Visual Object Agnosia in Brain Lesions (Review)

Visual gnostic disorders are among the possible causes of disability in patients with brain lesions, but their prevalence and clinical significance in neurological practice are underestimated. This review gives insight into visual object agnosia as a manifestation of brain pathology.

Particular attention is paid to the present-day ideas of the neuroanatomical and neurophysiological basis of visual gnosis. Clinical variants of visual object agnosia, their morphological substrates, features of neuropsychological diagnosis and basic approaches to patient rehabilitation are described.

The unique possibilities of computer technologies for implementation of physical measurement principles, digital mapping and controlled optimization in diagnostic and rehabilitation processes, particularly, in visual object agnosia, are presented.

Special emphasis is placed on the necessity to develop standardized valid methods for diagnosing visual object agnosias to improve the ways of their correction in neurological practice.

1. Luria A.R. Osnovy neyropsikhologii [Foundations of neuropsychology]. Moscow: Izdatel’skiy tsentr “Akademiya”; 2013.
2. Zihl J. Rehabilitation of visual disorders after brain injury. Psychology Press; 2010, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203843253.
3. Cooper S.A. Higher visual function: hats, wives and disconnections. Pract Neurol 2012; 12(6): 349–357, https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2011-000153.
4. Fundamental neuroscience. Squire L., Berg D., Bloom F.E., du Lac S., Ghosh A., Spitzer N.C. (editors). Elsevier; 2012.
5. Haque S., Vaphiades M.S., Lueck C.J. The visual agnosias and related disorders. J Neuroophthalmol 2018; 38(3): 379–392, https://doi.org/10.1097/wno.0000000000000556.
6. Martinaud O. Visual agnosia and focal brain injury. Rev Neurol (Paris) 2017; 173(7–8): 451–460, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurol.2017.07.009.
7. Hanna K.L., Rowe F. Clinical versus evidence-based rehabilitation options for post-stroke visual impairment. Neuroophthalmology 2017; 41(6): 297–305, https://doi.org/10.1080/01658107.2017.1337159.
8. Heutink J., Indorf D.L., Cordes C. The neuropsychological rehabilitation of visual agnosia and Balint’s syndrome. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2018; 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2017.1422272.
9. Barton J.J.S. Objects and faces, faces and objects…. Cogn Neuropsychol 2018; 35(1–2): 90–93, https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2017.1414693.
10. Barton J.J. Disorders of higher visual processing. Handb Clin Neurol 2011; 102: 223–261, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-52903-9.00015-7.
11. Cavina-Pratesi C., Large M.E., Milner A.D. Visual processing of words in a patient with visual form agnosia: a behavioural and fMRI study. Cortex 2015; 64: 29–46, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.09.017.
12. Unzueta-Arce J., García-García R., Ladera-Fernández V., Perea-Bartolomé M.V., Mora-Simón S., Cacho-Gutiérrez J. Visual form-processing deficits: a global clinical classification. Neurologia 2014; 29(8): 482–489, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrleng.2012.03.023.
13. Chechlacz M., Novick A., Rotshtein P., Bickerton W.L., Humphreys G.W., Demeyere N. The neural substrates of drawing: a voxel-based morphometry analysis of constructional, hierarchical, and spatial representation deficits. J Cogn Neurosci 2014; 26(12): 2701–2015, https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00664.
14. Baars B.J., Gage N.M. Fundamentals of cognitive neuroscience: a beginner’s guide. Elsevier; 2013.
15. Kolb B., Whishaw I.Q. Fundamentals of human neuropsychology. New York: Worth; 2015.
16. Humphreys G. A reader in visual agnosia. Routledge; 2016, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315668444.
17. Strappini F., Pelli D.G., Di Pace E., Martelli M. Agnosic vision is like peripheral vision, which is limited by crowding. Cortex 2017; 89: 135–155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.01.012.
18. Ptak R., Lazeyras F., Di Pietro M., Schnider A., Simon S.R. Visual object agnosia is associated with a breakdown of object-selective responses in the lateral occipital cortex. Neuropsychologia 2014; 60: 10–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.05.009.
19. Searle J.A., Hamm J.P. Mental rotation: an examination of assumptions. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2017; 8(6), https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1443.
20. Angelucci A., Roe A.W., Sereno M.I. Controversial issues in visual cortex mapping: extrastriate cortex between areas V2 and MT in human and nonhuman primates. Vis Neurosci 2015; 32: E025, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952523815000292.
