Thank you for the clarification, Chris.
The only substantive “article” about Dr. Makoto Shichida is from the Japanese Wikipedia. Evidently, he was a successful educator, not a researcher, and he was convinced that emotional need must be fulfilled before any learning can commence. This is already well-established (see this recent paper, for example, going as old as 1978). Maybe Shichida was an early adopter of this strategy.
I’m not surprised that Dr. Shichida adopted a well known method for fantastic memory feat. As an educator, he perhaps concocted a curriculum just for kids and he was successful at that.
About the “Right-brain learning” that he purportedly formulated: The only credible information I found online is, again, from Japanese Wikipedia. My Japanese is next to nothing, so can someone please translate it? Thanks. 
Apparently he used a mnemonic method for the memory feat.
I would have to add that the article about Shichida’s method (by, purportedly, Dr. Celeste A. Miller of Winona State University) is not a scientific paper. It is more or less an informal description of the method, nothing more. A real research paper would not simply quote one or two sources, but dozens. This so-called “paper” draws its content from Dr. Shichida’s books or articles.
The narrative is oblivious to recent research development on neuroplasticity or even alpha-wave-based learning, for example. Plus, right-vs-left brain false dichotomy in learning is pretty much destroyed. Excerpt:
These courses suggest, for example, that children should be identified as either 'left-brained' or 'right-brained' learners, because individuals 'prefer' one type of processing3. Teachers are told that the left brain dominates in the processing of language, logic, mathematical formulae, number, sequence, linearity, analysis and unrelated factual information. Meanwhile, the right brain is said to dominate in the processing of forms and patterns, spatial manipulation, rhythm, images and pictures, daydreaming, and relationships in learning3. Teachers are advised to ensure that their classroom practice is automatically 'left- and right-brain balanced' to avoid a mismatch between learner preference and learning experience3. This neuromyth probably stems from an over-literal interpretation of hemispheric specialization.
...
Many in education accept claims such as these as established fact5. Scientists have already alerted society to the neuromyths that are dominant in education at present6, 7, 8. In addition to the left brain/right brain learning myth, neuromyths that relate to critical periods for learning and to synaptogenesis can be identified. The critical period myth suggests that the child's brain will not work properly if it does not receive the right amount of stimulation at the right time (an insightful analysis is provided by Byrnes9). Direct teaching of certain skills must occur during the critical period, or the window of opportunity to educate will be missed. The synaptogenesis myth promotes the idea that more will be learned if teaching is timed with periods of synaptogenesis7. Educational interventions will be more effective if teachers ensure that they coincide with increases in synaptic density. Educational interventions are also sometimes suggested to be superior if they encourage 'neuroplasticity'10, and teachers are told that neural networks can be altered by 'neuroplasticity training programmes'10. Teachers do not realize that, although there might be sensitive periods for some forms of learning, the effects of any type of training programme that changes behaviour will be reflected in the 'remapping' of neural networks.
Here’s a link to a more recent article (free access). Read the abstract yourself:
The OECD’s Brain and Learning project (2002) emphasized that many misconceptions about the brain exist among professionals in the field of education. Though these so-called “neuromyths†are loosely based on scientific facts, they may have adverse effects on educational practice. The present study investigated the prevalence and predictors of neuromyths among teachers in selected regions in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. A large observational survey design was used to assess general knowledge of the brain and neuromyths. The sample comprised 242 primary and secondary school teachers who were interested in the neuroscience of learning. It would be of concern if neuromyths were found in this sample, as these teachers may want to use these incorrect interpretations of neuroscience findings in their teaching practice. Participants completed an online survey containing 32 statements about the brain and its influence on learning, of which 15 were neuromyths. Additional data was collected regarding background variables (e.g., age, sex, school type). Results showed that on average, teachers believed 49% of the neuromyths, particularly myths related to commercialized educational programs. Around 70% of the general knowledge statements were answered correctly. Teachers who read popular science magazines achieved higher scores on general knowledge questions. More general knowledge also predicted an increased belief in neuromyths. These findings suggest that teachers who are enthusiastic about the possible application of neuroscience findings in the classroom find it difficult to distinguish pseudoscience from scientific facts. Possessing greater general knowledge about the brain does not appear to protect teachers from believing in neuromyths. This demonstrates the need for enhanced interdisciplinary communication to reduce such misunderstandings in the future and establish a successful collaboration between neuroscience and education.
Yes, it is certainly an article, not a paper. I wanted to share it here because when someone with credentials goes out on a limb to share information about controversial methods, it definitely catches my eye.
TeachingMyToddlers: Thank you. It is certainly one of the better articles about the program.