Multidimensional cognitive evaluation of patients with disorders of consciousness using EEG: A proof of concept study

The use of cognitive evoked potentials in EEG is now part of the routine evaluation of non-communicating patients with disorders of consciousness in several specialized medical centers around the world. They typically focus on one or two cognitive markers, such as the mismatch negativity or the P3 to global auditory regularity. However it has become clear that none of these markers in isolation is at the same time sufficiently specific and sufficiently sensitive to be taken as the unique gold standard for diagnosing consciousness. A good way forward would be to combine several cognitive markers within the same test to improve evaluation. Furthermore, given the diversity of lesions leading to disorders of consciousness, it is important not only to probe whether a patient is conscious or not, but also to establish a more general and nuanced profile of the residual cognitive capacities of each patient using a combination of markers. In the present study we built a unique EEG protocol that probed 8 dimensions of cognitive processing in a single 1.5 h session. This protocol probed variants of classical markers together with new markers of spatial attention, which has not yet been studied in these patients. The eight dimensions were: (1) own name recognition, (2) temporal attention, (3) spatial attention, (4) detection of spatial incongruence (5) motor planning, and (6,7,8) modulations of these effects by the global context, reflecting higher-level functions. This protocol was tested in 15 healthy control subjects and in 17 patients with various etiologies, among which 13 could be included in the analysis. The results in the control group allowed a validation and a specific description of the cognitive levels probed by each marker. At the single-subject level, this combined protocol allowed assessing the presence of both classical and newly introduced markers for each patient and control, and revealed that the combination of several markers increased diagnostic sensitivity. The presence of a high-level effect in any of the three tested domains distinguished between minimally conscious and vegetative patients, while the presence of low-level effects was similar in both groups. In summary, this study constitutes a validated proof of concept in favor of probing multiple cognitive dimensions to improve the evaluation of non-communicating patients. At a more conceptual level, this EEG tool can help achieve a better understanding of disorders of consciousness by exploring consciousness in its multiple cognitive facets.

[1]  Quentin Noirhomme,et al.  Reanalysis of “Bedside detection of awareness in the vegetative state: a cohort study” , 2013, The Lancet.

[2]  Charles D. Yingling,et al.  Auditory P3 Responses to Name Stimuli , 1997, Brain and Language.

[3]  Geert J. M. van Boxtel,et al.  Negative Slow Waves as Indices of Anticipation: The Bereitschaftspotential, the Contingent Negative Variation, and the Stimulus-Preceding Negativity , 2011 .

[4]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Retrospective Attention Gates Discrete Conscious Access to Past Sensory Stimuli , 2016, PloS one.

[5]  Peter Praamstra,et al.  Frontoparietal control of spatial attention and motor intention in human EEG. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[6]  J. Changeux,et al.  A neuronal network model linking subjective reports and objective physiological data during conscious perception , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  Martin Eimer,et al.  Crossmodal links in spatial attention are mediated by supramodal control processes: evidence from event-related potentials. , 2002, Psychophysiology.

[8]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Change-blindness as a result of ‘mudsplashes’ , 1999, Nature.

[9]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Is Consciousness a Gradual Phenomenon? , 2004, Psychological science.

[10]  Frédéric Faugeras,et al.  Dissociating temporal attention from spatial attention and motor response preparation: A high-density EEG study , 2016, NeuroImage.

[11]  T. Moulin,et al.  Replicability and impact of statistics in the detection of neural responses of consciousness. , 2016, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[12]  M. Grabois,et al.  Locked-in syndrome: a review of 139 cases. , 1986, Stroke.

[13]  M. Posner,et al.  The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after. , 2012, Annual review of neuroscience.

[14]  M. Boly,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of the vegetative and minimally conscious state: Clinical consensus versus standardized neurobehavioral assessment , 2009, BMC neurology.

[15]  J. Dickey,et al.  Bayes factors for independence in contingency tables , 1974 .

[16]  M. Eimer,et al.  Do ERP components triggered during attentional orienting represent supramodal attentional control? , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[17]  L. Cohen,et al.  Cueing Attention after the Stimulus Is Gone Can Retrospectively Trigger Conscious Perception , 2013, Current Biology.

[18]  M. Posner,et al.  The attention system of the human brain. , 1990, Annual review of neuroscience.

[19]  R. Näätänen.  The Mismatch Negativity: A Powerful Tool for Cognitive Neuroscience , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[20]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Neural signature of the conscious processing of auditory regularities , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  P. Fenwick,et al.  Averaged and single‐trial analysis of cortical activation sequences in movement preparation, initiation, and inhibition , 1996, Human brain mapping.

[22]  Robert Oostenveld,et al.  FieldTrip: Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data , 2010, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[23]  P. Fenwick,et al.  Activation sequence of discrete brain areas during cognitive processes: results from magnetic field tomography. , 1994, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[24]  A. Raftery.  Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research , 1995 .

[25]  George A. Alvarez,et al.  Natural-Scene Perception Requires Attention , 2011, Psychological science.

[26]  R. Buckner,et al.  Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.11 No.2 Self-projection and the brain , 2022 .

[27]  Jonathan D. Victor,et al.  Determination of awareness in patients with severe brain injury using EEG power spectral analysis , 2011, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[28]  E. Halgren,et al.  Dynamic Statistical Parametric Mapping Combining fMRI and MEG for High-Resolution Imaging of Cortical Activity , 2000, Neuron.

