Robust EEG-based cross-site and cross-protocol classification of states of consciousness

Determining the state of consciousness in patients with disorders of consciousness is a challenging practical and theoretical problem. Recent findings suggest that multiple markers of brain activity extracted from the EEG may index the state of consciousness in the human brain. Furthermore, machine learning has been found to optimize their capacity to discriminate different states of consciousness in clinical practice. However, it is unknown how dependable these EEG markers are in the face of signal variability because of different EEG configurations, EEG protocols and subpopulations from different centres encountered in practice. In this study we analysed 327 recordings of patients with disorders of consciousness (148 unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and 179 minimally conscious state) and 66 healthy controls obtained in two independent research centres (Paris Pitié-Salpêtrière and Liège). We first show that a non-parametric classifier based on ensembles of decision trees provides robust out-of-sample performance on unseen data with a predictive area under the curve (AUC) of ~0.77 that was only marginally affected when using alternative EEG configurations (different numbers and positions of sensors, numbers of epochs, average AUC = 0.750 ± 0.014). In a second step, we observed that classifiers based on multiple as well as single EEG features generalize to recordings obtained from different patient cohorts, EEG protocols and different centres. However, the multivariate model always performed best with a predictive AUC of 0.73 for generalization from Paris 1 to Paris 2 datasets, and an AUC of 0.78 from Paris to Liège datasets. Using simulations, we subsequently demonstrate that multivariate pattern classification has a decisive performance advantage over univariate classification as the stability of EEG features decreases, as different EEG configurations are used for feature-extraction or as noise is added. Moreover, we show that the generalization performance from Paris to Liège remains stable even if up to 20% of the diagnostic labels are randomly flipped. Finally, consistent with recent literature, analysis of the learned decision rules of our classifier suggested that markers related to dynamic fluctuations in theta and alpha frequency bands carried independent information and were most influential. Our findings demonstrate that EEG markers of consciousness can be reliably, economically and automatically identified with machine learning in various clinical and acquisition contexts.

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

[2]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[3]  Steven Laureys,et al.  Probing command following in patients with disorders of consciousness using a brain–computer interface , 2013, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[4]  Delphine Pins,et al.  The neural correlates of conscious vision. , 2003, Cerebral cortex.

[5]  Jonathan D Victor,et al.  Large-scale brain dynamics in disorders of consciousness , 2014, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

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

[7]  Pierre Geurts,et al.  Extremely randomized trees , 2006, Machine Learning.

[8]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[9]  Bedside quantitative electroencephalography improves assessment of consciousness in comatose subarachnoid hemorrhage patients , 2016, Annals of neurology.

[10]  Catherine Tallon-Baudry,et al.  Multidimensional cognitive evaluation of patients with disorders of consciousness using EEG: A proof of concept study , 2016, NeuroImage: Clinical.

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

[12]  B Jennett,et al.  Persistent vegetative state after brain damage. , 1972, RN.

[13]  Howard Y. Chang,et al.  Robustness, scalability, and integration of a wound-response gene expression signature in predicting breast cancer survival. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  N. Schiff Recovery of consciousness after brain injury: a mesocircuit hypothesis , 2010, Trends in Neurosciences.

[15]  J. R. King,et al.  Single-trial decoding of auditory novelty responses facilitates the detection of residual consciousness , 2013, NeuroImage.

[16]  R. Brenner,et al.  Recovery of cognition after prolonged vegetative state , 1977 .

[17]  J. Fell,et al.  Cross-frequency coupling supports multi-item working memory in the human hippocampus , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Martin Luessi,et al.  MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data , 2014, NeuroImage.

[19]  Gilles Louppe,et al.  Understanding variable importances in forests of randomized trees , 2013, NIPS.

[20]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  Steven Laureys,et al.  Diagnostic precision of PET imaging and functional MRI in disorders of consciousness: a clinical validation study , 2014, The Lancet.

[22]  L. Naccache,et al.  Probing consciousness in a sensory-disconnected paralyzed patient , 2017, Brain injury.

[23]  A. Kleinschmidt,et al.  Brain Networks and α-Oscillations: Structural and Functional Foundations of Cognitive Control , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[24]  Konrad P. Kording,et al.  The need to approximate the use-case in clinical machine learning , 2017, GigaScience.

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

[26]  Athena Demertzi,et al.  Multiple fMRI system-level baseline connectivity is disrupted in patients with consciousness alterations , 2014, Cortex.

