scholarly journals Dynamic Simulation and Static Matching for Action Prediction: Evidence From Body Part Priming

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 936-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Springer ◽  
Simone Brandstädter ◽  
Wolfgang Prinz
2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Lee Ensalada

Abstract Illness behavior refers to the ways in which symptoms are perceived, understood, acted upon, and communicated and include facial grimacing, holding or supporting the affected body part, limping, using a cane, and stooping while walking. Illness behavior can be unconscious or conscious: In the former, the person is unaware of the mental processes and content that are significant in determining behavior; conscious illness behavior may be voluntary and conscious (the two are not necessarily associated). The first broad category of inappropriate illness behavior is defensiveness, which is characterized by denial or minimization of symptoms. The second category includes somatoform disorders, factitious disorders, and malingering and is characterized by exaggerating, fabricating, or denying symptoms; minimizing capabilities or positive traits; or misattributing actual deficits to a false cause. Evaluators can detect the presence of inappropriate illness behaviors based on evidence of consistency in the history or examination; the likelihood that the reported symptoms make medical sense and fit a reasonable disease pattern; understanding of the patient's current situation, personal and social history, and emotional predispositions; emotional reactions to symptoms; evaluation of nonphysiological findings; results obtained using standardized test instruments; and tests of dissimulation, such as symptom validity testing. Unsupported and insupportable conclusions regarding inappropriate illness behavior represent substandard practice in view of the importance of these conclusions for the assessment of impairment or disability.


1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 8-10
Author(s):  
Robert L. Knobler ◽  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Leon H. Ensalada ◽  
James B. Talmage ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract The author of the two-part article about evaluating reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) responds to criticisms that a percentage impairment score may not adequately reflect the disability of an individual with RSD. The author highlights the importance of recognizing the difference between impairment and disability in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides): impairment is the loss, loss of use, or derangement of any body part, system, or function; disability is a decrease in or the loss or absence of the capacity to meet personal, social, or occupational demands or to meet statutory or regulatory requirements because of an impairment. The disparity between impairment and disability can be encountered in diverse clinical scenarios. For example, a person's ability to resume occupational activities following a major cardiac event depends on medical, social, and psychological factors, but nonmedical factors appear to present the greatest impediment and many persons do not resume work despite significant improvements in functional capacity. A key requirement according to the AMA Guides is objective documentation, and the author agrees that when physicians consider the disability evaluation of people, more issues than those relating to the percentage loss of function should be considered. More study of the relationships among impairment, disability, and quality of life in patients with RSD are required.


2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Waltraud Stadler ◽  
Ricarda I. Schubotz ◽  
Anne Springer ◽  
Wolfgang Prinz

1995 ◽  
Vol 115 (5) ◽  
pp. 479-486
Author(s):  
Naoki Kobayashi ◽  
Takeshi Yamada ◽  
Hiroshi Okamoto ◽  
Yasuyuki Tada ◽  
Atsushi Kurita ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document