ABSTRACT
In chapter 2, after some preliminary comments and a review of the classical cases, I expressed the view that both the concept and the designation of the Charcot–Wilbrand syndrome (a syndrome that represents the mainstream of neuropsychological research on dreaming) may have been based upon a misconception. This led to the formulation of Hypothesis 1: The Charcot–Wilbrand syndrome is not a unitary entity; two types of loss of dreaming exist, each of which is part of a distinct neuropsychological syndrome with separate anatomical correlates. This hypothesis became the premise for eight further hypotheses, each of which made specific predictions about the clinical and anatomical correlates of the proposed varieties of loss of dreaming.
