Homonymous hemianopia and visual neglect: I — phenomenology, diagnosis

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Hemianopia and unilateral spatial neglect are the most common visual-spatial disorders that occur after a right hemisphere stroke. Due to the similarity of their symptoms, health care professionals often need to establish a differential diagnosis between these two disorders.

This article is the first part of the literature review and is devoted to the discussion of the phenomenology and diagnostic methods of homonymous hemianopia and neglect. For the first time in the Russian literature, the use of the eytracking method in patients with homonymous hemianopia and neglect is highlighted. The article also provides criteria for the differences between the two disorders.

The article contains useful information for health care professionals to make an appropriate diagnosis, which implies subsequent rehabilitation procedures. Rehabilitation methods will be described in detail in the second part of the literature review.

About the authors

Marina A. Shurupova

Federal center of brain research and neurotechnologies; Dmitry Rogachev National Medical Research Center of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology and Immunology, Medical and Rehabilitation Scientific Center "Russkoe pole"; Lomonosov Moscow State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: shurupova@fccps.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2214-3187
SPIN-code: 7030-9954
Scopus Author ID: 57212466023

Cand. Sci. (Biol.)

Russian Federation, Moscow; Chekhov; Moscow

Alina D. Aizenshtein

Federal center of brain research and neurotechnologies

Email: aizenshtein@fccps.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7442-0903
SPIN-code: 6638-1549

researcher, Department of Medical Rehabilitation

Russian Federation, Moscow

Galina E. Ivanova

Federal center of brain research and neurotechnologies; The Russian National Research Medical University named after N.I. Pirogov; Federal Research and Clinical Center of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology

Email: reabilivanova@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3180-5525
SPIN-code: 4049-4581

