text:
Neuropsychology

Neuropsychology is a branch of psychology concerned with how a person's cognition and behavior are related to the brain and the rest of the nervous system. Professionals in this branch of psychology focus on how injuries or illnesses of the brain affect cognitive and behavioral functions.

It is both an experimental and clinical field of patient-focused psychology. Thus aiming to understand how behavior and cognition are influenced by brain function. It is also concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of behavioral and cognitive effects of neurological disorders. Whereas classical neurology focuses on the pathology of the nervous system and classical psychology is largely divorced from it, neuropsychology seeks to discover how the brain correlates with the mind through the study of neurological patients. It thus shares concepts and concerns with neuropsychiatry and with behavioral neurology in general. The term neuropsychology has been applied to lesion studies in humans and animals. It has also been applied in efforts to record electrical activity from individual cells (or groups of cells) in higher primates (including some studies of human patients).

In practice, neuropsychologists tend to work in research settings such as (universities, laboratories, or research institutions), clinical settings (medical hospitals or rehabilitation settings, often involved in assessing or treating patients with neuropsychological problems), and forensic settings or industry (often as clinical-trial consultants where CNS function is a concern).

History
Neuropsychology is a relatively new discipline within the field of psychology. The first textbook defining the field, Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology, was initially published by Kolb and Whishaw in 1980. However, the history of its development can be traced back to the Third Dynasty in ancient Egypt, perhaps even earlier. There is much debate as to when societies started considering the functions of different organs. For many centuries, the brain was thought useless and was often discarded during burial processes and autopsies. As the field of medicine developed its understanding of human anatomy and physiology, different theories were developed as to why the body functioned the way it did. Many times, bodily functions were approached from a religious point of view, and abnormalities were blamed on bad spirits and the gods. The brain has not always been considered the center of the functioning body. It has taken hundreds of years to develop our understanding of the brain and how it affects our behaviors.

Ancient Egypt
In ancient Egypt, writings on medicine date from the time of the priest Imhotep. They took a more scientific approach to medicine and disease, describing the brain, trauma, abnormalities, and remedies for reference for future physicians. Despite this, Egyptians saw the heart, not the brain, as the seat of the soul.

Aristotle
Aristotle reinforced this focus on the heart which originated in Egypt. He believed the heart to be in control of mental processes, and looked on the brain, due to its inert nature, as a mechanism for cooling the heat generated by the heart. He drew his conclusions based on the empirical study of animals. He found that while their brains were cold to the touch and that such contact did not trigger any movements, the heart was warm and active, accelerating and slowing dependent on mood. Such beliefs were upheld by many for years to come, persisting through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period until they began to falter in the 17th century due to further research. The influence of Aristotle in the development of neuropsychology is evident within language used in modern day, since we "follow our hearts" and "learn by the heart."

Hippocrates
Hippocrates viewed the brain as the seat of the soul. He drew a connection between the brain and behaviors of the body, writing: "The brain exercises the greatest power in the man." Apart from moving the focus from the heart as the "seat of the soul" to the brain, Hippocrates did not go into much detail about its actual functioning. However, by switching the attention of the medical community to the brain, his theory led to more scientific discovery of the organ responsible for our behaviors. For years to come, scientists were inspired to explore the functions of the body and to find concrete explanations for both normal and abnormal behaviors. Scientific discovery led them to believe that there were natural and organically occurring reasons to explain various functions of the body, and it could all be traced back to the brain. Hippocrates introduced the concept of the mind – which was widely seen as a separate function apart from the actual brain organ.

René Descartes
Philosopher René Descartes expanded upon this idea and is most widely known for his work on the mind–body problem. Often Descartes's ideas were looked upon as overly philosophical and lacking in sufficient scientific foundation. Descartes focused much of his anatomical experimentation on the brain, paying special attention to the pineal gland – which he argued was the actual "seat of the soul." Still deeply rooted in a spiritual outlook towards the scientific world, the body was said to be mortal, and the soul immortal. The pineal gland was then thought to be the very place at which the mind would interact with the mortal and machine-like body. At the time, Descartes was convinced the mind had control over the behaviors of the body (controlling the person) – but also that the body could have influence over the mind, which is referred to as dualism. This idea that the mind essentially had control over the body, but the body could resist or even influence other behaviors, was a major turning point in the way many physiologists would look at the brain. The capabilities of the mind were observed to do much more than simply react, but also to be rational and function in organized, thoughtful ways – much more complex than he thought the animal world to be. These ideas, although disregarded by many and cast aside for years led the medical community to expand their own ideas of the brain and begin to understand in new ways just how intricate the workings of the brain really were, and the complete effects it had on daily life, as well as which treatments would be the most beneficial to helping those people living with a dysfunctional mind. The mind–body problem, spurred by René Descartes, continues to this day with many philosophical arguments both for and against his ideas. However controversial they were and remain today, the fresh and well-thought-out perspective Descartes presented has had long-lasting effects on the various disciplines of medicine, psychology, and much more, especially in putting an emphasis on separating the mind from the body in order to explain observable behaviors.

Thomas Willis
It was in the mid-17th century that another major contributor to the field of neuropsychology emerged. Thomas Willis studied at Oxford University and took a physiological approach to the brain and behavior. It was Willis who coined the words 'hemisphere' and 'lobe' when referring to the brain. He was one of the earliest to use the words 'neurology' and 'psychology'. Rejecting the idea that humans were the only beings capable of rational thought, Willis looked at specialized structures of the brain. He theorized that higher structures accounted for complex functions, whereas lower structures were responsible for functions similar to those seen in other animals, consisting mostly of reactions and automatic responses. He was particularly interested in people with manic disorders and hysteria. His research constituted some of the first times that psychiatry and neurology came together to study individuals. Through his in-depth study of the brain and behavior, Willis concluded that automated responses such as breathing, heartbeats, and other various motor activities were carried out within the lower region of the brain. Although much of his work has been made obsolete, his ideas presented the brain as more complex than previously imagined, and led the way for future pioneers to understand and build upon his theories, especially when it came to looking at disorders and dysfunctions in the brain.

Franz Joseph Gall
Neuroanatomist and physiologist Franz Joseph Gall made major progress in understanding the brain. He theorized that personality was directly related to features and structures within the brain. However, Gall's major contribution within the field of neuroscience is his invention of phrenology. This new discipline looked at the brain as an organ of the mind, where the shape of the skull could ultimately determine one's intelligence and personality. This theory was like many circulating at the time, as many scientists were taking into account physical features of the face and body, head size, anatomical structure, and levels of intelligence; only Gall looked primarily at the brain. There was much debate over the validity of Gall's claims however, because he was often found to be wrong in his predictions. He was once sent a cast of René Descartes' skull, and through his method of phrenology claimed the subject must have had a limited capacity for reasoning and higher cognition. As controversial and false as many of Gall's claims were, his contributions to understanding cortical regions of the brain and localized activity continued to advance understanding of the brain, personality, and behavior. His work is considered crucial to having laid a firm foundation in the field of neuropsychology, which would flourish over the next few decades.

Jean-Baptiste Bouillaud
Towards the late 19th century, the belief that the size of ones skull could determine their level of intelligence was discarded as science and medicine moved forward. A physician by the name of Jean-Baptiste Bouillaud expanded upon the ideas of Gall and took a closer look at the idea of distinct cortical regions of the brain each having their own independent function. Bouillaud was specifically interested in speech and wrote many publications on the anterior region of the brain being responsible for carrying out the act of ones speech, a discovery that had stemmed from the research of Gall. He was also one of the first to use larger samples for research although it took many years for that method to be accepted. By looking at over a hundred different case studies, Bouillaud came to discover that it was through different areas of the brain that speech is completed and understood. By observing people with brain damage, his theory was made more concrete. Bouillaud, along with many other pioneers of the time made great advances within the field of neurology, especially when it came to localization of function. There are many arguable debates as to who deserves the most credit for such discoveries, and often, people remain unmentioned, but Paul Broca is perhaps one of the most famous and well known contributors to neuropsychology – often referred to as "the father" of the discipline.

