MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2046437361 · doi:10.1093/brain/awt254

Off to never-never land: losing consciousness to gain thought

2013· letter· en· W2046437361 sur OpenAlexafffund
Damian Cruse

Notice bibliographique

RevueBrain · 2013
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueSleep and Wakefulness Research
Établissements canadiensWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésDreamPsychologyWakefulnessNightmareNon-rapid eye movement sleepEye movementSleep (system call)ConsciousnessNeuropsychologyAudiologyPsychiatryDevelopmental psychologyElectroencephalographyNeuroscienceCognitionMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In this issue of Brain, Smaranda Leu-Semenescu and colleagues describe one aspect of a rare and fascinating neuropsychological syndrome—auto-activation deficit (AAD)—in which patients with specific basal ganglia lesions experience an almost total loss of self-driven behaviour that can partially be reversed by external stimulation. Indeed, when questioned, some patients with AAD will consistently report a complete absence of spontaneous thoughts. For healthy individuals, spontaneous thoughts are not only a feature of waking life; they are also a common feature of that component of sleep that we call dreams. Leu-Semenescu and colleagues therefore asked whether the absence of mental content reported by patients with AAD also persisted during sleep—that is, are individuals with no spontaneous waking thoughts able to dream? As described in their article, sleep stages were recorded from each of a group of 13 patients with AAD and a group of matched healthy controls using a combination of EEG and other physiological measures. During periods of both rapid eye movement (REM) and non-REM sleep, all participants were awoken and asked to report their mental contents immediately before waking. Surprisingly, despite reporting a total absence of mental content during wakefulness, some patients with AAD nevertheless reported dream contents, primarily during REM sleep. This intriguing dissociation raises many questions about the neural origins of dreams. The authors ascribe their observations to a ‘bottom-up’ theory of dreaming in which, during REM sleep, random fluctuations in brainstem activity ascend to stimulate sensory cortical regions that may, in turn, evoke sensory dream contents in patients with AAD (Nir and Tononi, 2010). This interpretation, alongside the specific basal ganglia lesions of the patients, raises the question of what neural mechanisms are minimally sufficient to result in dreams. Indeed, could it be that other populations of severely brain-injured patients whose pathologies include a relative preservation of the brainstem—e.g. those in the vegetative and minimally conscious states (Adams et al., 1999)—may also experience dream content from a similar bottom-up mechanism? This is unlikely to be the case, as the patients with AAD exhibited broadly healthy sleep-architecture, while it is known that more diffuse forms of brain injury dramatically disrupt sleep/wake cycles (Cruse et al., 2013)—even entirely eliminating REM sleep (Landsness et al., 2011), the sleep stage in which the majority of dreams of the patients with AAD were reported. Nevertheless, could the dream contents of the patients with AAD have come about as a result of a solely bottom-up mechanism? Despite reporting dreams upon awakening, there were marked qualitative differences when compared with healthy controls. Specifically, the dreams of patients with AAD were less complex, less bizarre and less emotional. The authors argue that, in healthy individuals, the more detailed and narrative aspects of dreams are the result of cortico-cortical interactions that ‘clothe’ the bottom-up random stimulations from the brainstem (Roffwarg et al., 1966). Indeed, theories of consciousness acknowledge the importance of long-range cortical connections for the experience of mental content (Tononi, 2004; Dehaene et al., 2006). REM sleep itself is also characterized by cortical effective connectivity that is akin to that seen during wakefulness (Massimini et al., 2010). It is therefore unclear how the hypothesized local activations elicited through brainstem stimulation alone would enter consciousness without some degree of cortico-cortical integration. Due to the relative rarity of the syndrome, there is unfortunately a paucity of data describing the cortico-cortical connectivity of patients with AAD. In order to support their hypothesis, the authors cite prior work that shows a failure of patients with AAD to modulate their motor output in response to affective cues, despite retaining an ability to modulate the same motor output to command (Schmidt et al., 2007). The authors argue that this apparent disconnect between affect and action is indicative of an impairment of structural and/or functional connectivity in patients with AAD. Further complementary measures of structural and functional connectivity are required, however, in order to elucidate the relationship between cortico-cortical connections and the qualitative differences in the dreams of patients with AAD. For example, does diffusion tensor imaging reveal impairment in structural connectivity in the brains of patients with AAD, perhaps as a result of atrophy down-stream of the basal ganglia lesions? Does resting-state functional MRI confirm the hypothesized impairments in functional connectivity during sleep and/or wakefulness? The authors acknowledge that the bottom-up and top-down hypotheses of dream origin in healthy individuals are not mutually exclusive. Under these assumptions, therefore, it may be possible to investigate how these contents are differentially represented in the brain. Indeed, it has recently been shown that aspects of non-REM dream content may be decoded accurately from perceptual brain regions using functional MRI (Horikawa et al., 2013). If such an approach can be applied to REM sleep, it may be possible to identify qualitative differences in the neural representations of dream content in patients with AAD when compared with controls, thereby helping to characterize the nature of both the hypothesized bottom-up dreams, and the more complex top-down narratives of healthy dreaming. Further neuroimaging investigations would also speak to the individual differences seen across the AAD patient group. Indeed, only 31% of patients with AAD reported dreams during REM sleep. From the reported data, there appear to be no differences in aetiology or pathology between dreamers and non-dreamers. However, further studies using in vivo measures of structural connectivity, such as diffusion tensor imaging, may illuminate this inconsistency. For instance, the bottom-up theory of dreaming, as expounded by the authors, would predict that there is a greater reduction in brainstem-to-cortex connectivity in non-dreamers that therefore leads to reduced stimulation of the cortex during REM sleep. In summary, the article by Leu-Semenescu and colleagues provides a fascinating insight into a rare neuropsychological syndrome, while simultaneously serving to illustrate further how investigations of altered forms of consciousness—be it those caused by brain-injury, or by the simple onset of sleep—may provide us with unrivaled insights into consciousness itself, and how the brain supports our ongoing mental contents. Damian Cruse is supported by generous funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Canada Excellence Research Chairs (CERC) programme.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,011

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0100,011
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,310
Écart entre enseignants0,264 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBrainMême sujetSleep and Wakefulness ResearchTravaux en français237 207