Abstract
Since Liepmann advocated the concept of apraxia at the beginning of the 20th century, clinicians have faced many dilemma. Although interpretative corrections were proposed and some particular types were added, Liepmann's idea have been essentially uncorrected.
The present methods of examining apraxia are fairly common. They ask the patient to demonstrate some actions with using no objects, such as playing social actions and some pantomimes in order to determine if he has ideomotor apraxia. They also ask the patient to use a specific single object as well as multiple objects in order to determine if he has ideational apraxia. Besides them, tasks of drawing, object-composition and dressing are provided. However, some neurologists indicated that the quality of error of actions demonstrated when using no objects does not differ from the ones demonstrated when using real objects. Other neurologists insisted that ideomotor apraxia is heterogenous. Same thing happened to ideational apraxia.
Classifying the characteristics of error actions may bring about a new understanding of disorganized praxis. McDonald, et al. (1994), and Rothi, et al. (1988) presented their own error patterns as to ideomotor apraxia. My coworkers and I are categorizing the error characteristics of action/behavior which three so-called apraxic patients demonstrated while performing daily activities as well as testing-tasks.
The context through which action/behavior is evoked has hardly been discussed. This viewpoint should be successfully incorporated into a more precise definition of dyspraxia in the future.