Paul Broca
Inspired by the advances being made in the area of localized function within the brain, Paul Broca committed much of his study to the phenomena of how speech is understood and produced. Through his study, it was discovered and expanded upon that we articulate via the left hemisphere. Broca's observations and methods are widely considered to be where neuropsychology really takes form as a recognizable and respected discipline. Armed with the understanding that specific, independent areas of the brain are responsible for articulation and understanding of speech, the brains abilities were finally being acknowledged as the complex and highly intricate organ that it is. Broca was essentially the first to fully break away from the ideas of phrenology and delve deeper into a more scientific and psychological view of the brain.

Carl Wernicke
Carl Wernicke was an influential nineteenth century neuropsychiatrist specifically interested in understanding how abnormalities could be localized to specific brain regions. Previously held theories attributed brain function as one singular process but Wernicke was one of the first to attribute brain function to different regions of the brain based on sensory and motor function. In 1873, Wernicke observed a patient presenting with poor language comprehension despite maintaining intact speech and hearing following a severe stroke. Post-morbid analysis revealed a lesion near the auditory region of the brain in the parietal-temporal region of the left hemisphere. Originally named sensory aphasia, this region later became known as Wernicke's area. Individuals with damage to this area present with fluent but receptive aphasia characterized by the inability to comprehend or express written or spoken language while maintaining intact speech and auditory processes. Along with Paul Broca, Wernicke's contributions greatly expanded the present knowledge of language development and localization of left hemispheric function.

Karl Spencer Lashley
Lashley's works and theories that follow are summarized in his book Brain Mechanisms and Intelligence. Lashley's theory of the Engram was the driving force for much of his research. An engram was believed to be a part of the brain where a specific memory was stored. He continued to use the training/ablation method that Franz had taught him. He would train a rat to learn a maze and then use systematic lesions and removed sections of cortical tissue to see if the rat forgot what it had learned.

Through his research with the rats, he learned that forgetting was dependent on the amount of tissue removed and not where it was removed from. He called this mass action and he believed that it was a general rule that governed how brain tissue would respond, independent of the type of learning. But we know now that mass action was a misinterpretation of his empirical results, because in order to run a maze the rats required multiple cortical areas. Cutting into small individual parts alone will not impair the rats' brains much, but taking large sections removes multiple cortical areas at one time, affecting various functions such as sight, motor coordination, and memory, making the animal unable to run a maze properly.

Lashley also proposed that a portion of a functional area could carry out the role of the entire area, even when the rest of the area has been removed. He called this phenomenon equipotentiality. We know now that he was seeing evidence of plasticity in the brain: within certain constraints the brain has the ability for certain areas to take over the functions of other areas if those areas should fail or be removed - although not to the extent initially argued by Lashley.

Approaches
Experimental neuropsychology is an approach that uses methods from experimental psychology to uncover the relationship between the nervous system and cognitive function. The majority of work involves studying healthy humans in a laboratory setting, although a minority of researchers may conduct animal experiments. Human work in this area often takes advantage of specific features of our nervous system (for example that visual information presented to a specific visual field is preferentially processed by the cortical hemisphere on the opposite side) to make links between neuroanatomy and psychological function.

Clinical neuropsychology is the application of neuropsychological knowledge to the assessment (see neuropsychological test and neuropsychological assessment), management, and rehabilitation of people who have experienced illness or injury (particularly to the brain) which has caused neurocognitive problems. In particular they bring a psychological viewpoint to treatment, to understand how such illness and injury may affect and be affected by psychological factors. They also can offer an opinion as to whether a person is demonstrating difficulties due to brain pathology or as a consequence of an emotional or another (potentially) reversible cause or both. For example, a test might show that both patients X and Y are unable to name items that they have been previously exposed to within the past 20 minutes (indicating possible dementia). If patient Y can name some of them with further prompting (e.g. given a categorical clue such as being told that the item they could not name is a fruit), this allows a more specific diagnosis than simply dementia (Y appears to have the vascular type which is due to brain pathology but is usually at least somewhat reversible). Clinical neuropsychologists often work in hospital settings in an interdisciplinary medical team; others work in private practice and may provide expert input into medico-legal proceedings. Current research into biological science of memory bridges multiple scales, from the molecular to the neuropsychological (Moscovitch et al.,2016). Memory needs specific details on the specifics of synaptic dynamism and also requires an explanation of the comprehension procedures and memory structures having neurobiological capabilities

Cognitive neuropsychology is a relatively new development and has emerged as a distillation of the complementary approaches of both experimental and clinical neuropsychology. It seeks to understand the mind and brain by studying people with brain injuries or neurological illnesses. One model of neuropsychological functioning is known as functional localization. This is based on the principle that if a specific cognitive problem can be found after an injury to a specific area of the brain, it is possible that this part of the brain is in some way involved. However, there may be reason to believe that the link between mental functions and neural regions is not so simple. An alternative model of the link between mind and brain, such as parallel processing, may have more explanatory power for the workings and dysfunction of the human brain. Yet another approach investigates how the pattern of errors produced by brain-damaged individuals can constrain our understanding of mental representations and processes without reference to the underlying neural structure. A more recent but related approach is cognitive neuropsychiatry which seeks to understand the normal function of mind and brain by studying psychiatric or mental illness.

Connectionism is the use of artificial neural networks to model specific cognitive processes using what are considered to be simplified but plausible models of how neurons operate. Once trained to perform a specific cognitive task these networks are often damaged or 'lesioned' to simulate brain injury or impairment in an attempt to understand and compare the results to the effects of brain injury in humans.

Functional neuroimaging uses specific neuroimaging technologies to take readings from the brain, usually when a person is doing a particular task, in an attempt to understand how the activation of particular brain areas is related to the task. In particular, the growth of methodologies to employ cognitive testing within established functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques to study brain-behavior relations is having a notable influence on neuropsychological research.

In practice these approaches are not mutually exclusive and most neuropsychologists select the best approach or approaches for the task to be completed.

Standardized neuropsychological tests
These tasks have been designed so the performance on the task can be linked to specific neurocognitive processes. These tests are typically standardized, meaning that they have been administered to a specific group (or groups) of individuals before being used in individual clinical cases. The data resulting from standardization are known as normative data. After these data have been collected and analyzed, they are used as the comparative standard against which individual performances can be compared. Examples of neuropsychological tests include: the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS), the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), Boston Naming Test, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, the Benton Visual Retention Test, and the Controlled Oral Word Association. When interpreting neuropsychological testing it is important that the diagnosis is empirically informed in order to determine if the cognitive deficits presented are legitimate. Successful malingering and symptom exaggeration can result in substantial benefits for the individual including but not limited to significant financial compensation, injury litigation, disability claims, and criminal sentencing. Due to the nature of these potential benefits, it is imperative that malingering is identified in neuropsychological tests in order to avoid making an invalid diagnosis. The Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) criteria for Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction (MND) has pioneered the ability to detect malingering in a variety of performance validity tests (PVT) and symptom validity tests (SVT) across multiple neuropsychological contexts and disorders. These tests detect malingering by identifying performance that is below the level of probability for neuropsychological dysfunction.

