Somatosensory attention identifies both overt and covert awareness in disorders of consciousness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Some patients diagnosed with disorders of consciousness retain sensory and cognitive abilities beyond those apparent from their overt behavior. Characterizing these covert abilities is crucial for diagnosis, prognosis, and medical ethics. This multimodal study investigates the relationship between electroencephalographic evidence for perceptual/cognitive preservation and both overt and covert markers of awareness. METHODS: Fourteen patients with severe brain injuries were evaluated with an electroencephalographic vibrotactile attention task designed to identify a hierarchy of residual somatosensory and cognitive abilities: (1) somatosensory steady-state evoked responses, (2) bottom-up attention orienting (P3a event-related potential), and (3) top-down attention (P3b event-related potential). Each patient was also assessed with a clinical behavioral scale and 2 functional magnetic resonance imaging assessments of covert command following. RESULTS: Six patients produced only sensory responses, with no evidence of cognitive event-related potentials. A further 8 patients demonstrated reliable bottom-up attention-orienting responses (P3a). No patient showed evidence of top-down attention (P3b). Only those patients who followed commands, whether overtly with behavior or covertly with functional neuroimaging, also demonstrated event-related potential evidence of attentional orienting. INTERPRETATION: Somatosensory attention-orienting event-related potentials differentiated patients who could follow commands from those who could not. Crucially, this differentiation was irrespective of whether command following was evident through overt external behavior, or through covert functional neuroimaging methods. Bedside electroencephalographic methods may corroborate more expensive and challenging methods such as functional neuroimaging, and thereby assist in the accurate diagnosis of awareness. Ann Neurol 2016;80:412-423.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".