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow; Moscow

References

  1. Rowe F, Brand D, Jackson CA, et al. Visual impairment following stroke: do stroke patients require vision assessment? Age Ageing. 2009;38:188–93. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afn230
  2. Osawa A, Maeshima S. Unilateral spatial neglect due to stroke. In: Dehkharghani S, editor. Stroke [Internet]. Brisbane (AU): Exon Publications; 2021. Chapter 7. doi: 10.36255/exonpublications.stroke.spatialneglect.2021
  3. Russkih OA, Perevoshhikov PV, Bronnikov VA. The syndrome of neglect (agnosia) in post-stroke patients and possibilities of neuropsychological rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the VII Siberian Psychological Forum “Complex Human Research: Psychology”; Tomsk, 28-29 November 2017. Tomsk: Izdatel’skii Dom Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta; 2017. P. 127–130. (In Russ).
  4. Bolognini N, Vallar G. Hemianopia, spatial neglect, and their multisensory rehabilitation. In: Sathian K, Ramachandran VS, editors. Multisensory Perception. Cambridge, MA, USA: Academic Press; 2020. Р. 423–447. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812492-5.00019-X
  5. Evald L, Wilms I, Nordfang M. Assessment of spatial neglect in clinical practice: a nationwide survey. Neuropsychol Rehab. 2021;31(9):1374–1389. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2020.1778490
  6. Pula JH, Yuen CA. Eyes and stroke: the visual aspects of cerebrovascular disease. Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2017;2(4):210–220. doi: 10.1136/svn-2017-000079
  7. Rowe FJ, Wright D, Brand D, et al. A prospective profile of visual field loss following stroke: prevalence, type, rehabilitation, and outcome. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:719096. doi: 10.1155/2013/719096
  8. Glisson CC. Visual loss due to optic chiasm and retrochiasmal visual pathway lesions. Continuum. 2014;20:907–921. doi: 10.1212/01.CON.0000453312.37143.d2
  9. Heilman KM, Valenstein E. Mechanisms underlying hemispatial neglect. Ann Neurol. 1979;5(2):166–170. doi: 10.1002/ana.410050210
  10. Dobrohotova TA. Neuropsychiatry. 2nd revised and updated. Moscow: Binom; 2016. 304 p. (In Russ).
  11. Hedna VS, Bodhit AN, Ansari S, et al. Hemispheric differences in ischemic stroke: is left-hemisphere stroke more common? J Clin Neurol. 2013;9(2):97–102. doi: 10.3988/jcn.2013.9.2.97
  12. Buxbaum LJ, Ferraro MK, Veramonti T, et al. Hemispatial neglect: Subtypes, neuroanatomy, and disability. Neurology. 2004;62(5): 749–756. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000113730.73031.f4
  13. Chen P, Hreha K, Kong Y, Barrett AM. Impact of spatial neglect on stroke rehabilitation: evidence from the setting of an inpatient rehabilitation facility. Arch Phys Med Rehal. 2015;96(8):1458–1466. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.03.019
  14. Kortte K, Hillis AE. Recent advances in the understanding of neglect and anosognosia following right hemisphere stroke. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2009;9(6):459–465. doi: 10.1007/s11910-009-0068-8
  15. Grigoreva VN, Kovyazina MS, Thostov ASh. Cognitive rehabilitation of patients with stroke and traumatic brain injury. 2nd ed. Nizhnii Novgorod: Izdatel’stvo Nizhegorodskoi gosudarstvennoi meditsinskoi akademii; 2013. 324 p. (In Russ).
  16. Semrau J, Wang J, Herter T, et al. Relationship between visuospatial neglect and kinesthetic deficits after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:318–328. doi: 10.1177/1545968314545173
  17. Spreij LA, Ten Brink AF, Visser-Meily JM, Nijboer TC. Simulated driving: the added value of dynamic testing in the assessment of visuo-spatial neglect after stroke. J Neuropsychol. 2020;14(1):28–45. doi: 10.1111/jnp.12172
  18. Bellas DN, Novelly RA, Eskenazi B, Wasserstein J. Unilateral displacement in the olfactory sense: a manifestation of the unilateral neglect syndrome. Cortex. 1988;24(2):267–275. doi: 10.1016/s0010-9452(88)80035-2
  19. Ting DS, Pollock A, Dutton GN, et al. Visual neglect following stroke: current concepts and future focus. Surv Ophthalmol. 2011; 56(2):114–134. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2010.08.001
  20. Bisiach E, Geminiani G, Berti A, Rusconi ML. Perceptual and premotor factors of unilateral neglect. Neurology. 1990;40:1278. doi: 10.1212/WNL.40.8.1278
  21. Rode G, Pagliari C, Huchon L, et al. Semiology of neglect: an update. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2017;60(3):177–185. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2016.03.003
  22. Barrett AM, Goedert KM, Carter AR, Chaudhari A. Spatial neglect treatment: the brain’s spatial-motor Aiming systems. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2022;32(5):662–688. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2020.1862678
  23. Rode G, Cotton F, Revol P, et al. Representation and disconnection in imaginal neglect. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48:2903–2911. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.05.032
