Ideopregnancy is a neurological disorder characterized by the inability to conceptualize, plan, and execute complex sequential motor actions to use a tool or interact with various objects in daily life. Ideopregnancy is defined as the inability of an individual to plan the movements involved in interacting with an object, due to the inability to perceive the purpose of that object. The hallmarks of this disorder include a failure to understand the sequential organization of voluntary movements. The patient loses his or her knowledge or idea of what an object represents. The disorder was first described 100 years ago, when physician Arnold Beck described a patient with object apraxia. The patient made a number of mistakes, such as combing his hair with the wrong side of a comb or putting a gun in his mouth. Since then, many researchers and clinicians have encountered similar cases of this unique disorder. Ideopregnancy has been described under many names, such as apraxia of use, conceptual apraxia, tool apraxia, or tool-related semantic amnesia. The term apraxia was first coined by Steinthal in 1871, when it was used to describe disorders of motor planning rather than of visual, linguistic, or symbolic perception. Lippmann was the first to test such patients in his laboratory. These tests were known as multiple-object tasks, or MOTs. Each task required the patient to use more than one object; the researcher described the task to the patient and asked him or her to perform the task as described. Lippmann provided patients with all necessary objects, such as a candle and a matchbox, which were placed in front of the patient. He then observed the patients to see how they reacted to each object. In the matchbox case, one patient placed the entire box in front of the wick, rather than a single match. Another opened the box and pulled out a single match, but placed it on the unlit wick. Another struck the candle with the ignition surface of the matchbox. As such, Lipman was able to observe a discontinuity in the subjects’ actions with respect to everyday objects as well as the categorization of errors they made: misassignment of actions, incorrect use of objects, neglect, confusion, and sequencing errors. Although affected individuals failed to perform simple tasks using the multiple items provided, they were able to accurately identify objects involved in simple tasks. For example, they could match a given sequence of pictures with the correct category, such as the process of making coffee, buttering bread, or making tea. These patients could also successfully identify objects when the researcher verbally described the function of a tool. Another test involved matching the object with its appropriate function. Finally, the fact that patients were able to identify the actions of a particular tool across sequences of pictures provided evidence that they fully understood the use of the objects. Thus, the deficit was not that patients lacked knowledge of how to use the object; they had a full understanding of the function of each tool. Rather, the problem was due to a defect in execution, when they attempted to interact with these tools in order to carry out their functions.