21. Kujovic M., Zilles K., Malikovic A., Schleicher A., Mohlberg H., Rottschy C., Eickhoff S.B., Amunts K. Cytoarchitectonic mapping of the human dorsal extrastriate cortex. Brain Struct Funct 2013; 218(1): 157–172, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-012-0390-9.
22. Goodale M.A., Milner A.D. Two visual pathways — where have they taken us and where will they lead in future? Cortex 2018; 98: 283–292, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.12.002.
23. Merabet L.B., Mayer D.L., Bauer C.M., Wright D., Kran B.S. Disentangling how the brain is “wired” in cortical (cerebral) visual impairment. Semin Pediatr Neurol 2017; 24(2): 83–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spen.2017.04.005.
24. Goodale M.A. Separate visual systems for perception and action: a framework for understanding cortical visual impairment. Dev Med Child Neurol 2013; 55(Suppl 4): 9–12, https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12299.
25. Goodale M.A. How (and why) the visual control of action differs from visual perception. Proc Biol Sci 2014; 281(1785): 20140337, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0337.
26. Foley R.T., Whitwell R.L., Goodale M.A. The two-visual-systems hypothesis and the perspectival features of visual experience. Conscious Cogn 2015; 35: 225–233, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.03.005.
27. Rossetti Y., Pisella L., McIntosh R.D. Rise and fall of the two visual systems theory. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2017; 60(3): 130–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2017.02.002.
28. Meichtry J.R., Cazzoli D., Chaves S., von Arx S., Pflugshaupt T., Kalla R., Bassetti C.L., Gutbrod K., Müri R.M. Pure optic ataxia and visual hemiagnosia — extending the dual visual hypothesis. J Neuropsychol 2018; 12(2): 271–290, https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12119.
29. Takahashi E., Ohki K., Kim D.S. Dissociation and convergence of the dorsal and ventral visual working memory streams in the human prefrontal cortex. Neuroimage 2013; 65: 488–498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.002.
30. Martinaud O., Pouliquen D., Gérardin E., Loubeyre M., Hirsbein D., Hannequin D., Cohen L. Visual agnosia and posterior cerebral artery infarcts: an anatomical-clinical study. PLoS One 2012; 7(1): e30433, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030433.
31. Ishii K., Koide R., Mamada N., Tamaoka A. Topographical disorientation in a patient with right parahippocampal infarction. Neurol Sci 2017; 38(7): 1329–1332, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-017-2925-6.
32. Rennig J., Cornelsen S., Wilhelm H., Himmelbach M., Karnath H.O. Preserved expert object recognition in a case of visual hemiagnosia. J Cogn Neurosci 2018; 30(2): 131–143, https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01193.
33. Cooper S.A., O’Sullivan M. Here, there and everywhere: higher visual function and the dorsal visual stream. Pract Neurol 2016; 16(3): 176–183, https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2015-001168.
34. De Vries S.M., Heutink J., Melis-Dankers B.J.M., Vrijling A.C.L., Cornelissen F.W., Tucha O. Screening of visual perceptual disorders following acquired brain injury: a Delphi study. Appl Neuropsychol Adult 2018; 25(3): 197–209, https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2016.1275636.
35. Chiu E.-C., Wu W.-C., Chou C.-X., Yu M.-Y., Hung J.-W. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of the test of visual perceptual skills-third edition in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2016; 97(11): 1917–1923, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.04.023.
36. Velichkovsky B.M., Solov’ev V.D. Komp’yutery, mozg, poznanie: uspekhi kognitivnykh nauk [Computers, brain, cognition: advances in cognitive sciences]. Moscow: Nauka; 2008. 293 p.
37. Morrison G.E., Simone C.M., Ng N.F., Hardy J.L. Reliability and validity of the NeuroCognitive Performance Test, a web-based neuropsychological assessment. Front Psychol 2015; 6: 1652, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01652.
38. Hardy J.L., Nelson R.A., Thomason M.E., Sternberg D.A., Katovich K., Farzin F., Scanlon M. Enhancing cognitive abilities with comprehensive training: a large, online, randomized, active-controlled trial. PLoS One 2015; 10(9): e0134467, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134467.
39. Jiang T. Brainnetome: a new-ome to understand the brain and its disorders. Neuroimage 2013, 80: 263–272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.002.
40. Feenstra H.E.M., Murre J.M.J., Vermeulen I.E., Kieffer J.M., Schagen S.B. Reliability and validity of a self-administered tool for online neuropsychological testing: the Amsterdam Cognition Scan. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2018 40(4): 253–273, https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2017.1339017.