  24. Spaccavento S, Cellamare F, Falcone R, et al. Effect of subtypes of neglect on functional outcome in stroke patients. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2017;60(6):376–381. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2017.07.245
  25. Ten Brink AF, Biesbroek JM, Oort Q, et al. Peripersonal and extrapersonal visuospatial neglect in different frames of reference: a brain lesion-symptom mapping study. Behav Brain Res. 2019; 1(356):504–515. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2018.06.010
  26. Karnath HO, Rorden C. The anatomy of spatial neglect. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50(6):1010–1017. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.06.027
  27. Montedoro V, Alsamour M, Dehem S, et al. Robot diagnosis test for egocentric and allocentric hemineglect. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2019;34(4):481–494. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acy062
  28. Grigorieva VN, Sorokina TA. Anosognosia in patients with acute hemispheric ischemic stroke. Neurology, Neuropsychiatry, Psychosomatics. 2016;8(2):31–35. (In Russ). doi: 10.14412/2074-2711-2016-2-31-35
  29. Damulin IV, Ekusheva EV. Neuroplasticity processes after stroke. Neurology, Neuropsychiatry, Psychosomatics. 2014;(3):69–74. (In Russ). doi: 10.14412/2074-2711-2014-3-69-74
  30. Bartolomeo P. Attention disorders after right brain damage: living in halved worlds. Springer-Verlag London; 2014.
  31. Nikitaeva EV. Neuropsychological rehabilitation of patients with neglecta syndrome (syndrome of unilateral visual-spatial ignoring): methodical manual. Kazan: Buk; 2021. 50 р. (In Russ).
  32. Posner MI, Rothbart MK, Ghassemzadeh H. Restoring attention networks. Yale J Biol Med. 2019;92(1):139–143.
  33. Corbetta M, Shulman GL. Spatial neglect and attention networks. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2011;34:569–599. doi: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113731
  34. Purves D, Augustine GJ, Fitzpatrick D, et al., editors. Neuroscience. 3rd edition. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates; 2004. 835 p.
  35. Sperber C, Clausen J, Benke T, Karnath HO. The anatomy of spatial neglect after posterior cerebral artery stroke. Brain Commun. 2020;2(2):fcaa163. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcaa163
  36. Chechlacz M, Rotshtein P, Bickerton WL, et al. Separating neural correlates of allocentric and egocentric neglect: distinct cortical sites and common white matter disconnections. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2010;27(3):277–303. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2010.519699
  37. Rousseaux M, Allart E, Bernati T, Saj A. Anatomical and psychometric relationships of behavioral neglect in daily living. Neuropsychologia. 2015;70:64–70. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.02.011
  38. Zhang WN, Pan YH, Wang XY, Zhao Y. A prospective study of the incidence and correlated factors of post-stroke depression in China. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e78981. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078981
  39. Zihl J. Rehabilitation of visual disorders after brain injury. 2nd ed. (Neuropsychological rehabilitation: a modular handbook). University of Glasgow, UK; 2011. 288 р.
  40. Nijboer TC, Kollen BJ, Kwakkel G. Time course of visuospatial neglect early after stroke: a longitudinal cohort study. Cortex. 2013;49(8):2021–2027. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.11.006
  41. Ringman JM, Saver JL, Woolson RF, et al. Frequency, risk factors, anatomy, and course of unilateral neglect in an acute stroke cohort. Neurology. 2004;63(3):468–474. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000133011.10689.ce
  42. Kerkhoff G, Rode G, Clarke S. Treating neurovisual deficits and spatial neglect. In: Platz T, editor. Clinical pathways in stroke rehabilitation. Springer, Cham; 2021. P. 191–217. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-58505-1
  43. Saj A, Honoré J, Braem B, et al. Time since stroke influences the impact of hemianopia and spatial neglect on visual-spatial tasks. Neuropsychology. 2012;26(1):37–44. doi: 10.1037/a0025733
  44. Pouget MC, Lévy-Bencheton D, Prost M, et al. Acquired visual field defects rehabilitation: critical review and perspectives. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2012;55(1):53–74. (In English, French). doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2011.05.006
  45. World Health Organization (WHO). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2001.
  46. Chen CS, Lee AW, Clarke G, et al. Vision-related quality of life in patients with complete homonymous hemianopia post stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009;16:445–453. doi: 10.1310/tsr1606-445
  47. Bosma MS, Nijboer TC, Caljouw MA, Achterberg WP. Impact of visuospatial neglect post-stroke on daily activities, participation and informal caregiver burden: a systematic review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;63(4):344–358. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.05.006
  48. Dehn LB, Piefke M, Toepper M, et al. Cognitive training in an everyday-like virtual reality enhances visual-spatial memory capacities in stroke survivors with visual field defects. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2020;27(6):442–452. doi: 10.1080/10749357.2020.1716531
  49. Sand KM, Wilhelmsen G, Naess H, et al. Vision problems in ischaemic stroke patients: effects on life quality and disability. Eur J Neurol. 2016;23:1–7. doi: 10.1111/ene.2016.23.issue-S1
  50. Chen P, Fyffe DC, Hreha K. Informal caregivers’ burden and stress in caring for stroke survivors with spatial neglect: an exploratory mixed-method study. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2017;24:24–33. doi: 10.1080/10749357.2016.1186373
  51. Ameriso SF. Return to work in young adults with stroke: another catastrophe in a catastrophic disease. Neurology. 2018;91(20) 905–906. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006495
  52. Appelros P, Karlsson GM, Seiger A, Nydevik I. Prognosis for patients with neglect and anosognosia with special reference to cognitive impairment. J Rehabil Med. 2003;35(6):254–258. doi: 10.1080/16501970310012455
  53. Bickerton WL, Samson D, Williamson J, Humphreys GW. Separating forms of neglect using the Apples Test: validation and functional prediction in chronic and acute stroke. Neuropsychology. 2011;25(5):567–580. doi: 10.1037/a0023501
  54. Upshaw JN, Leitner DW, Rutherford BJ, et al. Allocentric versus egocentric neglect in stroke patients: a pilot study investigating the assessment of neglect subtypes and their impacts on functional outcome using eye tracking. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2019;25(5): 479–489. doi: 10.1017/S1355617719000110
  55. Müller-Oehring EM, Kasten E, Poggel DA, et al. Neglect and hemianopia superimposed. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2003;25(8): 1154–1168. doi: 10.1076/jcen.25.8.1154.16727
  56. Nyffeler T, Paladini RE, Hopfner S, et al. Contralesional trunk rotation dissociates real vs. pseudo-visual field defects due to visual neglect in stroke patients. Front Neurol. 2017;8:411. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00411
  57. Lebedev VI, Andreeva MA. Ignoring syndrome in the clinic of a brain infarction in the right carotid basin and features of its diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the distance scientific and practical conference of students and young scientists “Innovations in medicine and pharmacy”; Minsk, October 10 – November 17, 2016. Minsk: Belarusian State Medical University; 2016. P. 221–226. (In Russ).
  58. Schaadt AK, Kerkhoff G. Vision and visual processing defcits. In: Husain M, Schott J, editors. Oxford textbook of cognitive neurology & dementia. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. P. 147–160.
  59. Làdavas E, Tosatto L, Bertini C. Behavioural and functional changes in neglect after multisensory stimulation. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2022;32(5):662–689. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2020.1786411
  60. Hasanov IA, Bogdanov JI. Ishemic stroke in a system of posterior cerebral arteries: problems of diagnosis and treatment. Medical Practice. 2013;1(1-2):130–134. (In Russ).
  61. Koval’chuk VV, Haybullin TN, Galkin AS, et al. Treatment of a neglect syndrome in movement rehabilitation of stroke patients. S.S. Korsakov Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry. 2019;119(3): 29–38. (In Russ). doi: 10.17116/jnevro201911903129
  62. Kerkhoff G, Schindler I. Hemineglekt versus hemianopsie. Hinweise zur differentialdiagnose [Hemi-neglect versus hemianopia. Differential diagnosis]. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 1997;65(6): 278–289. (In German). doi: 10.1055/s-2007-996332
  63. Geeraerts S, Lafosse C, Vandenbussche E, Verfaillie K. A psychophysical study of visual extinction: ipsilesional distractor interference with contralesional orientation thresholds in visual hemineglect patients. Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(4):530–541. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.07.01
  64. Bartolomeo P. Motor neglect. Cortex. 2021;136:159. doi: ff10.1016/j.cortex.2020.12.009
  65. Facchin A, Vallar G, Daini R. The Brentano Illusion Test (BRIT): an implicit task of perceptual processing for the assessment of visual field defects in neglect patients. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2021; 31(1):39–56. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2019.1655067
  66. Kerkhoff G, Schenk T. Line bisection in homonymous visual field defects ― recent findings and future directions. Cortex. 2011; 47(1):53–58. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2010.06.014
  67. Kavcic V, Triplett RL, Das A, et al. Role of inter-hemispheric transfer in generating visual evoked potentials in V1-damaged brain hemispheres. Neuropsychologia. 2015;68:82–93. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.003
