Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:05:06.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Insight into memory deficits

from Part II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2010

German E. Berrios
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
John R. Hodges
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

In recent years increasing interest has been shown in the empirical study of insight and related notions in psychiatric and neurological/neuropsychological disciplines. In clinical psychiatry, insight has been explored predominantly in patients with psychotic illnesses, particularly schizophrenia (McEvoy et al., 1989; Amador et al., 1991, 1993; David et al., 1992). Insight in patients with affective disorders has received much less attention (Michalakeas et al., 1994; Ghaemi et al., 1996). The focus of these studies has been on the relationship between levels of insight and severity of psychopathology, compliance with treatment, prognosis, neuropsychological impairment, etc. The inconsistent results achieved so far are likely to result from differences in the methods of evaluation, these in turn reflecting diverse conceptualizations of insight (Marková & Berrios, 1995a). In general, recent views conceive of insight as a multidimensional concept including not only the patient's awareness of the symptoms/disease, but also elaboration of the said experience, variously conceptualized as, e.g. a correct attribution (Amador et al., 1991), a relabelling of symptoms as pathological (David, 1990), or a deeper knowledge of the effects of the symptoms/disease on the individual in the context of his/her environment (Marková & Berrios, 1992, 1995b).

In contrast to this broad conceptualization of insight in psychiatry, the neurological and neuropsychological disciplines have tended to conceive insight in the much narrower sense of awareness of specific deficits. Since the late nineteenth century, there have been reports of patients seemingly oblivious to major neurological deficit, maintaining their ‘unawareness’ and/or explicitly denying any disability in the face of confrontative evidence to the contrary (Anton, 1899).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×