Identifying Disruptions in Intrinsic Brain Dynamics due to Severe Brain Injury

Recent studies suggest that disruptions in resting state functional connectivity — a measure of stationary statistical association between brain regions — can be used as an objective marker of brain injury. However, fewer characterizations have examined the disruption of intrinsic brain dynamics after brain injury. Here, we examine this issue using electroencephalo-graphic (EEG) data from brain-injured patients, together with a control analysis wherein we quantify the effect of the injury on the ability of intrinsic event responses to traverse their respective state spaces. More specifically, the lability of intrinsically evoked brain activity was assessed by collapsing three sigma event responses in all channels of the obtained EEG signals into a low-dimensional space. The directional derivative of these responses was then used to assay the extent to which brain activity reaches low-variance subspaces. Our findings suggest that intrinsic dynamics extracted from resting state EEG signals can differentiate various levels of consciousness in severe cases of coma. More specifically the cost of moving from one state to another in the state-space trajectories of the underlying dynamics becomes lower as the level of consciousness of patients deteriorates.

[1]  M. Sigman,et al.  Large scale screening of neural signatures of consciousness in patients in a vegetative or minimally conscious state. , 2014, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[2]  Laura Astolfi,et al.  On ERPs detection in disorders of consciousness rehabilitation , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[3]  S. Fakhry,et al.  The conundrum of the Glasgow Coma Scale in intubated patients: a linear regression prediction of the Glasgow verbal score from the Glasgow eye and motor scores. , 1998, The Journal of trauma.

[4]  N. Birbaumer,et al.  Information processing in severe disorders of consciousness: Vegetative state and minimally conscious state , 2005, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[5]  Robyn L McClelland,et al.  Validation of a new coma scale: The FOUR score , 2005, Annals of neurology.

[6]  J. Giacino,et al.  The vegetative and minimally conscious states: diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. , 2011, Neurologic clinics.

[7]  M. Kronbichler,et al.  Connectivity biomarkers can differentiate patients with different levels of consciousness , 2014, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[8]  O. Cremer,et al.  Limitations of the use of the Glasgow Coma Scale in intensive care patients with non-neurological primary disease: a search for alternatives , 2011, Critical Care.

[9]  Steven Laureys,et al.  Disorders of consciousness after acquired brain injury: the state of the science , 2014, Nature Reviews Neurology.

[10]  Athena Demertzi,et al.  Intrinsic functional connectivity differentiates minimally conscious from unresponsive patients. , 2015, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[11]  H. Teive,et al.  Coma scales: a historical review. , 2010, Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria.

[12]  E. Parati,et al.  Significance of multiple neurophysiological measures in patients with chronic disorders of consciousness , 2015, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[13]  V. Jurdjevic Geometric control theory , 1996 .

[14]  S. Fakhry,et al.  Appropriate use of the Glasgow Coma Scale in intubated patients: a linear regression prediction of the Glasgow verbal score from the Glasgow eye and motor scores. , 1996, The Journal of trauma.

[15]  G. Sternbach,et al.  The Glasgow coma scale. , 2000, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[16]  G. Tononi,et al.  Unresponsiveness ≠ Unconsciousness , 2012, Anesthesiology.