Brain scans
The use of brain scans to investigate the structure or function of the brain is common, either as simply a way of better assessing brain injury with high resolution pictures, or by examining the relative activations of different brain areas. Such technologies may include fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) and positron emission tomography (PET), which yields data related to functioning, as well as MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), computed axial tomography (CAT or CT), and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) which yields structural data.

Global Brain Project
Brain models based on mouse and monkey have been developed based on theoretical neuroscience involving working memory and attention, while mapping brain activity based on time constants validated by measurements of neuronal activity in various layers of the brain. These methods also map to decision states of behavior in simple tasks that involve binary outcomes.

Electrophysiology
The use of electrophysiological measures designed to measure the activation of the brain by measuring the electrical or magnetic field produced by the nervous system. This may include electroencephalography (EEG) or magneto-encephalography (MEG).

Experimental tasks
The use of designed experimental tasks, often controlled by computer and typically measuring reaction time and accuracy on a particular tasks thought to be related to a specific neurocognitive process. An example of this is the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) or CNS Vital Signs (CNSVS).

title: Neuropsychology


text:
Talk:Neuropsychology

ADHD
Moved from article (as first-person and POV):

"Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD or ADD) is one such problem that they can help people with.

I know. I'm using it myself.

JDG "

I rewrote the mention of ADHD. Vicki Rosenzweig 01:06, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Corrections
The following information in this article is incorrect:

"The majority of work involves studying healthy humans in a laboratory setting, although a minority of researchers may conduct animal experiments. Human work in this area often takes advantage of specific features of our nervous system (for example that visual information presented to a specific visual field is preferentially processed by the cortical hemisphere on the opposite side) to make links between neuroanatomy and psychological function.

Animal work often involves vivisection and is particularly controversial both from the moral angle (see animal rights) and from the scientific angle, with some scientists skeptical of the claims that findings from animal neuropsychology can be extrapolated to humans while others claim such work is essential to understand neural systems and related medical problems."

1) Neuropsychological research involves healthy humans, humans with brain disease, and experimental animals. Although there has been an increase in functional brain imaging research using healthy humans in the past decade, traditionally neuropsychologists have studied patients with brain disease and experimental animals.

2) The specific features of the nervous system referred to above apply not only to humans, but to animals as well. In particular, the visual system example applies equally to humans and to animals.  This is why animal research has been essential to the development of neuropsychology and continues to be conducted in laboratories around the world.

3) The use of animals in neuropsychological research or for biomedical research in general is controversial among vocal anti-vivisectionists. In other words, it is a political issue.  It is not controversial among scientists.  The only exception to this would be the study of higher forms of consciousness that may not be shared across species.

I revised this article twice but my revisions were reversed. The second time they were reversed within seconds. So I am giving up. I am a clinical neuropsychologist and a scientist with 15 years experience in the field. For a more accurate version of neuropsychology, see the Kolb and Wishaw text cited at the end of the article.

 * Hi there,

 * I'm also a neuropsychologist, and I think you're being a little one-sided here by not representing the entire debate on these issues. I'll address the specific points below...

 * 1) Neuropsychological research involves healthy humans, humans with brain disease, and experimental animals. Although there has been an increase in functional brain imaging research using healthy humans in the past decade, traditionally neuropsychologists have studied patients with brain disease and experimental animals.

 * The majority of neuropsychological research is not done on animals. This can easily be demonstrated. By searching PubMed using the search term neuropsycholog* (click here to do so) it is possible to list all the articles nominally on neuropsychology. By restricting the studies to animal only or human only (via the 'Limits' option) it returns 21,254 human studies and 1,296 animal studies at the time of this posting. This shows over 16 times the amount of human studies are completed compared to animal studies.

 * 2) The specific features of the nervous system referred to above apply not only to humans, but to animals as well. In particular, the visual system example applies equally to humans and to animals. This is why animal research has been essential to the development of neuropsychology and continues to be conducted in laboratories around the world.

 * While there certainly is some commonality between species, there are no perfect matches (why neuroscientists talk of 'homologous areas' when comparing cross-species) and much of the task of animal research is knowing the shortcomings of the animal model in question to be aware of where the limits of application to human function are.

 * The statement that "the visual system example applies equally to humans and to animals" is just ridiculous however. In certain species there seem to be some strong parallels (for example Hubel and Weisel's findings on the physiology of the early visual system seem to be common through many animals) but in others the findings are restricted. For example, Ungerleider and Mishkin's findings of two post-occipital visual pathways in monkeys seems to have a parallel in humans (as demonstrated by Milner and Goodale) but not in some less complex mammals. Furthermore, some aspects of the visual system seem unique to humans - for example, many of the top-down connections from memory areas identified by Kosslyn.

 * Such controversies and considerations are the mainstay of much of the animal literature and the more general theoretical issues a common topic of discussion in review articles. Indeed, the issue has been tackled in the Oxford Companion to the Mind (a single volume aiming to review the most important aspects of contemporary cognitive science), which suggests it is certainly not as obscure an issue as you imply.

 * 3) The use of animals in neuropsychological research or for biomedical research in general is controversial among vocal anti-vivisectionists. In other words, it is a political issue.  It is not controversial among scientists.  The only exception to this would be the study of higher forms of consciousness that may not be shared across species.

 * Again, this is easy to dispute. Searching PubMed shows there are over 200 articles which have discussed this issue.

 * see the Kolb and Wishaw text cited at the end of the article.

 * If the issue was really so non-controversial, we might be forgiven for asking why do Kolb and Wishaw spend four pages of their introductory chapter defending the use of animals in neuropsychological research ? Perhaps because both Kolb and Whishaw have done much animal research themselves, and aren't necessarilly going to give the most balanced account.

 * The original paragraph reads...

 * Animal work often involves vivisection and is particularly controversial both from the moral angle (see animal rights) and from the scientific angle, with some scientists skeptical of the claims that findings from animal neuropsychology can be extrapolated to humans while others claim such work is essential to understand neural systems and related medical problems.

 * With the aboove points in mind I don't see how the queried paragraph could be described as 'anti-vivisectionist propoganda' (see page history), when it seems it captures the debate quite succinctly.

 * - Vaughan 18:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your response. I would like to respond to what you have said.  However I do not wish to engage in a debate, so this will be my last response on this matter.

 * My statement about the amount of animal research concerns EXPERIMENTAL neuropsychology, which is the subheading in question. The PubMed search pulls up all neuropsychological research.  It is important to make a distinction between all neuropsychological research and the subset of that research that is experimental, meaning that the independent variable was manipulated by the experimenter.  Indeed, this is the entire point of experimental research with animals.  If you want to know what proportion of experimental neuropsychological research is animal vs. human, you have to do another search.  I don't make any claims about this proportion, I simply stated that neuropsychological research involves humans and animals.

 * With respect to the visual system example, let me repeat what is written in the definition:

 * "Human work in this area often takes advantage of specific features of our nervous system (for example that visual information presented to a specific visual field is preferentially processed by the cortical hemisphere on the opposite side) to make links between neuroanatomy and psychological function."

 * Surely you would agree that the example of crossed visual pathways apply equally to humans and animals, yet this is written as though crossed visual pathways is unique to humans! I didn't say anything about higher visual systems.  If you want to highlight human/animal differences, at least choose an appropriate example.

 * With respect to the controversy surrounding animal research, I wonder what proportion of the 200 scientific articles you found (itself a very tiny number relative to the some 22,000 articles you found on neuropsychology) actually took an animal rights persepective, as implied in the definition. The fact that aspects of animal research are debated among scientists does not mean that the conduct of animal research itself is controversial.  Similar arguements are used by creationtists who argue that the fact that scientists do not agree about all aspects of evolution undermines the construct of evolution itself.  In fact, every research approach to neuropsychology is debated.  Functional neuroimaging is criticized because it shows all activated areas, not just necessary ones.  Research on patients with brain disease is criticized because human lesions are messy and do not always respect boundaries of interest to neuropsychologists.  I could go on.  The fact that animal research was singled out in this manner suggests a political motivation.