[29]  Richard M. Leahy,et al.  Brainstorm: A User-Friendly Application for MEG/EEG Analysis , 2011, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[30]  Valeria Della-Maggiore,et al.  Functional Imaging Reveals Movement Preparatory Activity in the Vegetative State , 2011, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[31]  E. Schröger,et al.  Effects of lateralized cues on the processing of lateralized auditory stimuli , 1996, Biological Psychology.

[32]  F. Manes,et al.  Can electromyography objectively detect voluntary movement in disorders of consciousness? , 2007, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

[33]  Daniel J. Simons,et al.  Inattentional blindness , 2007, Scholarpedia.

[34]  E. Donchin,et al.  Preparation to respond as manifested by movement-related brain potentials , 1980, Brain Research.

[35]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Event related potentials elicited by violations of auditory regularities in patients with impaired consciousness , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[36]  Geraint Rees,et al.  Neural correlates of consciousness in humans , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[37]  J. Changeux,et al.  Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.10 No.5 May 2006 Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy , 2022 .

[38]  C. Carter,et al.  The Timing of Action-Monitoring Processes in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[39]  Fred Plum,et al.  [The diagnosis of stupor and coma]. , 2015, Brain and nerve = Shinkei kenkyu no shinpo.

[40]  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.

[41]  Hugo D. Critchley,et al.  Brain activity relating to the contingent negative variation: an fMRI investigation , 2004, NeuroImage.

[42]  Walter G Sannita,et al.  Unresponsive wakefulness syndrome: a new name for the vegetative state or apallic syndrome , 2010, BMC medicine.

[43]  Z. Hemsley,et al.  Locked-in syndrome: A review , 2001 .

[44]  Karen J. Ferguson,et al.  Brain Disorders in Critical Illness: Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Treatment , 2013 .

[45]  W. Sommer,et al.  Effects of Parametrical and Trial-to-Trial Variation in Prior Probability Processing Revealed by Simultaneous Electroencephalogram/Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[46]  J. Giacino,et al.  The minimally conscious state: Definition and diagnostic criteria , 2002, Neurology.

[47]  H Pratt,et al.  P300 in response to the subject's own name. , 1995, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[48]  Srivas Chennu,et al.  Bedside detection of awareness in the vegetative state: a cohort study , 2011, The Lancet.

[49]  D B Lindsley,et al.  Brain wave components of the contingent negative variation in humans. , 1976, Science.

[50]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Neural Systems for Visual Orienting and Their Relationships to Spatial Working Memory , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[51]  Adrian M. Owen,et al.  Detecting Awareness in the Vegetative State: Electroencephalographic Evidence for Attempted Movements to Command , 2012, PloS one.

[52]  Adrian M. Owen,et al.  Dissociable endogenous and exogenous attention in disorders of consciousness☆ , 2013, NeuroImage: Clinical.

[53]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  Automatic parcellation of human cortical gyri and sulci using standard anatomical nomenclature , 2010, NeuroImage.

[54]  Manuel Schabus,et al.  Brain response to one's own name in vegetative state, minimally conscious state, and locked-in syndrome. , 2006, Archives of neurology.

[55]  D. Lehmann,et al.  Reference-free identification of components of checkerboard-evoked multichannel potential fields. , 1980, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[56]  Dominique Morlet,et al.  Late auditory and event-related potentials can be useful to predict good functional outcome after coma. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[57]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[58]  W. Walter,et al.  Contingent Negative Variation : An Electric Sign of Sensori-Motor Association and Expectancy in the Human Brain , 1964, Nature.

[59]  François Mauguière,et al.  A differential brain response to the subject's own name persists during sleep , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[60]  D Morlet,et al.  Mismatch negativity and late auditory evoked potentials in comatose patients , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[61]  Werner Sommer,et al.  Electrophysiological evidence for the effect of prior probability on response preparation. , 2009, Psychophysiology.

[62]  Lüder Deecke,et al.  Voluntary finger movement in man: Cerebral potentials and theory , 1976, Biological Cybernetics.

[63]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE: The Need for Attention to Perceive Changes in Scenes , 1997 .

[64]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Timing of the brain events underlying access to consciousness during the attentional blink , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[65]  J. Changeux,et al.  Experimental and Theoretical Approaches to Conscious Processing , 2011, Neuron.

[66]  A. Owen,et al.  Are There Levels of Consciousness? , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[67]  Claude Delpuech,et al.  Brain responses to a subject's own name uttered by a familiar voice , 2006, Brain Research.

[68]  R. Oostenveld,et al.  Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[69]  M. Posner,et al.  Attention and the detection of signals. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology.

[70]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Probing consciousness with event-related potentials in the vegetative state , 2011, Neurology.

[71]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Information Sharing in the Brain Indexes Consciousness in Noncommunicative Patients , 2013, Current Biology.

[72]  J. Driver,et al.  Crossmodal links in endogenous and exogenous spatial attention: evidence from event-related brain potential studies , 2001, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[73]  Steven Laureys,et al.  Neural mechanisms involved in the detection of our first name: a combined ERPs and PET study , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[74]  Steve Majerus,et al.  A French validation study of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) , 2008, Brain injury.