Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2011 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan


Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_792



Stereognosis is the ability to recognize and identify common objects through tactile manipulation without the use of visual cues. Conversely, difficulty in recognizing items by touch when primary sensory modalities (e.g., pain, temperature, and vibration) are intact is termed astereognosis or tactile object agnosia.


Astereognosis is a type of tactile agnosia.


Lesions to the somatosensory cortex, specifically the postcentral gyrus of the parietal lobe are implicated in the development of astereognosis, with damage usually being expressed contralaterally (Campbell, 2005; DeMyer, 2003; Husain, 2002; Roland, 1976; Tomberg & Desmedt, 1999). Because the vast majority of healthy individuals can identify common objects by touch, even one mistake on a test for stereognosis may be pathognomic of cerebral dysfunction (Dean & Davis, 2007).


Testing for stereognosis commonly includes blindfolding the patient, and then having them identify a series of commonly known shapes, items, or objects solely by manipulating them in their hand. Examples of assessment objects include keys, paperclips, coins, and buttons (Dean & Woodcock, 2003; Reitan & Wolfson, 2002). Such tasks are considered effective screeners because they test the entire sensory pathway, beginning with the finger tips all the way through to the parietal lobes and their cortical and subcortical connections (Bauer & Demery, 2003).


While diagnosis of astereognosis is not difficult, addressing treatment options can be complicated by the fact that difficulty in identifying objects through manual manipulation can stem from a number of problems not necessarily related to a primary somatosensory deficit. Imaging research using functional MRI techniques has shown multiple areas of activation in the brain during tactile object recognition tasks, implicating not only the parietal somatosensory region but also the visual association cortex and the frontal polar cortex (Deibert, Kraut, Kremen, & Hart, 1999). Such findings may suggest that tactile object representation includes multiple networks of cortical pathways, including those necessary for motor, visual, and lexical processing. Deficits in any of these pathways could result in difficulty with tactile object recognition. Other deficits, including memory disorders, dysnomia, dementia, nerve damage, spinal cord damage, and motor deficits, can all contribute to symptoms that manifest as difficulty in recognizing and identifying shapes through touch (Bauer & Demery, 2003; Campbell, 2005; Husain, 2002; Ropper & Brown, 2005). Because of this, evidence of astereognosis must be carefully reviewed and differentially diagnosed from other disorders that might mimic the effects of astereognosis when considering treatment options.

Cross References

References and Readings

  1. Bauer, R. M., & Demery, J. A. (2003). Agnosia. In K. M. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology (4th ed., pp. 236–295). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, W. W. (2005). General outline of the neurologic examination. In A. F. Haerer (Ed.), DeJong’s the neurologic examination (pp. 37–40). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  3. Caselli, R. J. (1991). Rediscovering tactile agnosia. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 66, 129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dean, R. S., & Davis, A. S. (2007). The Dean–Woodcock neuropsychological assessment system. In A. M. Horton & D. Wedding (Eds.), The neuropsychology handbook (3rd ed., pp. 397–418). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Dean, R. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2003). Dean–Woodcock sensory motor battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Deibert, E., Kraut, M., Kremen, S., & Hart, J. (1999). Neural pathways in tactile object recognition. Neurology, 52, 1413–1420.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. DeMyer, W. (2003). Examination of the general somatosensory system. In Technique of the neurologic examination: A programmed text (pp. 439–497). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  8. Gaubert, C., & Mockett, S. P. (2000). Inter-rater reliability of the Nottingham method of stereognosis assessment. Clinical Rehabilitation, 14, 153–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Husain, M. (2002). Parietal lobe syndrome. In J. E. Harrison & A. M. Owen (Eds.), Cognitive deficits in brain disorders (pp. 59–77). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  10. Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (2002). Using the tactile form recognition test to differentiate persons with brain damage from control subjects. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17, 117–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Roland, P. E. (1976). Astereognosis. Tactile discrimination after localized hemispheric lesions in man. Archives of Neurology, 33(8), 543–550.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ropper, A. H., & Brown, R. H. (2005). Other somatic sensations. In A. H. Ropper & R. H. Brown (Eds.), Adams and Victor’s principles of neurology (8th ed., pp. 129–143). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Stewart, C., Evans, W. B., & Fitch, J. L. (1985). Oral form perception skills of stuttering and nonstuttering children measured by stereognosis. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 10(4), 311–316.Google Scholar
  14. Tomberg, C., & Desmedt, J. E. (1999). Failure to recognise objects by active touch (astereognoisa) results from lesion of parietal-cortex representation of finger kinaesthesis. Lancet, 354, 393–394.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ball State UniversityMuncieUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational PsychologyBall State UniversityMuncieUSA