 * The professional perspective on the significance of animal research to the understanding of human brain functioning can be found in any standard text on neuroscience and neuropsychology. This includes Kolb and Whishaw, which is in its 5th edition and is very highly regarded in the field.  I would not agree with the ad hominem argument that Kolb and Whishaw are incapable of giving a balanced acount because they conduct animal research.   My research is strictly focused on humans, but that does not mean I am incapable of defending animal research.

 * Everyone, please sign your posts. A quick response: First of all, the main article need only mention that neuropsychology uses both animal and human subjects, and that some people find this controversial, with link from "controversial" to a neutrally written wiki article describing the controversy.  That above statement is perfectly accurate, and anything more draws attention away from the topic at hand.  Second, as for the pubmed search, it is very difficult to get an accurate number of studies that use animals, but a quick search using the term "Neuropsychology" returned 2651 hits and "Neuropsychology AND Animal" returned 281 hits.  This is just over 10%, and that can be reported in the article if need be, but what is the point?  Finally, as for the controversy surrounding animals in research and the usefulness of what is gained from it, it has absolutely no place on this page (period).  Yes, there are some scientists who are animal rights activists, or don't believe in animal research.  I wouldn't want to make up numbers, but I can tell you that very, very few such people exist.  You can't simply point to a single example text book and make an argument out of it.  Anecdotes, of all things, do not belong in debate!  --Dentate 01:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry vs. psychology article?
I'm going to be posting this around at a few of the affected articles, but I was thinking of creating a separate article comparing psychiatry and psychology and counseling in general. I think there is a lot of confusion in the world as to the differences and similarities and Wikipedia could be a great resource to come to for those who aren't professionals in these related fields.

Kind of an example, psychiatrists carry a MD doctorate whereas psychologists & clinical psychologists carry a PhD doctorate. Perhaps we could explain differences in training and specialties. (ie you'll find more psychologists counseling marriages then psychiatrists, but you'll find more psychiatrists treating mental illnesses then psychologists.)

Anyway, I wanted to create this article and perhaps link to it on many of the related articles. Thoughts??? Chupper 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Zachorious 23:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does this fall?
It seems like you can't major in neuropsychology. So where does neuropsychology fall? Do you major in pyschology to learn and cover neuropsychology? Or do you major in neuroscience? Or do both majors overlap with neuropsychology? Zachorious 23:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If your intent is to become a Neuropsychologist, the usual path in the United States is
 * complete a Doctoral Degree in Psychology, usually Clinical Psychology; during doctoral training it is advisable to take relevant courses in neuroscience, neuropsychology, neurophysiology, pharmacology, neuropsychological assessment, and neuroanatomy, if available.
 * complete a 1-yr intenrship in Psychology; go to http://www.appic.org/ to learn about internships in Psychology
 * complete a Residency/Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Neuropsychology (currently, ranges from 2-4 years)
 * one may become Board Certified in Neuropsychology by going through a peer review and testing process. This usually occurs approximately 5 years after completing the doctoral degree.

Sawiki44 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

On the same note, I'm a bit puzzled by the desciption of neuropsychology as a branch of psychology AND neurology. To the best of my understanding neuropsychology is a branch of psychology, not neurology. Neuroscience might (although this would be debatable) be considered an overarching term for neurology and psychology (including neuropsychology). I propose that the introduction to this article be altered accordingly.--Crimse 18:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * This is correct. The confusion stems from the fact that many of these fields are multi-disciplinary.  Neuroscience, for example, is a branch of biology because it ultimately investigates an anatomical system, the nervous system, even though it employs methodology from Biology, Psychology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Philosophy, and various medical fields, such as Neurology, Psychiatry, Pathology, and Surgery.  Someone who works in any one of these disciplines might rightly call their self a Neuroscientist only if their work is primarily focused within the nervous system at some level.

 * Neuropsychology is also multi-disciplinary; employing methods from clinical and cognitive psychology. Anyone who calls their self a "Neuropsychologist" in the U.S. must have a Ph.D. in Psychology, and, as such, can also call their self a neuroscientist! If the neuropsycholgist comes from a cognitive background, then he/she is likely to conduct research, which could be anything from development of tests and measures, to studying memory decline in Alzheimer's disease (and many things in-between).  If the neuropsycholgist comes from a clinical background, then they are likely to apply the research in innumerate ways, but one example might be to work with a person who experienced brain damage in an accident; to help them regain lost skills.  There are other fields, such as Neurology, that employ neuropsychological methods, such as pencil and paper tests that help to reveal impairments in thought, reasoning, memory, etc that could be caused by anything from disease to traumatic brain injury.  This does not make the neurologist a neuropsycholgist, because neurology is a branch of medicine.  By the way, many neuropsychologists use methods commonly used in medicine, like fMRI, PET, etc, but this does not make them neurologists.  Examples of people who work in neuropsychology that may not be considered neuropsychologists are anyone who does not have a doctoral degree.  This is true for the US only.  I can't speak for other countries.

 * So, recap: Neuroscience is a branch of biology.  Neuropsychology is a branch of psychology.  Neurology is a branch of medicine.  They use each other's methods.  A neurologist and a neuropsychologist can both neuroscientists.  A neurologist would never call him/herself a neuropsychologist, and the reverse is true, too.  Hope that helps.--Dentate 01:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Does neuropsychology have results?
I can see that it has "Approaches" and "Methods" - does it have any results? If so, can someone please include two or three of the most notable results of this line of inquiry? I ask this with sincerity and respect. Thanks! NuclearWinner 19:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

History section
For the most part the history section is very good, it has provided information that is appropriate and has been lacking. So overall, a good edit. However, the edition of this material has made the article rather unbalanced. The amount of info added in history is more than all other paragraphs combined. The added info isn't too detailed, its more that with the pre-existing info it is too lengthy. If the article was much larger I don't think the length would be a problem, but as it stands the history section dominates the article rather than adding to the article as a new section. Do others agree?

There are 2 possible solutions: I think the history info should be moved further down the article. As it is not really a dominant aspect of the field. Or, a new "History of neuropsychology" article could be created and the history paragraph left where it is, but condensed into a single summary paragraph.

Thoughts?

MitchMcM (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 * It definitely needs some serious editing. Especially the "Then to Now Part"  A little too fluffy and a bit too lacking in objectivity.  "the inquisitive minds that dared to think there might be more to the mysterious organ called the brain"  This sounds like it was from a PR release or a middle school book report. 98.121.92.169 (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and it also needs to be sourced. I think MitchMcM's second idea is the best.  Lova Falk     talk   14:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Current research
This article doesn't do justice to the fact that currently neuropsychology is one of the larger areas being studied in psychology. Is that information to include here, or is that a root off of the neuroscience page? Iamwpj (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty understanding you. Are you saying that this article should include a statement similar to, "Currently neuropsychology is one of the larger areas being studied in psychology."?  Or are you saying something more than that? Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Top importance and start class among WikiProject Psychology articles
I see this article needs a lot of work, and deserves a lot of work as an article on an important topic. I'll see what I can do. The current "history" of the topic (mostly historical speculation, really) is much too long. Perhaps information about current practice can be added from the many sources already mentioned on this talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neuropsychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304060846/http://2014.obesityweek.com/wp/uploads/2014/10/TOS-Posters.pdf to http://2014.obesityweek.com/wp/uploads/2014/10/TOS-Posters.pdf
 * Added tag to http://%5bhttp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

where is Luria?
The parts on the history of the field read as a bit absurd: we have Aristotle, Descartes and Ancient Egypt in here, but nothing at all on Luria. 2.29.31.220 (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Neuropsychology


text:
John Hoeven

John Henry Hoeven III (born March 13, 1957) is an American banker and politician serving as the senior U.S. senator from North Dakota, a seat he has held since 2011. A member of the Republican Party, Hoeven served as the 31st governor of North Dakota from 2000 to 2010.

