K
Kenneth M. Heilman
Researcher at University of Florida
Publications - 712
Citations - 40917
Kenneth M. Heilman is an academic researcher from University of Florida. The author has contributed to research in topics: Neglect & Apraxia. The author has an hindex of 100, co-authored 706 publications receiving 39122 citations. Previous affiliations of Kenneth M. Heilman include Jerusalem Mental Health Center & McKnight Brain Institute.
Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Spatial characteristics of thematic role representation.
TL;DR: Data imply that, in their nascent form, the thematic roles of agent and patient are spatially represented prior to being projected on grammar.
Journal ArticleDOI
The disconnection apraxias
TL;DR: This paper discusses how apraxia can be induced by both a deterioration of these modules as well as disconnections between these modules that form an anatomically distributed system.
Journal ArticleDOI
Developmental stuttering and Parkinson’s disease: the effects of levodopa treatment
Jeffrey M. Anderson,John D. Hughes,Leslie J. Gonzalez Rothi,Gregory P. Crucian,Kenneth M. Heilman +4 more
TL;DR: Findings lend support to the dopamine hypothesis of developmental stuttering by showing an increase of speech dysfluencies during the levodopa “on” periods.
Journal ArticleDOI
Structural brain changes after traditional and robot-assisted multi-domain cognitive training in community-dwelling healthy elderly.
Geon Ha Kim,Seun Jeon,Kiho Im,Hunki Kwon,Byung Hwa Lee,Ga Young Kim,Hana Jeong,Noh Eul Han,Sang Won Seo,Hanna Cho,Young Noh,Sang Eon Park,Hojeong Kim,Jung Won Hwang,Cindy W. Yoon,Hee Jin Kim,Byoung Seok Ye,Ju Hee Chin,Jung-Hyun Kim,Mee Kyung Suh,Jongmin Lee,Sung Tae Kim,Mun-Taek Choi,Munsang Kim,Kenneth M. Heilman,Jee Hyang Jeong,Duk L. Na +26 more
TL;DR: The results suggest that cognitive training can mitigate age-associated structural brain changes in the elderly, and the robot and the traditional interventions were directly compared.
Journal ArticleDOI
Defective motor learning in ideomotor apraxia
TL;DR: In the apraxic group, there was no significant difference between the first and sixth trial, suggesting a defect in motor learning, which appeared to be caused by a combined defect of both acquisition and retention.