OBJECTIVE: The diagnostic validity of non-phase-locked oscillations (NPLOs) and mismatch negativity (MMN) in an oddball task for assessing attentional reactivity in patients with disordered consciousness was examined. METHODS: Patients in a minimally conscious (MCS, n = 6) or vegetative (VS, n = 16) state and healthy controls (n = 15) were assessed. MMN and NPLOs were analyzed with single-subject, non-parametric statistics. RESULTS: In 11 healthy controls and 2 VS patients, MMN was detected. More subjects showed NPLO differences in the alpha than in the theta or beta frequency ranges. In 14 healthy controls, 4 MCS patients, and 5 VS patients, lower amplitudes after deviants were found in the alpha frequency range. One healthy subject and one VS patient showed higher amplitudes after deviants. CONCLUSIONS: Neither ERPs nor NPLOs could reliably distinguish MCS from VS patients. However, NPLOs were more sensitive than ERPs for detecting significantly different activity, and they possibly identified preserved processing better than ERPs. SIGNIFICANCE: Intact neurophysiological attentional responses observed in the NPLOs of VS patients may indicate a need for other diagnostic techniques. Inter-individual differences in the direction of the effect should be considered as normal variance.
OBJECTIVE: The diagnostic validity of non-phase-locked oscillations (NPLOs) and mismatch negativity (MMN) in an oddball task for assessing attentional reactivity in patients with disordered consciousness was examined. METHODS:Patients in a minimally conscious (MCS, n = 6) or vegetative (VS, n = 16) state and healthy controls (n = 15) were assessed. MMN and NPLOs were analyzed with single-subject, non-parametric statistics. RESULTS: In 11 healthy controls and 2 VS patients, MMN was detected. More subjects showed NPLO differences in the alpha than in the theta or beta frequency ranges. In 14 healthy controls, 4 MCSpatients, and 5 VS patients, lower amplitudes after deviants were found in the alpha frequency range. One healthy subject and one VS patient showed higher amplitudes after deviants. CONCLUSIONS: Neither ERPs nor NPLOs could reliably distinguish MCS from VS patients. However, NPLOs were more sensitive than ERPs for detecting significantly different activity, and they possibly identified preserved processing better than ERPs. SIGNIFICANCE: Intact neurophysiological attentional responses observed in the NPLOs of VS patients may indicate a need for other diagnostic techniques. Inter-individual differences in the direction of the effect should be considered as normal variance.
Authors: Joseph T Giacino; Douglas I Katz; Nicholas D Schiff; John Whyte; Eric J Ashman; Stephen Ashwal; Richard Barbano; Flora M Hammond; Steven Laureys; Geoffrey S F Ling; Risa Nakase-Richardson; Ronald T Seel; Stuart Yablon; Thomas S D Getchius; Gary S Gronseth; Melissa J Armstrong Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-08-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Julia Sophia Crone; Gunther Ladurner; Yvonne Höller; Stefan Golaszewski; Eugen Trinka; Martin Kronbichler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yvonne Höller; Aljoscha Thomschewski; Jürgen Bergmann; Martin Kronbichler; Julia S Crone; Elisabeth V Schmid; Kevin Butz; Peter Höller; Eugen Trinka Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Giulio E Lancioni; Andrea Bosco; Marta Olivetti Belardinelli; Nirbhay N Singh; Mark F O'Reilly; Jeff Sigafoos; Francesca Buonocunto; Jorge Navarro; Crocifissa Lanzilotti; Fiora D'Amico; Marina De Tommaso Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Yvonne Höller; Jürgen Bergmann; Aljoscha Thomschewski; Martin Kronbichler; Peter Höller; Julia S Crone; Elisabeth V Schmid; Kevin Butz; Raffaele Nardone; Eugen Trinka Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 3.240