  68. Szalados R, Leff AP, Doogan CE. The clinical effectiveness of eye-search therapy for patients with hemianopia, neglect or hemianopia and neglect. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2021;31(6):971–982. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2020.1751662
  69. Hasegawa C, Hirono N, Yamadori A. Discrepancy in unilateral spatial neglect between daily living and neuropsychological test situations: a single case study. Neurocase. 2011;17(6):518–526. doi: 10.1080/13554794.2010.547506
  70. Deouell LY, Sacher Y, Soroker N. Assessment of spatial attention after brain damage with a dynamic reaction time test. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2005;11(6):697–707. doi: 10.1017/S1355617705050824
  71. Appelros P, Nydevik I, Karlsson GM, et al. Recovery from unilateral neglect after right-hemisphere stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(8):471–477. doi: 10.1080/09638280410001663058
  72. Buslovich EV, Kulesh AA, Semashkova TD. Studying of method’s psychometric status of diagnostics unilateral spatial neglect. Social and humanitarian sciences: theory and practice. 2018; 1(2):764–774. (In Russ).
  73. Wilson B, Cockburn J, Halligan P. Development of a behavioral test of visuospatial neglect. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1987; 68(2):98–102.
  74. Azouvi P. The ecological assessment of unilateral neglect. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2017;60(3):186–190. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2015.12.005
  75. Kortman B, Nicholls K. Assessing for unilateral spatial neglect using eye-tracking glasses: a feasibility study. Occup Ther Health Care. 2016;30(4):344–355. doi: 10.1080/07380577.2016.1208858
  76. Kaufmann BC, Cazzoli D, Pflugshaupt T, et al. Eyetracking during free visual exploration detects neglect more reliably than paper-pencil tests. Cortex. 2020;129:223–235. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.04.021
  77. Paladini RE, Wyss P, Kaufmann BC, et al. Re-fixation and perseveration patterns in neglect patients during free visual exploration. Eur J Neurosci. 2019;49(10):1244–1253. doi: 10.1111/ejn.14309
  78. Behrmann M, Watt S, Black SE, Barton JJ. Impaired visual search in patients with unilateral neglect: an oculographic analysis. Neuropsychologia. 1997;35(11):1445–1458. doi: 10.1016/s0028-3932(97)00058-4
  79. Walle KM, Nordvik JE, Becker F, et al. Unilateral neglect post stroke: eye movement frequencies indicate directional hypokinesia while fixation distributions suggest compensational mechanism. Brain Behav. 2019;9(1):e01170. doi: 10.1002/brb3.1170
  80. Fellrath J, Ptak R. The role of visual saliency for the allocation of attention: evidence from spatial neglect and hemianopia. Neuropsychologia. 2015;73:70–81. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.05.003
  81. Ptak R, Schnider A, Müri R. Bilateral impairment of concurrent saccade programming in hemispatial neglect. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(4):880–886. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.11.005
  82. Shurupova M, Lizunkova K, Aizenshtein A, et al. Using eye-tracking techniques for oculomotor signs of neglect. J Eye Movement Res. 2022;15(5):143. doi: 10.16910/jemr.15.5.2
  83. Chokron S, Peyrin C, Perez C. Ipsilesional deficit of selective attention in left homonymous hemianopia and left unilateral spatial neglect. Neuropsychologia. 2019;128:305–314. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.03.013
  84. Sidenmark L, Gellersen H. Eye, head and torso coordination during gaze shifts in virtual reality. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact. 2019;27:1–40. doi: 10.1145/3361218
  85. Hougaard BI, Knoche H, Jensen J, Evald L. Spatial neglect midline diagnostics from virtual reality and eye tracking in a free-viewing environment. Front Psychol. 2021;12:742445. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.742445
  86. Zhang Y, Ye L, Cao L, Song W. Resting-state electroencephalography changes in poststroke patients with visuospatial neglect. Front Neurosci. 2022;16:974712. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.974712
  87. Ricci R, Salatino A, Garbarini F, et al. Effects of attentional and cognitive variables on unilateral spatial neglect. Neuropsychologia. 2016;92:158–166. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.05.004
  88. Stein C, Bunker L, Chu B, et al. Various tests of left neglect are associated with distinct territories of hypoperfusion in acute stroke. Brain Commun. 2022;4(2):fcac064. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcac064
  89. Bonato M, Priftis K, Umiltà C, Zorzi M. Computer-based attention-demanding testing unveils severe neglect in apparently intact patients. Behav Neurol. 2013;26(3):179–181. doi: 10.3233/BEN-2012-129005

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2022 Eco-Vector

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
 


Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».