The structure of the book is odd; starting off with coverage of various testing standards with little practical detail, which makes it very boring, and one wonders if it's actually aimed at an audience or is included because it is somebody's idea of completeness or thoroughness.
After that we get some pretty interesting case studies (if one can ignore the cross-cultural sections in which one feels the author is perhaps not in her element) but these are followed by an extremely generic chapter on severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) followed by one of mild TBI. This feels a very odd choice because based on the chapters in the book, most (but not all) specific conditions/issues discussed so far are kinds of (severe) TBI (i.e. a subset).
A more conventional structure would have been to start with more general TBI chapters and progress to specific issues. As it was, by the time I'm reading about TBI's it feels more than a bit repetitious and vague compared with preceding chapters.
I honestly felt that the TBI chapter should have been much shorter (although the mild TBI chapter was interesting) and the chapter on testing standards left either to the end or dropped entirely. I would have preferred in their place a slightly expanded explanation of some of the testing done in the case studies.
I had bought this book primarily for the split-brain chapter and in that sense it was a little bit of a let-down in that it didn't teach me much that I didn't already know from doing Psychology at A-level (granted I was a bit precociously interested in such topics).
The other aspect of the book is that it's intended to provide a more human look at the people behind the case-studies. Pertly this is through a better account of their backgrounds, personalities etc and I think is a good thing. It doesn't read like Sach's, but it usually gives you the right feeling and shows that one reason that tests have become so diagnostically sensitive is that people can often have issues in real-life that are not obvious in a clinical setting (and vice versa). On the other hand, there are quite a few retrospective/summing-up type chapters; these often feel overly repetitious in-themselves (i.e. brain patients need a multi-disciplinary approach, etc.) but sometimes entire sections feels like they exist to preserve the existing formula and are repetitious between sections (for the same case).