Research on Recovery: Ends and Means

  • F. D. Rose
  • D. A. Johnson
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 325)


The emergence of the study of recovery of function following brain damage as a major research area within the neurosciences dates back less than two decades. During that short period it has developed rapidly and, as Stein and Glasier (this volume) have observed, its growth has been particularly marked in the period since the first European Brain and Behaviour Society meeting on the subject in 198145 Certainly it is an area of neuroscience in which recent developments have captured the imaginations not only of scientists, clinicians and others with an interest in recovery but also, to some extent, the public at large. As we have noted elsewhere:

“Research on recovery is now a multinational, multidisciplinary and multimillion dollar activity, the progress of which can be charted through numerous conferences, in several major books and, more recently, in the emergence of journals devoted to this area --- ” (Rose & Johnson37).

That this investment of expertise, enthusiasm and money has paid some dividends is clear: evidence is to be found in the pages of the present volume. Perhaps most notable is the dramatic progress which has occurred in the field of neural implantation (see Hitchcock, Sinden et al., and Stein and Glasier, this volume). Two decades ago the focus of this area of enquiry consisted of just a handful of published reports. Now there are hundreds of publications on the subject and, whilst there are many problems still to resolve, we have a considerable appreciation of the mechanisms underlying successful implantation, the effects of implantation on the host brain and the possible role of such effects in restoring impaired function.


