with psychiatric disorders. In time, experience led all of us from the several disciplines involved in this enterprise to the conclusion that the crude diag­ nostic techniques available to us circa 1945-1965 had garnered us little valid information upon which to base such complex, differential diagnostic decisions. It now is gratifying to look back and review the remarkable progress that has occurred in the field of clinical neuropsychology in the four decades since I was a graduate student. In the late 1940s such pioneers as Ward Halstead, Alexander Luria, George Yacorzynski, Hans-Lukas Teuber, and Arthur Benton already were involved in clinical studies that, by the late 1960s, would markedly have improved the quality of clinical practice. However, the only psychological tests that the clinical psychologist of my immediate post-Second World War generation had as aids for the diagnosis of neurologically based conditions involving cognitive deficit were such old standbys as the Wechsler­ Bellevue, Rorschach, Draw A Person, Bender Gestalt, and Graham Kendall Memory for Designs Test.

For a period of some fifteen years following completion of my internship training in clinical psychology (1950-1951) at the Washington University School of Medicine and my concurrent successful navigation through that school's neuroanatomy course, clinical work in neuropsychology for me and the psychologists of my generation consisted almost exclusively of our trying to help our physician colleagues differentiate patients with neurologic disorders from those with psychiatric disorders. In time, experience led all of us from the several disciplines involved in this enterprise to the conclusion that the crude diagnostic techniques available to us circa 1945-1965 had garnered little valid information on which to base such complex, differential diagnostic decisions. It now is gratifying to look back and review the remarkable progress that has occurred in the field of clinical neuropsychology in the four decades since I was a graduate student. In the late 1940s such pioneers as Ward Halstead, Alexander Luria, George Yacorzynski, Hans-Lukas Teuber, and Arthur Benton already were involved in clinical studies that, by the late 1960s, would markedly have improved the quality of clinical practice. However, the only psychological tests that the clinical psychologist of my immediate post­ Second Wodd War generation had as aids for the diagnosis of neurologically based conditions involving cognitive deficit were such old standbys as the Wechsler-Bellevue, Rorschach, Draw A Person, Bender Gestalt, and Graham Kendall Memory for Designs Test.

For a period of some fifteen years following completion of my internship training in clinical psychology (1950-1951) at the Washington University School of Medicine and my concurrent successful navigation through that school's neuroanatomy course, clinical work in neuropsychology for me and the psychologists of my generation consisted almost exclusively of trying to help our physician colleagues differentiate patients with neurologic from those with psychiatric disorders. In time, experience led all of us from the several disciplines involved in this enterprise to the conclusion that the crude diag­ nostic techniques available to us circa 1945-1965 had garnered us little valid information upon which to base such complex, differential diagnostic decisions. It now is gratifying to look back and review the remarkable progress that has occurred in the field of clinical neuropsychology in the four decades since I was a graduate student. In the late 1940s such pioneers as Ward Halstead, Alexander Luria, George Yacorzynski, Hans-Lukas Teuber, and Arthur Benton already were involved in clinical studies that, by the late 1960s, would markedly have improved the quality of clinical practice. However, the only psychological tests that the clinical psychologist of my immediate post-Second World War generation had as aids for the diagnosis of neurologically based conditions involving cognitive deficit were such old standbys as the Wechsler­ Bellevue, Rorschach, Draw A Person, Bender Gestalt, and Graham Kendall Memory for Designs Test.

For a period of some fifteen years following completion of my internship training in clinical psychology (1950-1951) at the Washington University School of Medicine and my concurrent successful navigation through that school's neuroanatomy course, clinical work in neuropsychology for me and the psychologists of my generation consisted almost exclusively of our trying to help our physician colleagues differentiate patients with neurologic disorders from those with psychiatric disorders. In time, experience led all of us from the several disciplines involved in this enterprise to the conclusion that the crude diagnostic techniques available to us circa 1945-1965 had garnered little valid information on which to base such complex, differential diagnostic decisions. It now is gratifying to look back and review the remarkable progress that has occurred in the field of clinical neuropsychology in the four decades since I was a graduate student. In the late 1940s such pioneers as Ward Halstead, Alexander Luria, George Yacorzynski, Hans-Lukas Teuber, and Arthur Benton already were involved in clinical studies that, by the late 1960s, would markedly have improved the quality of clinical practice. However, the only psychological tests that the clinical psychologist of my immediate post­ Second Wodd War generation had as aids for the diagnosis of neurologically based conditions involving cognitive deficit were such old standbys as the Wechsler-Bellevue, Rorschach, Draw A Person, Bender Gestalt, and Graham Kendall Memory for Designs Test.