41. Fliessbach K., Hoppe C., Schlegel U., Elger C.E., Helmstaedter C. NeuroCogFX — a computer-based neuropsychological assessment battery for the follow-up examination of neurological patients. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 2006; 74(11): 643–650, https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-932162.
42. Guimarães B., Ribeiro J., Cruz B., Ferreira A., Alves H., Cruz-Correia R., Madeira M.D., Ferreira M.A. Performance equivalency between computer-based and traditional pen-and-paper assessment: a case study in clinical anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2018; 11(2): 124–136, https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1720.
43. Segalowitz S.J., Mahaney P., Santesso D.L., MacGregor L., Dywan J., Willer B. Retest reliability in adolescents of a computerized neuropsychological battery used to assess recovery from concussion. NeuroRehabilitation 2007; 22(3): 243–251.
44. Tsotsos L.E., Roggeveen A.B., Sekuler A.B., Vrkljan B.H., Bennett P.J. The effects of practice in a useful field of view task on driving performance. Journal of Vision 2010; 10(7): 152–152, https://doi.org/10.1167/10.7.152.
45. Crabb D.P., Fitzke F.W., Hitchings R.A., Viswanathan A.C. A practical approach to measuring the visual field component of fitness to drive. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88(9): 1191–1196, https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2003.035949 .
46. Edwards J.D., Vance D.E., Wadley V.G., Cissell G.M., Roenker D.L., Ball K.K. Reliability and validity of useful field of view test scores as administered by personal computer. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2005; 27(5): 529–543, https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390490515432.
47. Tombaugh T.N. TOMM, Test of Memory Malingering. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems; 1996.
48. Korkman M., Kirk U., Kemp S. NEPSY. A developmental neuropsychological assessment. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1998.
49. Hooper H.E. Hooper Visual Organization Test (VOT) manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services; 1983.
50. Conners C.K. Conners’ Rating Scale manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems; 1989.
51. Greenberg L.M., Kindschi C.L., Corman C.L. TOVA test of variables of attention: clinical guide. St. Paul, MN: TOVA Research Foundation; 1996.
52. Polevaya S.A., Mansurova (Yachmonina) Yu.O., Vetyugov V.V., Fedotchev A.I., Parin S.B. Osobennosti kognitivnykh funktsiy i ikh vegetativnogo obespecheniya pri narusheniyakh endogennoy opioidnoy sistemy. V kn.: XX Mezhdunarodnaya nauchno-tekhnicheskaya konferentsiya “Neyroinformatika–2018” [Specifics of cognitive functions and their vegetative provision in endogenous opioid system disorders. In: The XX International conference “Neuroinformatics–2018”]. Moscow: NIYaU MIFI; 2018; 2: 162–170.
53. Polevaya S.A., Parin S.B., Stromkova E.G. Psikhofizicheskoe kartirovanie funktsional’nykh sostoyaniy cheloveka. V kn.: Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya v Rossii: traditsii i perspektivy [Psychophysical mapping of human functional states. In: Experimental psychology in Russia: traditions and perspectives]. Pod red. Barabanshchikova V.A. [Barabanshchikov V.A. (editor)]. Moscow: Izd-vo “Institut psikhologii RAN”; 2010; p. 534–538.
54. Shatil E., Mikulecká J., Bellotti F., Bureš V. Novel television-based cognitive training improves working memory and executive function. PLoS One 2014; 9(7): e101472, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101472.
55. Bray V.J., Dhillon H.M., Bell M.L., Kabourakis M., Fiero M.H., Yip D., Boyle F., Price M.A., Vardy J.L. Evaluation of a web-based cognitive rehabilitation program in cancer survivors reporting cognitive symptoms after chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35(2): 217–225, https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2016.67.8201.
56. Behrmann M., Peterson M.A., Moscovitch M., Suzuki S. Independent representation of parts and the relations between them: evidence from integrative agnosia. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2006; 32(5): 1169–1184, https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.5.1169.
57. Polevaya S.А., Runova Е.V., Nekrasova М.М., Fedotova I.V., Bakhchina А.V., Kovalchuk А.V., Shishalov I.S., Parin S.B. Telemetry and information technologies in diagnosis of sportsmen functional state. Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine 2012; (4): 94–98.

Tikhomirov G.V., Konstantinova I.O., Cirkova M.M., Bulanov N.A., Grigoryeva V.N. Visual Object Agnosia in Brain Lesions (Review). Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine 2019; 11(1): 46, https://doi.org/10.17691/stm2019.11.1.05