Brain Damage Collaborative Network Cognitive Rehabilitation Function Research Present Volume 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Almli, C.R., and Finger, S., 1988, Towards a definition of recovery of function, in S. Finger, T.E. LeVere, C.R Almli, and D.G. Stein, eds., Brain Injury. Theoretical and Controversial Issues, pp 1-14, Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bach y Rita, P., and Bach y Rita, E.W., 1990, Biological and psychosocial factors in recovery from brain damage in humans, Canad. J. Psychol., 44, 148–165.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bingham, S., 1991, Dietary aspects of health strategy for England, Brit. Med. J., 303, 353–355.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CORAD, 1982, Report by the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crawford, J.R., Johnson, D.A., Mychalkin, B., Cameron, I.M., Allan, K.M., Moole, J.W., Gullion, F., and Moss, A.R. (submitted), Factor structure of the WAIS-R in a clinical sample.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dywan, J., Kaplan, R.D., and Pirozzolo, F.J., eds., 1991, Neuropsychology and the Law, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Equal Opportunities Commission, 1982, Caring for the Elderly and Handicapped, EOC, London.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finger, S., ed., 1978, Recovery From Brain Damage, Research and Theory, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finger, S., and Almli, C.R., 1984, Early Brain Damage, Volume 1, Research Orientations and Clinical Observations, Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Finger, S., and Almli, C.R., 1984, Early Brain Damage and Recovery. Volume 2. Neurobiology and Behaviour, Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finger, S., LeVere, T.E., Almli, C.R., and Stein, D.G., 1988, Brain Injury and Recovery. Theoretical and Controversial Issues, Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Finger, S., and Stein, D.G., 1982, Brain Damage and Recovery. Research and Clinical Perspectives, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Finset, A, 1991, Some methodological problems in assessing neuropsychological recovery of function. A case illustration. Paper presented to the European Brain and Behaviour Society Workshop on Recovery of Function Following Brain Damage, Goldsmiths’ College, University of London, April 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fuhrer, M.J., 1987, Rehabilitation Outcomes: Analysis and Measurement, Brookes, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fussey, I.,1990, Evaluating the status of cognitive rehabilitation, in R.L. Woods, and I. Fussey, eds., pp. 249–258, Cognitive Rehabilitation in Perspective, Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldsmith, S., 1976, Designing for the Disabled, RIBA, London.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldstein, M., 1990, The decade of the brain, Neurology, 40, 321.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Groves, R., and Gladstone, G., 1982, Disabled People-A Right to Work? Bedford Square Press, London.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hebb, D.O., 1949, Organization of Behaviour. A Neuropsychological Theory, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Held, J.M., 1987, Recovery of function after brain damage: theoretical implications for therapeutic intervention, in J.H. Carr, R.B. Shepherd, J. Gordon, A.M. Gentile, and J.M. Held, eds., Movement Science: Foundations for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation, pp 155–177, Aspen, Rockville.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hunter, J., and Walker, J., 1989, The Role of a Rehabilitation Medicine Service. Rehabilitation Studies Unit, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson, D.A., Uttley, D., and Wyke, M., eds., 1989, Children’s Head Injury. Who Cares? Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klein, F.C., 1982, Silent epidemic: head injuries difficult to diagnose, get rising attention, Wall Street Journal, 24th November.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kraemer, G.W., 1985, The primate social environment, brain neurochemical changes and psychopathology, Trends in Neuroscience, 8, 339–340.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Levin, H.S., Benton, A.L., and Grossman, R.G., 1982, Neurobehavioural Consequences of Closed Head Injury, Oxford Unoversity Press, New York.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lezak, M.D., 1988, IQ: RIP, J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol., 10, 351–361.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Luria, A.R., 1963, Restoration of Function After Brain Injury, Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Luria, A.R., 1973, The Working Brain. An Introduction to Neuropsychology, Penguin Books, London.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mair, A., 1972, Medical rehabilitation: The pattern for the future, Report of a subcommittee of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, Scottish Home and Health Department, HMSO, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mateer, C.A., and Weber, A.M., 1991, Can competencies be retrained? A critical appraisal of cognitive rehabilitation, in J. Dywan, R.D. Kaplan, and F.J. Pirozzolo, eds., Neuropsychology and the Law, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matfield, M., 1992, Prime time terrorism, Research Defence Society Newsletter, April, 1-2.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miller, E., 1984, Recovery and Management of Neuropsychological Impairments, John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Robertson, I., 1990, Does computerised cognitive rehabilitation work? A review, Aphasiology, 4, 381–405.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Robertson, I., 1992, The rehabilitation of visuo-spatial, visuo-perceptual and apraxic disorders, in R.J. Greenwood, M.P. Barnes, and T.M. McMillan, eds., Neurological Reahabilitation, Churchill-Livingstone, Edinburgh (in press).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rose, F.D., 1975, Animal experimentation and animal rights. Time for EBBS to speak out? European Brain and Behaviour Society Newsletter, 5, 9–11.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rose, F.D., and Johnson, D.A., 1992, Making the most of what we’ve got, THINK, 2, 7–8.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rose, F.D., and Johnson, D.A., 1992, Progress in understanding recovery of function after brain damage: the need for collaboration, Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 4, 241–244.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rosenberg, R.N., and Rowland, L.P., 1990, The 1990’s decade of the brain: the need for a national priority, Neurology, 40, 322.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smith, J., and Boyd, K., eds., 1991, Lives in the Balance. The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research. The Report of a Study by a Working Party of the Institute of Medical Ethics, Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stein, D.G., Rosen, J.J., and Butters, N., eds., 1974, Plasticity and Recovery of Function in the Central Nervous System, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stuss, D.T., and Benson, D.F., 1984, Neuropsychological studies of the frontal lobes, Psychol. Bull., 95, 3–28.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stuss, D.T., and Benson, D.F., 1986, The Frontal Lobes, Ravens Press, New York.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Teasdale, G., 1991, The treatment of head trauma: Implications for the future, J. Neurotrauma, 8, Suppl. 1, S–53–8Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    The Times, (London), 15th March, 1991.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Van Hof, M.W., and Mohn, G., 1981, Functional Recovery From Brain Damage, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    World Health Organisation, 1980, International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps, World Health Organisation, Geneva.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zasler, N.D., 1992, Advances in neuropharmacological rehabilitation for brain dysfunction, Brain Injury, 6, 1–4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. D. Rose
    • 1
  • D. A. Johnson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths’ CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonEngland
  2. 2.Department of Clinical PsychologyAstley Ainslie HospitalEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations