MindBEAGLE — A new system for the assessment and communication with patients with disorders of consciousness and complete locked-in syndrom

Patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) cannot reply to questions or clinical assessments using voluntary motor control, and therefore it is very difficult to assess their cognitive capabilities and conscious awareness. Patients who are locked-in (LIS) are instead fully conscious, and they can communicate with their preserved eye movements. However, when the residual oculomotor activity is also lost (e.g., patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis disease of very long duration), the locked-in status becomes complete (CLIS). In CLIS patients, detection of conscious awareness may become very challenging, similarly to the subjects with DOC. mindBEAGLE has a physiological testing battery that uses auditory, vibro-tactile and motor imagery paradigms and brain-computer interface (BCI) technology to assess these patients and even provide communication for some of them. The current study presents results from 5 DOC and 3 LIS patients. The auditory evoked potential (AEP) assessement led to classification accuracies between 0 and 90 %, the vibro-tactile P300 paradigms led to 0 % to 100 % accuracy and the motor imagery paradigms led to accuracies up to 83.3 %. Three of the eight patients could succcessfully establish communication with the mindBEAGLE system. The results show that an assessment battery with auditory, vibro-tactile and motor imagery paradigms is able to identify cognitive functions of DOC and LIS patients. Patients showed substantial fluctuations in EEG measures, assessment results and communication reliability across different days and runs. Therefore, it is important to have a system available that can quickly and easily determine the status of a patient. Successful communication with these patients is also important.

[1]  Jonathan R. Wolpaw Brain-computer interfaces: progress, problems, and possibilities , 2012, IHI '12.

[3]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  Brain-computer communication: unlocking the locked in. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

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

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

[6]  E. John,et al.  Evoked-Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty , 1965, Science.

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

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

[9]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  The Hybrid BCI , 2010, Frontiers in Neuroscience.

[10]  Steve Majerus,et al.  Detecting Consciousness in a Total Locked-in Syndrome: an Active Event-related Paradigm Detecting Consciousness in a Total Lis , 2022 .

[11]  Rupert Ortner,et al.  How many people can control a motor imagery based BCI using common spatial patterns? , 2015, 2015 7th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER).

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

[13]  G Pfurtscheller,et al.  Real-time EEG analysis with subject-specific spatial patterns for a brain-computer interface (BCI). , 2000, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[14]  Konstantinos Priftis,et al.  Effectiveness of the P3-speller in brain–computer interfaces for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2014, Front. Neuroeng..

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

[16]  A. Kübler,et al.  A Brain–Computer Interface Controlled Auditory Event‐Related Potential (P300) Spelling System for Locked‐In Patients , 2009, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

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

[18]  P. Cochat,et al.  Et al , 2008, Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie.

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

[20]  John B. Shoven,et al.  I , Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal.

[21]  Multi-Society Task Force on Pvs Medical aspects of the persistent vegetative state (1). , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  José del R. Millán,et al.  BNCI Horizon 2020: Towards a Roadmap for the BCI Community , 2015 .

[23]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  Comparison of Dry and Gel Based Electrodes for P300 Brain–Computer Interfaces , 2012, Front. Neurosci..

[24]  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).

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

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

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

[28]  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.