Probing consciousness with event-related potentials in the vegetative state

Objective: Probing consciousness in noncommunicating patients is a major medical and neuroscientific challenge. While standardized and expert behavioral assessment of patients constitutes a mandatory step, this clinical evaluation stage is often difficult and doubtful, and calls for complementary measures which may overcome its inherent limitations. Several functional brain imaging methods are currently being developed within this perspective, including fMRI and cognitive event-related potentials (ERPs). We recently designed an original rule extraction ERP test that is positive only in subjects who are conscious of the long-term regularity of auditory stimuli. Methods: In the present work, we report the results of this test in a population of 22 patients who met clinical criteria for vegetative state. Results: We identified 2 patients showing this neural signature of consciousness. Interestingly, these 2 patients showed unequivocal clinical signs of consciousness within the 3 to 4 days following ERP recording. Conclusions: Taken together, these results strengthen the relevance of bedside neurophysiological tools to improve diagnosis of consciousness in noncommunicating patients.

[1]  E. Vogel,et al.  Word meanings can be accessed but not reported during the attentional blink , 1996, Nature.

[2]  S Dehaene,et al.  A neuronal model of a global workspace in effortful cognitive tasks. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework , 2001, Cognition.

[4]  Manjit,et al.  Neurology , 1912, NeuroImage.

[5]  W. Witzke,et al.  How vegetative is the vegetative state? Preserved semantic processing in VS patients--evidence from N 400 event-related potentials. , 2005, NeuroRehabilitation.

[6]  B. Kotchoubey,et al.  Apallic syndrome is not apallic: is vegetative state vegetative? , 2005, Neuropsychological rehabilitation.

[7]  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.

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

[9]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Detecting Awareness in the Vegetative State , 2006, Science.

[10]  G. Gronseth,et al.  Invited Article: Lost in a jungle of evidence , 2008, Neurology.

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

[12]  G. Gronseth,et al.  Invited Article: Practice parameters and technology assessments , 2008, Neurology.

[13]  Robert A Gross,et al.  Levels of evidence , 2008, Neurology.

[14]  Lost in a jungle of evidence: We need a compass , 2009, Neurology.

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

[16]  Fang Sun,et al.  Willful modulation of brain activity in disorders of consciousness. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.