In 2010, Hoeven was elected to the U.S. Senate, succeeding Senator Byron Dorgan, who chose not to seek reelection. Hoeven became North Dakota's senior senator in 2013 after Kent Conrad retired and was succeeded by Heidi Heitkamp, who was once Hoeven's opponent for the governor's office.

Before being elected governor, Hoeven was a banker who served in numerous executive roles at various banks, most notably as president of the nation's only state-owned bank, the Bank of North Dakota, from 1993 to 2000. He is on the board of directors at First Western Bank & Trust and has an estimated net worth of $45 million, making him one of the wealthiest U.S. senators. He is the dean of North Dakota's congressional delegation.

Early life and education
Hoeven was born in Bismarck, North Dakota, the son of Patricia "Trish" (née Chapman) and John Henry "Jack" Hoeven, Jr. His father owned a bank in Minot, North Dakota, where he worked as the president and chairman. Hoeven's ancestry is Dutch, Swedish, and English.

Hoeven studied at Dartmouth College, which his father also attended. Hoeven belonged to the Alpha Chi Alpha fraternity and graduated with honors with a B.A. in 1979. While there, he played on the men's golf team.

After Dartmouth, Hoeven attended the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, graduating with an MBA in 1981.

Banking career
From 1986 to 1993, Hoeven was executive vice president of First Western Bank & Trust, an institution his father bought in 1970. At one time, he owned 39% of the bank’s parent company, Westbrand, Inc. From 1993 to 2000, he was the president and CEO of the Bank of North Dakota, under governor Ed Schafer.

2000
In 2000 Hoeven ran for governor of North Dakota as a Republican and won, defeating Democratic NPL nominee Heidi Heitkamp, 55% to 45%.

2004
Hoeven was reelected over Democratic-NPL nominee Joe Satrom with 71% of the vote.

2008
On November 13, 2007, Hoeven announced his candidacy for a third term and kicked off his campaign with stops in Fargo, Grand Forks, Bismarck and Minot. He was reelected with 74% of the vote over Democratic-NPL nominee Tim Mathern. It was the first time in North Dakota history that a governor won three four-year terms in office, though the record for serving is still maintained by Bill Guy, who served 12 years.

Tenure
Hoeven's governorship included the expansion and diversification of the state's economy, which led to a 49.5% increase in the state's real gross domestic product. Beginning in 2000, he directed the development of a multi-resource energy program for the state with incentives in each energy sector, making North Dakota one of the country's largest energy-producing and exporting states. The state gained nearly 40,000 new jobs during his tenure. Wages and personal incomes grew faster than the national average. For a few years, the state led the nation in export growth. In late 2006, the state's reserve rose past $600 million, and it is now over $700 million.

In December 2009, Hoeven was the country's most popular governor. His approval rating stood at 87% with only 10% disapproving. In January 2007, Hoeven became the nation's most senior governor, having been inaugurated on December 15, 2000, as established by the North Dakota Constitution.

2010
On January 11, 2010, Hoeven announced he would run in the 2010 North Dakota Senate election for the seat being vacated by Byron Dorgan. Hoeven defeated Democratic-NPL nominee Tracy Potter, 76% to 22%, making him the first Republican to represent North Dakota in the Senate since 1987.

2016
Hoeven was reelected in 2016.

2022
Hoeven was reelected in 2022.

Tenure
Since 2013, Hoeven has been the dean of North Dakota's congressional delegation. As of 2018, he was listed as one of the seven wealthiest U.S. senators.

For his tenure as the chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in the 116th Congress, Hoeven earned an F grade from the nonpartisan Lugar Center's Congressional Oversight Hearing Index.

Committee assignments

 * Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
 * Subcommittee on Commodities, Markets, Trade and Risk Management
 * Subcommittee on Jobs, Rural Economic Growth and Energy Innovation
 * Subcommittee on Nutrition, Specialty Crops, Food and Agricultural Research (chair)
 * Committee on Appropriations
 * Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
 * Subcommittee on Homeland Security (chair)
 * Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
 * Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
 * Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
 * Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
 * Subcommittee on Energy
 * Subcommittee on National Parks
 * Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining
 * Committee on Indian Affairs (chair 2017-2021)

Political positions
Hoeven was briefly a member of the Democratic-NPL Party before becoming active in the Republican Party as a district chair and volunteer. He has walked a conservative line on some issues and a moderate one on others, including increasing education funding, ethics reform, compensation for teachers, as well as increased funding on infrastructure. On August 10, 2021, Hoeven was one of 19 Senate Republicans to vote with the Democratic caucus in favor of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Crime
Hoeven supports decreasing access to parole for violent offenders. He believes that drug control policy should be a state issue, not a federal one.

Economy and employment
Hoeven opposed the Employee Free Choice Act, which included a card check provision.

Energy and environment
Hoeven believes that alternative fuels are a long-term solution but that increased oil drilling is required in the short term. He has been a vocal advocate for the Keystone Pipeline, falsely asserting that it has never leaked and claiming that environmental risks have been exaggerated. The Keystone Pipeline has in fact leaked twice, in 2010 and in 2016.

In 2015, Hoeven submitted an amendment asserting that climate change is real and that humans are contributing to it but also that the Keystone Pipeline would not contribute to climate change. His League of Conservation Voters score for 2018 was 7%.

Gun policy
Hoeven consistently votes for pro-gun legislation and has earned an A+ rating from the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF). The NRA-PVF has endorsed him repeatedly, including during his campaigns for governor in 2008 and senator in 2010.

In June 2016, Hoeven voted on four gun control proposals that were developed as a result of the Orlando nightclub shooting. He voted for Chuck Grassley's expansion of background checks and provision of funding to research the cause of mass shootings, and for John Cornyn's 72-hour wait period for purchases of guns by people on the terrorist watchlist. He voted against Chris Murphy's proposal to require background checks for every gun sale, including online sales and at gun shows, and against Dianne Feinstein's proposal to ban anyone on the terrorist watchlist from buying a gun. Hoeven voted against the latter bill due to its lack of "judicial oversight or due process".

Women's Issues
Hoeven identifies as pro-life, opposing abortion in all cases except for rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life. He opposes government funding for elective abortions and supports the Hyde Amendment, which permits federal funding for abortion services only under the above stated exceptions. Hoeven voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act in 2012.

Israel Anti-Boycott Act
In April 2017, Hoeven co-sponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (s. 720), which would bar federal contractors from participating in boycotts against Israel or Israeli settlements.

Immigration
In 2013, Hoeven voted for the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.

LGBT rights
In 2013, Hoeven voted against banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. He opposes same-sex marriage. In 2022, he voted against federal protections for same-sex married couples.

January 6th
On May 28, 2021, Hoeven voted against creating an independent commission to investigate the 2021 United States Capitol attack.

Taxes
Hoeven supports investment tax credits for farm investments.

title: John Hoeven


text:
Automobile Dacia

S.C. Automobile Dacia S.A., commonly known as Dacia, is a Romanian car manufacturer that takes its name from the historical region that constitutes present-day Romania. The company was established in 1966. In 1999, after 33 years, the Romanian government sold Dacia to the French car manufacturer Groupe Renault. It is Romania's largest company by revenue and the largest exporter, constituting 8% of the country's total exports in 2018. In 2021, the Dacia marque sold 537,074 passenger and commercial vehicles.

