4.8 Article

Information Sharing in the Brain Indexes Consciousness in Noncommunicative Patients

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 19, 页码 1914-1919

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.07.075

关键词

-

资金

  1. Direction Generale de l'Armement
  2. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicate (FRM)
  3. Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicate (INSERM)
  4. Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique
  5. European Research Council
  6. Journees de Neurologie de Langue Francaise and FRM
  7. INSERM
  8. AXA
  9. STIC-AmSud grant (RTBRAIN)
  10. program Investissements d'avenir [ANR-10-IAIHU-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neuronal theories of conscious access tentatively relate conscious perception to the integration and global broadcasting of information across distant cortical and thalamic areas [1-6]. Experiments contrasting visible and invisible stimuli support this view and suggest that global neuronal communication may be detectable using scalp electroencephalography (EEG) [3, 5-11]. However, whether global information sharing across brain areas also provides a specific signature of conscious state in awake but noncommunicating patients remains an active topic of research [12-15]. We designed a novel measure termed weighted symbolic mutual information (wSMI) and applied it to 181 high-density EEG recordings of awake patients recovering from coma and diagnosed in various states of consciousness. The results demonstrate that this measure of information sharing systematically increases with consciousness state, particularly across distant sites. This effect sharply distinguishes patients in vegetative state (VS), minimally conscious state (MCS), and conscious state (CS) and is observed regardless of etiology and delay since insult. The present findings support distributed theories of conscious processing and open up the possibility of an automatic detection of conscious states, which may be particularly important for the diagnosis of awake but noncommunicating patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据