Neurology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Correspondence:
Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Correspondence are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HEILMAN, K. M.
Right arrow Articles by GESCHWIND, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by HEILMAN, K. M.
Right arrow Articles by GESCHWIND, N.
NEUROLOGY 1975;25:1018
© 1975 American Academy of Neurology

Defective motor learning in ideomotor apraxia

KENNETH M. HEILMAN, M.D., HARVEY D. SCHWARTZ, M.D. and NORMAN GESCHWIND, M.D.

Department of Neurology, University of Florida College of Medicine, and Veterans Administration Hospital, Gainesville, Florida, (MRIS 9254) and the Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School and Neurological Unit, Boston City Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Liepmann suggested that the left hemisphere contained the engrams for motor sequences. Other investigators have suggested that ideomotor apraxia may be caused by either a destruction of these engrams or a disconnection of these engrams from motor systems in the nondominant hemisphere. If these hypotheses are correct, then ideomotor apraxics should not only show a defect on previously learned motor tasks but also a defect in new motor learning. Nine right-handed, hemiparetic, aphasic apraxics were given six trials on a rotary pursuit meter. Eight right-handed, hemiparetic, aphasic, nonapraxic patients served as controls. All subjects were instructed to use their left (nonparetic) hand. The performance of the control group on the sixth trial was significantly better than that on the first trial, showing a distinct learning effect. In the apraxic group, however, there was no significant difference between the first and sixth trial, suggesting a defect in motor learning. This defect appeared to be caused by a combined defect of both acquisition and retention.

Presented at the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in San Francisco, April 1974.

Received for publication March 25, 1975.

Dr. Heilman's address is Department of Neurology, University of Florida College of Medicine, The J. Hillis Miller Health Center, Gainesville, FL 32610.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
PediatricsHome page
T. D. Sanger, D. Chen, M. R. Delgado, D. Gaebler-Spira, M. Hallett, J. W. Mink, and the Taskforce on Childhood Motor Disorders
Definition and Classification of Negative Motor Signs in Childhood
Pediatrics, November 1, 2006; 118(5): 2159 - 2167.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1975 by AAN Enterprises, Inc.