Raechelle M Gibson1,2, Srivas Chennu3,4, Davinia Fernández-Espejo5, Lorina Naci6,7, Adrian M Owen6,7, Damian Cruse5. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. rgibso5@uwo.ca. 2. Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. rgibso5@uwo.ca. 3. School of Computing, University of Kent, Chatham Maritime, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 5. School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 6. Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. 7. Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Some patients diagnosed with disorders of consciousness retain sensory and cognitive abilities beyond those apparent from their overt behavior. Characterizing these covert abilities is crucial for diagnosis, prognosis, and medical ethics. This multimodal study investigates the relationship between electroencephalographic evidence for perceptual/cognitive preservation and both overt and covert markers of awareness. METHODS: Fourteen patients with severe brain injuries were evaluated with an electroencephalographic vibrotactile attention task designed to identify a hierarchy of residual somatosensory and cognitive abilities: (1) somatosensory steady-state evoked responses, (2) bottom-up attention orienting (P3a event-related potential), and (3) top-down attention (P3b event-related potential). Each patient was also assessed with a clinical behavioral scale and 2 functional magnetic resonance imaging assessments of covert command following. RESULTS: Six patients produced only sensory responses, with no evidence of cognitive event-related potentials. A further 8 patients demonstrated reliable bottom-up attention-orienting responses (P3a). No patient showed evidence of top-down attention (P3b). Only those patients who followed commands, whether overtly with behavior or covertly with functional neuroimaging, also demonstrated event-related potential evidence of attentional orienting. INTERPRETATION: Somatosensory attention-orienting event-related potentials differentiated patients who could follow commands from those who could not. Crucially, this differentiation was irrespective of whether command following was evident through overt external behavior, or through covert functional neuroimaging methods. Bedside electroencephalographic methods may corroborate more expensive and challenging methods such as functional neuroimaging, and thereby assist in the accurate diagnosis of awareness. Ann Neurol 2016;80:412-423.
OBJECTIVE: Some patients diagnosed with disorders of consciousness retain sensory and cognitive abilities beyond those apparent from their overt behavior. Characterizing these covert abilities is crucial for diagnosis, prognosis, and medical ethics. This multimodal study investigates the relationship between electroencephalographic evidence for perceptual/cognitive preservation and both overt and covert markers of awareness. METHODS: Fourteen patients with severe brain injuries were evaluated with an electroencephalographic vibrotactile attention task designed to identify a hierarchy of residual somatosensory and cognitive abilities: (1) somatosensory steady-state evoked responses, (2) bottom-up attention orienting (P3a event-related potential), and (3) top-down attention (P3b event-related potential). Each patient was also assessed with a clinical behavioral scale and 2 functional magnetic resonance imaging assessments of covert command following. RESULTS: Six patients produced only sensory responses, with no evidence of cognitive event-related potentials. A further 8 patients demonstrated reliable bottom-up attention-orienting responses (P3a). No patient showed evidence of top-down attention (P3b). Only those patients who followed commands, whether overtly with behavior or covertly with functional neuroimaging, also demonstrated event-related potential evidence of attentional orienting. INTERPRETATION: Somatosensory attention-orienting event-related potentials differentiated patients who could follow commands from those who could not. Crucially, this differentiation was irrespective of whether command following was evident through overt external behavior, or through covert functional neuroimaging methods. Bedside electroencephalographic methods may corroborate more expensive and challenging methods such as functional neuroimaging, and thereby assist in the accurate diagnosis of awareness. Ann Neurol 2016;80:412-423.
Authors: Christoph Guger; Rossella Spataro; Brendan Z Allison; Alexander Heilinger; Rupert Ortner; Woosang Cho; Vincenzo La Bella Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Betty Wutzl; Stefan M Golaszewski; Kenji Leibnitz; Patrick B Langthaler; Alexander B Kunz; Stefan Leis; Kerstin Schwenker; Aljoscha Thomschewski; Jürgen Bergmann; Eugen Trinka Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2021-05-25
Authors: Lorina Naci; Amelie Haugg; Alex MacDonald; Mimma Anello; Evan Houldin; Shakib Naqshbandi; Laura E Gonzalez-Lara; Miguel Arango; Christopher Harle; Rhodri Cusack; Adrian M Owen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Andrew Peterson; Fiona Webster; Laura Elizabeth Gonzalez-Lara; Sarah Munce; Adrian M Owen; Charles Weijer Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 2.652