[27]  C. W. Simon,et al.  EEG, consciousness, and sleep. , 1956, Science.

[28]  N. Schiff Cognitive Motor Dissociation Following Severe Brain Injuries. , 2015, JAMA neurology.

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

[30]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Detecting awareness in the vegetative state. , 2006, Science.

[31]  Lionel Naccache,et al.  Minimally conscious state or cortically mediated state? , 2017, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[32]  Max A. Little,et al.  Using and understanding cross-validation strategies. Perspectives on Saeb et al. , 2017, GigaScience.

[33]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  An introduction to the bootstrap , 1993 .

[34]  G. Tononi,et al.  A Theoretically Based Index of Consciousness Independent of Sensory Processing and Behavior , 2013, Science Translational Medicine.

[35]  Steven Laureys,et al.  Brain networks predict metabolism, diagnosis and prognosis at the bedside in disorders of consciousness , 2017, Brain : a journal of neurology.

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

[37]  Gilles Louppe,et al.  Understanding Random Forests: From Theory to Practice , 2014, 1407.7502.

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

[39]  Alexandre Gramfort,et al.  Autoreject: Automated artifact rejection for MEG and EEG data , 2016, NeuroImage.

[40]  Mary M. Conte,et al.  Characterization of EEG signals revealing covert cognition in the injured brain , 2018, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[41]  Emery N. Brown,et al.  Electroencephalogram signatures of loss and recovery of consciousness from propofol , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  Lucas C. Parra,et al.  Divergent neural responses to narrative speech in disorders of consciousness , 2017, Annals of clinical and translational neurology.

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

[44]  H. Chernoff,et al.  Why significant variables aren’t automatically good predictors , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[45]  G. Edelman,et al.  Consciousness and Complexity , 1998 .

[46]  J. Giacino,et al.  The JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised: measurement characteristics and diagnostic utility. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[47]  R. Goebel,et al.  Brain–computer interfaces for communication with nonresponsive patients , 2012, Annals of neurology.

[48]  T Sarraf,et al.  Long-term outcomes of chronic minimally conscious and vegetative states , 2010, Neurology.

[49]  Lizette Heine,et al.  The repetition of behavioral assessments in diagnosis of disorders of consciousness , 2017, Annals of neurology.

[50]  Steven Laureys,et al.  From unresponsive wakefulness to minimally conscious PLUS and functional locked-in syndromes: recent advances in our understanding of disorders of consciousness , 2011, Journal of Neurology.

[51]  B. Rohaut,et al.  Decision making in perceived devastating brain injury: a call to explore the impact of cognitive biases. , 2018, British journal of anaesthesia.

[52]  Mary M. Conte,et al.  Common resting brain dynamics indicate a possible mechanism underlying zolpidem response in severe brain injury , 2013, eLife.

[53]  Olivia Gosseries,et al.  Recent advances in disorders of consciousness: Focus on the diagnosis , 2014, Brain injury.

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

[55]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Cross-validation failure: Small sample sizes lead to large error bars , 2017, NeuroImage.

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

[57]  Konrad P. Kording,et al.  Voodoo Machine Learning for Clinical Predictions , 2016, bioRxiv.

[58]  Andres Hoyos Idrobo,et al.  Assessing and tuning brain decoders: Cross-validation, caveats, and guidelines , 2016, NeuroImage.

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

[60]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  Automated Measurement and Prediction of Consciousness in Vegetative and Minimally Conscious Patients , 2015, ICML 2015.

[61]  Maxime Bonjean,et al.  “Relevance vector machine” consciousness classifier applied to cerebral metabolism of vegetative and locked-in patients , 2011, NeuroImage.

[62]  Mary M. Conte,et al.  Mean-field modeling of thalamocortical dynamics and a model-driven approach to EEG analysis , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[63]  Danilo Bzdok,et al.  Prediction and inference diverge in biomedicine: Simulations and real-world data , 2018, bioRxiv.

[64]  M. Boly,et al.  Willful modulation of brain activity in disorders of consciousness. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[65]  L. Naccache,et al.  Survival and consciousness recovery are better in the minimally conscious state than in the vegetative state , 2018, Brain injury.

[66]  J. Polich Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[68]  Luke J. Chang,et al.  Building better biomarkers: brain models in translational neuroimaging , 2017, Nature Neuroscience.

[69]  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.