OBJECTIVES: Functional neuroimaging has shown that the absence of externally observable signs of consciousness and cognition in severely brain-injured patients does not necessarily indicate the true absence of such abilities. However, relative to traumatic brain injury, nontraumatic injury is known to be associated with a reduced likelihood of regaining overtly measurable levels of consciousness. We investigated the relationships between etiology and both overt and covert cognitive abilities in a group of patients in the minimally conscious state (MCS). METHODS: Twenty-three MCS patients (15 traumatic and 8 nontraumatic) completed a motor imagery EEG task in which they were required to imagine movements of their right-hand and toes to command. When successfully performed, these imagined movements appear as distinct sensorimotor modulations, which can be used to determine the presence of reliable command-following. The utility of this task has been demonstrated previously in a group of vegetative state patients. RESULTS: Consistent and robust responses to command were observed in the EEG of 22% of the MCS patients (5 of 23). Etiology had a significant impact on the ability to successfully complete this task, with 33% of traumatic patients (5 of 15) returning positive EEG outcomes compared with none of the nontraumatic patients (0 of 8). CONCLUSIONS: The overt behavioral signs of awareness (measured with the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised) exhibited by nontraumatic MCS patients appear to be an accurate reflection of their covert cognitive abilities. In contrast, one-third of a group of traumatically injured patients in the MCS possess a range of high-level cognitive faculties that are not evident from their overt behavior.
OBJECTIVES: Functional neuroimaging has shown that the absence of externally observable signs of consciousness and cognition in severely brain-injured patients does not necessarily indicate the true absence of such abilities. However, relative to traumatic brain injury, nontraumatic injury is known to be associated with a reduced likelihood of regaining overtly measurable levels of consciousness. We investigated the relationships between etiology and both overt and covert cognitive abilities in a group of patients in the minimally conscious state (MCS). METHODS: Twenty-three MCS patients (15 traumatic and 8 nontraumatic) completed a motor imagery EEG task in which they were required to imagine movements of their right-hand and toes to command. When successfully performed, these imagined movements appear as distinct sensorimotor modulations, which can be used to determine the presence of reliable command-following. The utility of this task has been demonstrated previously in a group of vegetative state patients. RESULTS: Consistent and robust responses to command were observed in the EEG of 22% of the MCS patients (5 of 23). Etiology had a significant impact on the ability to successfully complete this task, with 33% of traumaticpatients (5 of 15) returning positive EEG outcomes compared with none of the nontraumatic patients (0 of 8). CONCLUSIONS: The overt behavioral signs of awareness (measured with the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised) exhibited by nontraumatic MCSpatients appear to be an accurate reflection of their covert cognitive abilities. In contrast, one-third of a group of traumatically injuredpatients in the MCS possess a range of high-level cognitive faculties that are not evident from their overt behavior.
Authors: Damian Cruse; Srivas Chennu; Camille Chatelle; Tristan A Bekinschtein; Davinia Fernández-Espejo; John D Pickard; Steven Laureys; Adrian M Owen Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andrew M Goldfine; Jonathan D Victor; Mary M Conte; Jonathan C Bardin; Nicholas D Schiff Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: J Luauté; D Maucort-Boulch; L Tell; F Quelard; T Sarraf; J Iwaz; D Boisson; C Fischer Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Steven Laureys; Gastone G Celesia; Francois Cohadon; Jan Lavrijsen; José León-Carrión; Walter G Sannita; Leon Sazbon; Erich Schmutzhard; Klaus R von Wild; Adam Zeman; Giuliano Dolce Journal: BMC Med Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Jonathan C Bardin; Joseph J Fins; Douglas I Katz; Jennifer Hersh; Linda A Heier; Karsten Tabelow; Jonathan P Dyke; Douglas J Ballon; Nicholas D Schiff; Henning U Voss Journal: Brain Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Martin M Monti; Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse; Martin R Coleman; Melanie Boly; John D Pickard; Luaba Tshibanda; Adrian M Owen; Steven Laureys Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-02-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John C O'Donnell; Kevin D Browne; Todd J Kilbaugh; H Isaac Chen; John Whyte; D Kacy Cullen Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Sarah Wannez; Thomas Hoyoux; Thomas Langohr; Olivier Bodart; Charlotte Martial; Jérôme Wertz; Camille Chatelle; Jacques G Verly; Steven Laureys Journal: J Neurol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Camille Chatelle; Camille A Spencer; Sydney S Cash; Leigh R Hochberg; Brian L Edlow Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Andrew M Goldfine; Jonathan C Bardin; Quentin Noirhomme; Joseph J Fins; Nicholas D Schiff; Jonathan D Victor Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-01-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Brian L Edlow; Camille Chatelle; Camille A Spencer; Catherine J Chu; Yelena G Bodien; Kathryn L O'Connor; Ronald E Hirschberg; Leigh R Hochberg; Joseph T Giacino; Eric S Rosenthal; Ona Wu Journal: Brain Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Damian Cruse; Srivas Chennu; Davinia Fernández-Espejo; William L Payne; G Bryan Young; Adrian M Owen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 3.240