From January 2021 onwards the Dacia company became part of Renault's Dacia-Lada business unit. In May 2022, Renault sold Lada's parent company AvtoVAZ to Russian state-owned institute NAMI.

History
The first facility in the area was built between 1942 and 1945, as an extension of the IAR aircraft manufacturer. The new factory, built in the Colibași-Pitești area under the order of Marshal Ion Antonescu (conducător of Romania during World War II), was scheduled to produce up to 600 aircraft engines per month. The building work was completed in 1945. After the war, the facility was taken over by the Romanian Railways, later generating the Dacia plants.

Founding
The Dacia automobile company was founded in 1966 under the name Uzină de Autoturisme Pitești (UAP). The main Dacia factory was inaugurated in 1968, in Colibași (now called Mioveni), near Pitești. Dacia acquired the tooling and basic designs of the Renault 12. However, until the tooling was ready it was decided to produce the Renault 8 under licence; it was known as the Dacia 1100. From 1968 to 1972, 37,546 cars of model 1100 were produced, with a very minor cosmetic change to the front in early 1970. Also produced in very limited numbers was the 1100S, with twin headlamps and a more powerful engine, used by the police and in motor racing.

The first Dacia 1300 left the assembly line ready for the 23 August parade in 1969, and was exhibited at the Paris and Bucharest shows of that year. Romanians were delighted with the modernity and reliability of the car, and waiting lists were always lengthy. By 1970, there were two variants: the standard 1300 and the 1300L (for Lux); in 1974 the 1301 Lux Super was introduced, which had novelties such as a heated rear screen, a radio, wing mirrors on both sides and a more luxurious trim. This was reserved for the Communist Party nomenklatura.

Changes soon followed as export markets opened up. In 1973, the estate variant, 1300 Break, was produced. There were 1300F (estate with no rear seats, for carrying goods) and 1300S (ambulance) variants, and in 1975 the Dacia 1302 pick-up was developed. 2,000 units were made until 1982.

Dacia also produced the Estafette, a complete knock-down version of the Renault Estafette van, in limited numbers, but given the competition of the Bucharest-made T.V. van, numbers were very limited. In the very early 1980s, the Renault 20 was also assembled as the Dacia 2000; because of the exclusivity of this model numbers were always very limited. The 2000 was only available in dark blue or black, and was reserved for the Party elite. In 1978 plans were revealed for the Renault 18 to be assembled by Dacia, but the Renault contract lapsed and Dacia went its own way.

At the Bucharest show in 1979, the restyled 1310 models were presented. These had quad lamps at the front, larger lamps at the rear, re-profiled bumpers, and a new interior. The changes were heavily inspired by Renault's own restyling of its 12 in 1975. After a brief series of "crossover" cars in 1981 (for example, there were no more rectangular headlights available for the 1300, so the last models used the quad lamps of the 1310), the 1310 hit the Romanian market in late 1981. In the UK, where it was known as the Dacia Denem, the top of the range model included such luxuries as a five-speed gearbox, alloy wheels and electric windows. The advertising slogan used for the car was "The Very Acceptable Dacia Denem". Sales were very limited, and the number surviving are not thought to exceed ten, although the Romanian Embassy in South Kensington kept a fleet running until the mid-1990s. Sales of the pick-up version, known as the Shifter, continued until the 1990s, and the ARO 10 was also sold as the Dacia Duster. Production was stopped in late 1982.

At the same time the Sport model was produced. At the 1980 Bucharest international trade fair, crowds admired the Brașovia, a prototype of a sports coupé based on the 1310 and developed at a service station in Brașov. The go-ahead was given for a prestige model, and so from 1983 the two-door Dacia 1310 Sport (and later the 1410 Sport), was available for general consumption. These were very popular for rallies, and racing drivers such as Nicu Grigoraș tuned them to extract extraordinary power from the old Renault engine.

1980s
The designers were still coming up with fresh ideas, many of them shrouded in secrecy. Prototypes such as the 500cc Mini-Dacia, as well as Dacia 1310 variants, were designed; some, such as the Dacia 1310 Maxi Break, are still on the road. These cars are eagerly prized by Dacia enthusiasts, and Dacia web forums are full of evidence about the rarities and oddities produced by Dacia during the 1980s. The Maxi Break was an eight-seater version of the station wagon (also available as an ambulance), stretched by about a half a metre between the doors. 10–12 such cars were actually built, by Dacia Service Pitesti.

In 1982, after the 1302 was dropped, the Dacia 1304 Pick-up and Drop-side models were introduced. Actually, they had been launched from 1981. These were a commercial success and remained in production, gradually being modified along with the rest of the range, until December 2006. In 1985 were added the 1410 was available as a larger-engined variant, while the relatively short-lived 1210 was the economy variant until about 1992.

For the 1984 model year, the de luxe MS and MLS models presented slight modifications on the 1310 platform, with a new spoiler and chunkier, rubber mouldings around the front grille and headlamps. In 1985, the rear vent was changed from a narrow horizontal aperture to a rhomboid aperture, much like that of the Renault 12 phase 2. From late 1985 all models had the large rubber mouldings around the front grille and headlamps, plus a spoiler: the line-up was changed to TX ( 1289 cmc engine and 4 speeds gearbox ) and TLX(1397 cmc engine, 5 speedsgearbox) though other designations were occasionally seen. A five-speed gearbox also became an option. Models destined for Canada (initially called GTL) sported twin fuel tanks. In parallel, work was developing on the 1320 CN1 model, which was a hatchback based on the 1310. The new front end seen on the 1320 also appeared on the top-of-the-range and special-order models from about 1986; these cars were distinguishable by two large headlights, a much plusher interior clad in blue plastic and a new dashboard known as the CN1, and – occasionally – faired-in door handles. Many were owned by senior officials in the Communist Central Committee. While the 1320 was the most expensive model in the Dacia range when it appeared in 1988, many were used as taxis. The 1320 did not last long, however; as early as 1989 there were prototypes using the front of the 1320 and a new rear, with wrap-around tail lights and other (relatively) modern features.

1990s
The 1320 model emerged in 1991 as the Dacia 1325 Liberta (after the 1989 revolution, themes of liberty were very much in fashion) and stayed in production until 1996.

The last of the quad-lamped models were produced in 1992, and all the Dacia range received the new front end of the 1320, called CN1. An effort was made to rejuvenate the model range: the Sport was dropped, due to lack of sales, and new commercial vehicles were introduced. The 1307 was a double-cabbed pick-up; the 1309 was an estate with a tarpaulin instead of a boot; the car was a cross-over between estate and pick-up and sold very well on the Chinese market. There were also several prototypes, including:
 * the 1610 diesel estate, powered by Volkswagen, with about 150 units sold
 * the Dacia Star, with curved side windows
 * the 1308 Jumbo, a camper-van, and several attempts to give the 1310 a more modern look by grafting the front of contemporary cars such as the Nissan Primera onto it.

The cars of 1992 to 1994 are curiosities: although efforts were obviously being made to renew the model range, there were numerous stylistic hangovers from the quad-lamped models. Thus, the last of the 1983-designed dashboards were seen in 1994 although a new dashboard had been seen on some model ranges since 1987. Similarly, although the CN1 restyling eliminated anachronisms such as a kink upwards at the C-pillar and a rubber rear spoiler, it was not applied consistently.