For a period of some fifteen years following completion of my internship training in clinical psychology (1950-1951) at the Washington University School of Medicine and my concurrent successful navigation through that school''s neuroanatomy course, clinical work in neuropsychology for me and the psychologists of my generation consisted almost exclusively of trying to help our physician colleagues differentiate patients with neurologic from those with psychiatric disorders. In time, experience led all of us from the several disciplines involved in this enterprise to the conclusion that the crude diag­ nostic techniques available to us circa 1945-1965 had garnered us little valid information upon which to base such complex, differential diagnostic decisions. It now is gratifying to look back and review the remarkable progress that has occurred in the field of clinical neuropsychology in the four decades since I was a graduate student. In the late 1940s such pioneers as Ward Halstead, Alexander Luria, George Yacorzynski, Hans-Lukas Teuber, and Arthur Benton already were involved in clinical studies that, by the late 1960s, would markedly have improved the quality of clinical practice. However, the only psychological tests that the clinical psychologist of my immediate post-Second World War generation had as aids for the diagnosis of neurologically based conditions involving cognitive deficit were such old standbys as the Wechsler­ Bellevue, Rorschach, Draw A Person, Bender Gestalt, and Graham Kendall Memory for Designs Test.

For a period of some fifteen years following completion of my internship training in clinical psychology (1950-1951) at the Washington University School of Medicine and my concurrent successful navigation through that school''s neuroanatomy course, clinical work in neuropsychology for me and the psychologists of my generation consisted almost exclusively of our trying to help our physician colleagues differentiate patients with neurologic disorders from those with psychiatric disorders. In time, experience led all of us from the several disciplines involved in this enterprise to the conclusion that the crude diagnostic techniques available to us circa 1945-1965 had garnered little valid information on which to base such complex, differential diagnostic decisions. It now is gratifying to look back and review the remarkable progress that has occurred in the field of clinical neuropsychology in the four decades since I was a graduate student. In the late 1940s such pioneers as Ward Halstead, Alexander Luria, George Yacorzynski, Hans-Lukas Teuber, and Arthur Benton already were involved in clinical studies that, by the late 1960s, would markedly have improved the quality of clinical practice. However, the only psychological tests that the clinical psychologist of my immediate post­ Second Wodd War generation had as aids for the diagnosis of neurologically based conditions involving cognitive deficit were such old standbys as the Wechsler-Bellevue, Rorschach, Draw A Person, Bender Gestalt, and Graham Kendall Memory for Designs Test.

Communication Disorders and Personality analyzes the interrelation and interdependence between personality changes, which differ in their nature and phenomenology, and disorders of certain aspects of communicative ability. Author Glozman's approach is an interdisciplinary and comprehensive study of neuropsychological, psychopathological and special education data on the basis of communication theories.Presented are certain methodological problems as well as a number of experimental methodologies for the study of the personality of patients with speech disorders. Examined are communication as a curative factor and a possible prophylaxis or regression of disorders of personality in the process of the training and restoration of communicative ability. Communication Disorders and Personality will be a valuable resource for psychologists, social workers, psycholinguists, physicians, and speech and language therapists.

Alexander Romanovitch Luria is widely recognized as one of the most prominent neuropsychologists of the twentieth century. This book - written by his long-standing colleague and published in Russian by Moscow University Press in 1992, fifteen years after his death - is the first serious volume from outside the Luria family devoted to his life and work and includes the most comprehensive bibliography available anywhere of Luria's writings.