Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The conception of cerebral localization has been evolved from many methods of investigation, such as the myelogenetic (Flechsig), embryologic, physiologic (Hitzig, Fritsch, Ferrier), pathologico-anatomic (Tiirck), clinicopathologic and histologic methods (Brodman, Campbell, Vogt and von Economo). Undoubtedly each method has certain shortcomings peculiar to itself, but when all the facts are gathered from these various forms of investigation a structure is built which cannot be shaken. Ours is essentially a clinicopathologic method, limited to cerebral lesions due to vascular insults. We are fully aware that our method of approach may deservedly meet with many criticisms. Strict schematization and attempts at simplification of the anatomic basis of cerebral function are out of accord with present-day conceptions of neurophysiology. Nor have we dismissed lightly the obstacles in the way of clinicopathologic correlation in vascular disease. Just as studies of localization in cases of cerebral neoplasm are hazardous because of the inability to differentiate
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Charles Davison (1933) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: