OBJECTIVE: Evaluating a learning assessment procedure for monitoring progress with two post-coma adults with a diagnosis of vegetative state. METHOD: ABABCBCB and ABABCB designs were used for the two participants, with A representing baseline, B intervention and C control conditions. Participants' activation of an optic microswitch by eyelid closure produced stimulation during B phases. RESULTS: One participant increased responding during B phases and decreased it during the C condition, suggesting a non-reflective minimal level of consciousness. She showed P300 and mismatch negativity responses and scored at the vegetative level on the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R). The other participant increased responding during the initial B phases without decline during the first (viable) part of the C condition, suggesting a pre-conscious level. He showed indistinct P300 and mismatch negativity responses and vegetative-level scores on the CRS-R. CONCLUSION: Learning data seemed reconcilable with neurophysiological measures and more positive than CRS-R scores.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluating a learning assessment procedure for monitoring progress with two post-coma adults with a diagnosis of vegetative state. METHOD:ABABCBCB and ABABCB designs were used for the two participants, with A representing baseline, B intervention and C control conditions. Participants' activation of an optic microswitch by eyelid closure produced stimulation during B phases. RESULTS: One participant increased responding during B phases and decreased it during the C condition, suggesting a non-reflective minimal level of consciousness. She showed P300 and mismatch negativity responses and scored at the vegetative level on the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R). The other participant increased responding during the initial B phases without decline during the first (viable) part of the C condition, suggesting a pre-conscious level. He showed indistinct P300 and mismatch negativity responses and vegetative-level scores on the CRS-R. CONCLUSION: Learning data seemed reconcilable with neurophysiological measures and more positive than CRS-R scores.
Authors: Carlo Abbate; Pietro D Trimarchi; Isabella Basile; Anna Mazzucchi; Guya Devalle Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 3.169
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: Giulio E Lancioni; Andrea Bosco; Marta Olivetti Belardinelli; Nirbhay N Singh; Mark F O'Reilly; Jeff Sigafoos; Doretta Oliva Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 3.169