A new conceptual framework for understanding hemispheric specialization across evolution is proposed, and its multiple theoretical, clinical, and methodological implications are considered. According to the traditional understanding of hemispheric specialization, the “dominant” (usually left) hemisphere is in charge of language, whereas the “subdominant” (usually right) hemisphere is in charge of non-verbal, particularly visuo-spatial functions. While not incorrect, this understanding cannot be regarded as complete, since it does not permit any consideration of evolutionary continuities. Division of the brain into two hemispheres is not unique to humans ; it is a pervasive feature of the central nervous system throughout evolution. A number of morphological, cellular, and biochemical differences between the hemispheres exists, many of which are shared by multiple species. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that functional differences between the two hemispheres also exist and that they are invariant across multiple species. It is proposed that the fundamental functional difference between the two hemispheres is captured by the distinction between cognitive novelty and cognitive routines. According to this view, the left hemisphere is dominant in cognitive processing guided by previously formed, entrenched representations and strategies. In contrast, the right hemisphere is dominant for dealing with novel cognitive challenges, to which none of the previously formed routines or representations are readily applicable. The distinction between cognitive novelty and cognitive routines is universal and applicable to any organism capable of learning, unlike the verbal-nonverbal distinction which is applicable only to humans. Within this framework, language-mediated cognition is understood as a special case of cognition mediated by previously formed cognitive routines, verbal and non-verbal alike.

At first the history of classical neuropsychology was retraced briefly, the author explained the role of Gall. Gall divided up brain surface according to gyrus, and assigned each propensity, aptitude, and quality to each different gyrus. Then the Wernicke’s paper （1895） was presented as an example of classic case of neuropsychology. Wernicke’s patient showed asterognosis following the damage of postcentral gyrus. One could give a few expert criticisms on case studies of classical neuropsychology such as Wernicke’s case report. About the first critique that the standard and quantitative methods were not used in these studies, the author stated that both quantitative and qualitative studies are needed and the study is not undermined only because it was not done quantitatively. Against the second critique that group studies are superior to single-case approach, the author expressed that although the single approach is not problem-free, it is still requisite for the progress of neuropsychology. Neuropsychologists in the present age, however, have to keep in mind that they have to find a new way to examine the patients and to describe the observations precisely. Against the critique that experiment is gold and observation silver, the author stressed that the precise clinical observations give a clue to the mystery of neuropsychological field and start the experiment to clarify the mystery. Then the researches by the single neuronal activity in the somatosensory cortices of ananesthetized monkey are presented. Iwamura et al. found the hierarchical processing in the first somatosensory cortex （S1）, starting area 3 and proceeding to areas 1 and 2. Takeda et al. reported one patient who could not appreciate the nature of objects placed in the hand despite elementary function adequate to the task of identification. They found that the hierarchical processing also exists in human S1. Like that, the progress of neuropsychology will be done by the interactive communications between experiment and clinical observation.

Wernicke hypothesized his patient lost the tactile images （Tastvorstellungen） following the damage of postcentral gyrus （S1）. Many readers may support the representational theory that the system of perception receives the stimuli and constitutes the inner representation from the input. The author discussed the logic of this theory and expressed doubt about the representational theory. Lastly in order to go beyond classical neuropsychology, the author stated that whole of the network of the system and the mutual communication of various concerned systems should be considered when one creates the neuropsychological theory.

Neuropsychology contains a wide variety of symptoms. If neuropsychological tests are done without proper neuropsychological examination at bedside, the examiner could make an error of judgment about the neuropsychological deficits of the patient. In general, brain damaged patients tend to be tired easily. So for examiners, training is needed to perform neuropsychological examinations in a short time as possible, when they visit the patients for the first time. When one examines the aphasic patients, the Western Aphasia Battery （WAB） is useful to classify aphasic types. Since it takes a long time to administer the WAB completely, in order to grasp the disability of the aphasic patient quickly at bedside, the examiner had better check some features of language operation by using a part of WAB. Those are “Fluency” “Speech Comprehension” “Repetition” “Naming” “Reading aloud with comprehension” and “Writing”. In spontaneous speech, fluent aphasics have normal rhythm, melody, and well-articulated sentences, but the speech is filled with paraphasias. The speech of non-fluent aphasics is slow, labored, and poorly articulated. In screening for the hemispatial neglect, line bisection test, the cancellation test, and copy drawing test are performed. Since apraxia is in part defined by excluding the contribution of other disorders, a thorough neurological examination is required. In screening for apraxia, gesture to command and gesture to imitation are examined. The examiner should test both hands if possible. As for patients with visual agnosia, even if they look at the object, they do not recognize what that is and misidentify it as a similarly shaped object. When the patients touch the object, however, they recognize what it is. After these neuropsychological screening examinations, refined neuropsychological tests should be done in order to evaluate the detailed symptoms precisely.

Here I have discussed three issues that remain unclear concerning mechanisms of language : 1. How to embrace language localization in brain ; 2. How to interpret the phenomena of category specific and modality specific impairments ; 3. How to reveal the mechanisms in terms of sentence processing. Regarding the localization of language, it is rational to separate language symptoms into each elementary symptom ; apraxia of speech （anarthrie） due to lesion in the left precentral gyrus, phonemic paraphasia due to lesion around the left supramarginal gyrus, impairment of word comprehension due to lesion in the left temporal lobe or in the inferior/middle frontal gyrus, naming impairment due to lesion in the left temporal lobe or angular gyrus or inferior frontal gyrus. Category specific naming and comprehension impairments indicate a close relation between words and input process such as visual processing and tactile processing. The input processing are related to modality specific impairments i.e. optic aphasia. There are various patterns of impairments of sentence comprehension and production, which indicate that the ability of sentence processing could not be categorized only ‘agrammatism’ nor be ascribed to only one center.

In this paper, we reported on assessments for a child with developmental coordination disorder （DCD） and interventions that addressed his difficulty with kanji writing. When he was 8 years and 10 months, we diagnosed him as having DCD using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children （second edition） （MABC-2）. Further assessments revealed that his reading and writing abilities were at a lower level than would be predicted by his intellectual ability. His visual perceptual ability was at a low level, whereas other perceptual and cognitive abilities were measured at an average level. We developed a kanji training program based on the results of the assessments. In this training, kanji was divided into known components, and he was asked to verbalize the components. In addition, he was asked to trace large kanji characters using his forefinger. When he was between 9 and 10 years, the training program helped him learn most of the kanji characters used in the third grade of elementary school. Thus, we suggest that our training is suitable for children with DCD who have difficulties with kanji writing.

As early as the beginning of 20th century, Kraepelin described various forms of disorientation, including disorientation to persons, in his textbook of psychiatry.　He distinguished non-delusional and delusional disorientations, and assumed that amnesia, apathy, or impairment of comprehension can be involved in the non-delusional forms of disorientation.　For the delusional forms, including Capgras syndrome which was the term coined by French psychiatrists, many researchers interpreted the symptoms as psychopathology of emotions.　Since 1970’s, neurobiological interpretations dominated, and some researchers grouped a variety of misidentification symptoms together under an umbrella term of “the delusional misidentification syndromes”.　In 1990, a convincing explanation of Capgras syndrome was proposed by Ellis et al., which assumes two pathways of face recognition.　One is for overt and conscious identification of the face, while another is for covert discrimination.　According to this model, lesion in the former should lead to prosopagnosia, while that in the latter should generate Capgras syndrome.