The 1994 facelift was known within the industry as CN2. A reprojected front end was distinguished by a horizontal metal line in the grille. There were new headlamps, a new radiator grille, and front and rear bumpers. Inside, there was a new dashboard for the base models, while the top-of-the-range cars had luxuries such as body-coloured bumpers, rear head restraints, a radio-cassette, hubcaps, and the ever-present CN1 dashboard, this time in black plastic. This model was not to stay in production for very long; in 1995 the CN3 type was introduced. Practically the only differences were those of trim level and the radiator grille. From late 1994 little attention was paid to the improvement of the 1310 range, as Dacia launched a new model, the Dacia Nova. This was a compact saloon/sedan or hatchback with a three-box design. The design was rather outdated, because development work had started in 1983. The Nova is a 100% Romanian design, started after the end of any French involvement in Dacia. The model was unpopular, due to reliability and rustproofing issues. However, after improvements in 1996, the Nova became more often seen on Romanian roads. In 1998 a seven-seater prototype was produced using the panels and windows from the standard Nova saloon. In 1998, the anniversary year of three decades of production since the first Dacia rolled off the assembly line, vehicle number 2,000,000 emerged from the plant; this year saw the last restyling of the 1310. It was known as CN4 and involved a comprehensive restyling of the front end, new door handles, and a lightly restyled rear view mirror. The estate version was fitted with larger tail lights. Even though the model was over thirty years old, it sold exceptionally well due to a starting price of about 4,200 euros and high availability of parts. "Goodies" such as a fuel-injection also helped keep the model relatively modern.

In 1999, a special edition was produced for the first time, known as Dacia Dedicație. This luxury version of the saloon and estate had alloy wheels, body-coloured bumpers, power steering, electric windows, and a far better level of finish. The models were all painted two-tone silver, and sold at a significantly higher price. From 2002, the cars became known as Berlina and Break, with the 1310 lettering being relegated to an insignificant position underneath the side light.

On 21 July 2004, the last models of the 1300 series rolled out the gates of the Mioveni production facility, one month before their 35th anniversary. The last Dacia 1310 (saloon version), number 1,979,730, will be kept in the Dacia Museum. On 8 December 2006, the utility Dacia Pick-Up suffered the same fate. Although many improvements had been made in recent years, such as four-wheel drive, the introduction of a 1.9 diesel engine, the dashboard from the Dacia Solenza (also seen on the last 1310s) and wheels fastened by five studs as opposed to three, Romania's entry to the European Union effectively prevented the continued production of the old models. The assembly lines will be remodelled and expanded to increase production of the Dacia Logan.

In over 34 years of production, and more than 2.5 million units produced, the Dacia 1300/1310 easily became the most common car on Romanian roads. A large number of people had become adept at carrying out repairs or home-made modifications. For example, many older cars had newer front ends grafted onto them to make them seem more modern, or purely because newer parts were easier to get. Consequently, original early 1300s are quite rare, with prices steadily increasing for the best-preserved models. Tuning of Dacias is also a popular pastime, although the home-made nature of much of the work casts doubt on the level of quality, safety and reliability of the finished product.

According to popular belief, during the Communist era, in the plant where Dacias were made, there were two assembly lines: one line producing Dacias intended for sale in Romania and the other line producing the same car (albeit from superior parts, and assembled with greater care) for export. Romanians living near the border would commonly purchase their Dacia in neighbouring countries expecting a higher level of quality.

Acquisition by Renault
Meanwhile, work was continuing on the other Dacia models. In September 1999, Dacia became the third brand of the Renault group, with a view to making Romania its hub of automobile development in Central and Eastern Europe, and investment was consequently increased. The first sign of this came in 2000, with the introduction of the SupeRNova, an improved version of the Nova with engine and transmission from Renault. The top-of-the range version had air conditioning, electric windows and a CD player. Sales were very good, although the outdatedness of the concept was striking. Dacia sold 53,000 vehicles in 2002, an almost 50 per cent market share in Romania.

In 2003, a restyled version replaced the SupeRNova with Dacia Solenza, featuring a new interior, the options for an airbag. This was, however, only meant to be a stopgap model filling the need for a saloon model before the introduction of the all-important Dacia Logan, as well as to familiarise workers with the demands of manufacturing a model acceptable to Western European markets. Production was stopped in 2005.

2004–2011
The Dacia Logan is the most successful model since the original 1300. It was introduced after considerable media interest in August 2004, and despite design-related criticism, it became one of the top-selling cars in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Russia. The Logan is sold in many countries, occasionally under the Renault brand. It was awarded 3 (out of 5) stars in NCAP crash testing. It remains by far the best-selling car in Romania, comprising a 43% share of Dacia's total Romanian sales in 2015. A diesel version was also introduced in 2005. Before its launch, it was known as the 5000-Euro car due to its projected launch price. This was never quite the case, although it is one of the cheapest cars for its size on the market.

In 2006, the prototype Logan Steppe was exhibited. This showed a speculative 4×4 estate version of the Logan. The estate version was launched in late 2006. The van, basically an estate with the rear windows filled in and a separate cabin for the driver, was launched in February 2007 after the stopping production of the classic utility vehicle, the Dacia Pick-Up.

The Renault Technologie Roumanie engineering centre was set up in 2006, in Bucharest, Romania. Employing approximately 2,500 engineers, its main fields of activity are the development, testing and design of the new vehicles in the Dacia range, as well as the marketing and technical support. The following year, the company also set up a styling office, Renault Design Central Europe. A pick-up model and the Logan-based hatchback Sandero were launched in 2008, the latter at the Geneva Motor Show. This also marked a point of rebranding for the company, which adopted a new logo and later the same year launched the facelifted Logan model.

In 2009, a new concept called the Dacia Duster was unveiled at the Geneva Motor Show, signaling manufacturer's intentions of releasing an SUV model. This was reportedly the inauguration of the platform that would be used for the second generation of the Logan and Sandero models, released in 2012.

In 2010, the Dacia Duster was exhibited at the Geneva Motor Show. It is the first crossover SUV built by Dacia since the Renault acquisition, in 4×2 and 4×4 versions. It was revealed on 8 December 2009, and became available in Europe on 18 March 2010.

In September 2010, a testing center was opened in Titu, Romania, as part of Renault Technologie Roumanie. It is intended for developing and optimizing the new vehicles in the Dacia range and has nine types of track with a total length of 32 kilometres and around 100 test benches, used to test the resistance of vehicles and replacement parts to cold, heat and rain.

2012–2020
In 2012, Dacia Lodgy, a new compact MPV, was revealed at the Geneva Motor Show. It is based on a new platform and is manufactured at an all-new Renault factory in Tangier, Morocco.

The Dokker, released in June 2012, is a slightly smaller leisure activity vehicle, also manufactured in Tangier, sharing the same platform with the Lodgy, available in passenger and panel van variants. In September 2012, the second generations of the Logan and Sandero were revealed at the Paris Motor Show. They feature a common front end design and come with improved standard safety features, a new engine and other new comfort equipment.

The following year, the facelifted Duster was presented at the Frankfurt Motor Show. It received mild modifications to the front and rear ends, the new interior introduced on the new Logan and Sandero models, as well as a new turbocharged petrol engine.

At the 2017 Frankfurt Motor Show, the second generation Duster model was introduced, bringing new comfort and technical improvements, but retaining similar dimensions and engines.

According to reports, in September 2018, Automobile Dacia gained the 14th place in Top 500 CEE companies.

Dacia's CEO from April 2016 until May 2018 was Yves Caracatzanis. He was replaced by Antoine Doucerain, who left after only four months due to "personal reasons". After a brief stint by interim manager Jerome Olive, the position was filled by Christophe Dridi in December 2018.

