Can we really 'read' art to see the changing brain? A review and empirical assessment of clinical case reports and published artworks for systematic evidence of quality and style changes linked to damage or neurodegenerative disease.

The past three decades have seen multiple reports of people with neurodegenerative disorders, or other forms of changes in their brains, who also show putative changes in how they approach and produce visual art. Authors argue that these cases may provide a unique body of evidence, so-called 'artistic signatures' of neurodegenerative diseases, that might be used to understand disorders, provide diagnoses, be employed in treatment, create patterns of testable hypotheses for causative study, and also provide unique insight into the neurobiological linkages between the mind, brain, body, and the human penchant for art-making itself. However-before we can begin to meaningfully build from such emerging findings, much less formulate applications-not only is such evidence currently quite disparate and in need of systematic review, almost all case reports and artwork ratings are entirely subjective, based on authors' personal observations or a sparse collection of methods that may not best fit underlying research aims. This leads to the very real question of whether we might actually find patterns of systematic change if fit to a rigorous review-Can we really 'read' art to illuminate possible changes in the brain? How might we best approach this topic in future neuroscientific, clinical, and art-related research? This paper presents a review of this field and answer to these questions. We consider the current case reports for seven main disorders-Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, frontotemporal and Lewy body dementia, corticobasal degeneration, aphasia, as well as stroke-consolidating arguments for factors and changes related to art-making and critiquing past methods. Taking the published artworks from these papers, we then conduct our own assessment, employing computerized and human-rater-based approaches, which we argue represent best practice to identify stylistic or creativity/quality changes. We suggest, indeed, some evidence for systematic patterns in art-making for specific disorders and also find that case authors showed rather high agreement with our own assessments. More important, through opening this topic and past evidence to a systematic review, we hope to open a discussion and provide a theoretical and empirical foundation for future application and research on the intersection of art-making and the neurotypical, the changed, and the artistic brain.