Assessing Command-Following and Communication With Vibro-Tactile P300 Brain-Computer Interface Tools in Patients With Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome

Persons diagnosed with disorders of consciousness (DOC) typically suffer from motor disablities, and thus assessing their spared cognitive abilities can be difficult. Recent research from several groups has shown that non-invasive brain-computer interface (BCI) technology can provide assessments of these patients' cognitive function that can supplement information provided through conventional behavioral assessment methods. In rare cases, BCIs may provide a binary communication mechanism. Here, we present results from a vibrotactile BCI assessment aiming at detecting command-following and communication in 12 unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) patients. Two different paradigms were administered at least once for every patient: (i) VT2 with two vibro-tactile stimulators fixed on the patient's left and right wrists and (ii) VT3 with three vibro-tactile stimulators fixed on both wrists and on the back. The patients were instructed to mentally count either the stimuli on the left or right wrist, which may elicit a robust P300 for the target wrist only. The EEG data from −100 to +600 ms around each stimulus were extracted and sub-divided into 8 data segments. This data was classified with linear discriminant analysis (using a 10 × 10 cross validation) and used to calibrate a BCI to assess command following and YES/NO communication abilities. The grand average VT2 accuracy across all patients was 38.3%, and the VT3 accuracy was 26.3%. Two patients achieved VT3 accuracy ≥80% and went through communication testing. One of these patients answered 4 out of 5 questions correctly in session 1, whereas the other patient answered 6/10 and 7/10 questions correctly in sessions 2 and 4. In 6 other patients, the VT2 or VT3 accuracy was above the significance threshold of 23% for at least one run, while in 4 patients, the accuracy was always below this threshold. The study highlights the importance of repeating EEG assessments to increase the chance of detecting command-following in patients with severe brain injury. Furthermore, the study shows that BCI technology can test command following in chronic UWS patients and can allow some of these patients to answer YES/NO questions.

[1]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice , 2012 .

[2]  E. Sellers,et al.  How many people are able to control a P300-based brain–computer interface (BCI)? , 2009, Neuroscience Letters.

[3]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  Complete Locked-in and Locked-in Patients: Command Following Assessment and Communication with Vibro-Tactile P300 and Motor Imagery Brain-Computer Interface Tools , 2017, Front. Neurosci..

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

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

[6]  Donatella Mattia,et al.  Information processing in patients in vegetative and minimally conscious states , 2016, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[8]  S. Sacco,et al.  The Italian version of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R). , 2007, Functional neurology.

[9]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  Validation of a Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) System Designed for Patients with Disorders of Consciousness (DOC): Regular and Sham Testing with Healthy Participants , 2017, HCI.

[10]  Ithabi S. Gantner,et al.  A Vibrotactile P300-Based Brain–Computer Interface for Consciousness Detection and Communication , 2014, Clinical EEG and neuroscience.

[11]  Benjamin Blankertz,et al.  Large-Scale Assessment of a Fully Automatic Co-Adaptive Motor Imagery-Based Brain Computer Interface , 2016, PloS one.

[12]  Xiaorong Gao,et al.  An online multi-channel SSVEP-based brain–computer interface using a canonical correlation analysis method , 2009, Journal of neural engineering.

[13]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  How many people are able to operate an EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI)? , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

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

[15]  A M Owen,et al.  Relationship between etiology and covert cognition in the minimally conscious state , 2012, Neurology.

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

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

[18]  Lorina Naci,et al.  Somatosensory attention identifies both overt and covert awareness in disorders of consciousness , 2016, Annals of neurology.

[19]  Adrian M. Owen,et al.  Multiple tasks and neuroimaging modalities increase the likelihood of detecting covert awareness in patients with disorders of consciousness , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

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

[21]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  Trends in BCI Research I: Brain-Computer Interfaces for Assessment of Patients with Locked-in Syndrome or Disorders of Consciousness , 2017, Brain-Computer Interface Research.

[22]  Steven Laureys,et al.  EEG ultradian rhythmicity differences in disorders of consciousness during wakefulness , 2016, Journal of Neurology.

[23]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  Assessment and Communication for People with Disorders of Consciousness , 2017, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE.

[24]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control. , 2011, Communications of the ACM.

[25]  Dennis J. McFarland,et al.  Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control , 2002, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[26]  Jonathan R. Wolpaw,et al.  Brain–Computer InterfacesPrinciples and Practice , 2012 .

[27]  Tomasz M. Rutkowski Robotic and Virtual Reality BCIs Using Spatial Tactile and Auditory Oddball Paradigms , 2016, Front. Neurorobot..

[28]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  A comparison of face speller approaches for P300 BCIs , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC).

[29]  Sung Chan Jun,et al.  Steady-State Somatosensory Evoked Potential for Brain-Computer Interface—Present and Future , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[30]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  P300 brain computer interface: current challenges and emerging trends , 2012, Front. Neuroeng..

[31]  Anton Nijholt,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces Handbook: Technological and Theoretical Advances , 2018 .

[32]  A. Nijholt,et al.  Conclusion: Moving Forward in Brain-Computer Interfaces , 2018 .

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

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

[35]  Laura Astolfi,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces for Assessment and Communication in Disorders of Consciousness , 2014 .