In 2020, Dacia announced that they would be releasing an electric car which they showcased in March 2020 with the Dacia Spring Electric concept. The Dacia Spring is said to be based on the Renault City K-ZE and is set to become the cheapest electric car in Europe with the price being estimated by Romanian media at around €15,000 to €20,000.

2021–present
In January 2021, Denis Le Vot became the CEO of the Dacia-Lada business unit. As part of a company revamp, Renault said it would integrate the Dacia and the Lada marques into a new business unit. It also unveiled a new Dacia logo and a product offensive for the Dacia marque, widening its market segments coverage.

In March 2021, the production version of the Dacia Spring EV was shown at the Renault eWays event by Groupe Renault Executive Denis Le Vot. The Spring will be sold in left-hand drive areas of Europe, alongside updated Sandero and Logan models (announced at the end of 2020) and will have a car-sharing version called the Spring Business.

Facilities
The company's single plant is located in Mioveni, Romania, together with its headquarters, and has a production capacity of 350,000 vehicles per year. It is divided into several sections, such as bodywork, painting, assembly, mechanical and chassis, foundry etc. It works in conjunction with the Renault Technologie Roumanie engineering centre, located in Bucharest and set up in 2006, which also comprises a styling office, Renault Design Central Europe, and with the testing centre located in Titu that was opened in 2010.

A large logistical centre was also set near the plant in March 2005, the International Logistic Network, from where complete knock down (CKD) kits are exported to other Renault production sites in Russia, Morocco, Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Iran and India. It is reportedly the biggest logistic centre of its kind not only in the Renault Group, but in the global automotive industry. In 2012, the total equivalent of the kits sent worldwide from the centre was 920,646 vehicles.

Overseas
Two of the Dacia models, the Lodgy and the Dokker vans, were manufactured at the Renault factory in Tangier, Morocco. The Logan and the Sandero are also manufactured in Casablanca, Morocco, the latter also in Tangier.

Innovation
Faced with the growing demand for automatic gearboxes in Europe and significant demand in Russia, South America and India, Renault has decided to develop a specific automatic gearbox, called Easy-R. Innovative, it replaces hydroelectric technologies (hydraulics controlled by electronics) with electromechanical elements. The result is a more reliable and more affordable automatic transmission. Dacia is indeed offering this equipment from 2015 in Europe at a price of 600 euros, which is at least half the price of the competition. The number of parts has been reduced by a quarter, ensuring better reliability and simplified maintenance. Four modes are available on the Easy-R controlled gearbox, also indicated on the dashboard: D/Drive, N/Neutral, R/Rear and M/Manual impulse. This Easy-R gearbox keeps fuel consumption identical to that of the manual gearbox, while offering the advantages of a traditional automatic gearbox.

Sales
The Dacia brand is marketed in most of the Western and Eastern European countries, as well as in some Northern African countries, such as Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. Western European exports began in the late 1970s, entering markets like Belgium and the Netherlands in 1978. Its models have also been produced by Renault in its production sites on other continents (in Russia, Iran, India, South Africa, Colombia and Brazil) and sold under its own brand or other specific local brands (such as Mahindra, Lada or Nissan for example ). In 2012, Dacia sold a total of 359,822 vehicles, of which approximately 230,000 were exported to Western Europe, the most of them in France and in Germany. Besides the domestic market, its other key markets have been Algeria, Turkey, Italy and Spain.

For 2014 the company sold 511,465 vehicles in 43 countries, thus breaking another record and exceeding the 500,000 threshold. On the 6th of May 2014, the main Dacia plant Mioveni produced its five millionth car, approximately the three millionth car since Renault owned the brand.

The 3.5 millionth Dacia car, since the Dacia brand revival ten years before, was sold in the UK in November 2015.

In 2015, the company set a new sales record, with a total of 550,920 units marketed.

Dacia cars sales exceeded 700,000 units in 2018 (7% more than in the previous year).

Figures
The historical sales figures of all the models are the following (under the Dacia brand only):

Current

 * Dacia Duster Pick-Up (2020–present)
 * Dacia Logan III (2020–present)
 * Dacia Sandero III (2020–present)
 * Dacia Sandero Stepway III (2020–present)
 * Dacia Spring Electric (2021–present)
 * Dacia Spring Cargo (2021–present)
 * Dacia Jogger (2022–present)
 * Dacia Duster III (2024–present)

Future
Dacia will launch two new models, after the Bigster, by 2025.
 * Dacia Bigster (2025)

Former

 * Dacia 1100 (1968–1972)
 * Dacia 1300 (1969–1979)
 * Dacia 1301 (1970–1974)
 * Dacia D6 Estafette (1974–1976)
 * Dacia 1302 (1975–1982)
 * Dacia 1210/1310/1410 (1979–2004; Dacia Denem in the United Kingdom)
 * Dacia 1304 Pick Up (1979–2006)
 * Dacia 2000 (1980–1982)
 * Dacia Duster (1983–1990s; rebadged ARO 10 in the United Kingdom)
 * Dacia 1310 Sport/1410 Sport (1983–1992)
 * Dacia 1320 (1985–1989)
 * Dacia 1305 Drop Side (1985–2006)
 * Dacia 500 Lăstun (1988–1991)
 * Dacia Liberta (1990–1996)
 * Dacia 1309 (1992–1997)
 * Dacia 1307 King Cab (1992–2003)
 * Dacia 1307 Double Cab (1992–2006)
 * Dacia Nova (1994–1999)
 * Dacia SupeRNova (2000–2003)
 * Dacia Solenza (2003–2005)
 * Dacia Logan I (2004–2012)
 * Dacia Logan I MCV (2006–2012)
 * Dacia Logan Van (2007–2012)
 * Dacia Logan Pick-Up (2008–2012)
 * Dacia Sandero I (2008–2012)
 * Dacia Sandero Stepway I (2008–2012)
 * Dacia Duster I (2009–2017)
 * Dacia Logan II (2012–2020)
 * Dacia Logan II MCV (2012–2020)
 * Dacia Sandero II (2012–2020)
 * Dacia Sandero Stepway II (2012–2020)
 * Dacia Logan II Stepway (2019–2020)
 * Dacia Dokker (2012–2021)
 * Dacia Lodgy (2012–2022)
 * Dacia Duster II (2017–2024)

Prototypes

 * Dacia Braşovia coupé (1980)
 * Mini-Dacia (1980s) – prototype made from cut-down Dacia 1310 panels and easily changeable from hatchback to pick-up to convertible according to removable panels
 * Dacia Jumbo highrise van (1990)
 * Dacia Nova minivan (1998)
 * Several prototypes of the 1310 with diesel, LPG or smaller engines, throughout the model history
 * Dacia Star (1991)
 * Dacia 1310 convertible (1987; three produced)
 * Dacia 1306 saloon-derived pick-up (1994/5; very small series)
 * Dacia 1310 Break Limousine (late 1980s) – stretched estate with seven seats, several produced in normal-roofed and high-roofed variants
 * Dacia D33 (1997) – prototype made by IDEA design house in Turin, one model only
 * Dacia 1310 4x4 / Aro 12 (late 1980s) – estate-derived 4x4, very small series
 * Dacia Duster concept car (2009)

Sponsorships
From the 2008–09 season to the 2022-23 season, Dacia was the sponsor of Italian Serie A football club Udinese Calcio and Stadio Friuli.

Dacia became the official car partner of the Rugby League Super League and the Challenge Cup in February 2016 and then deepened their support of the sport by becoming the main sponsors of the men's, women's and wheelchair England teams in June 2017. They also became the principal partner of the Great Britain Rugby League Lions in 2019 for the team's four match tour of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

title: Automobile Dacia