Neural Responses to Heartbeats Detect Residual Signs of Consciousness during Resting State in Postcomatose Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neural monitoring of visceral inputs might play a role in first-person perspective (i.e., the unified viewpoint of subjective experience). In healthy participants, how the brain responds to heartbeats, measured as the heartbeat-evoked response (HER), correlates with perceptual, bodily, and self-consciousness. Here we show that HERs in resting-state EEG data distinguishes between postcomatose male and female human patients (n = 68, split into training and validation samples) with the unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and in patients in a minimally conscious state with high accuracy (random forest classifier, 87% accuracy, 96% sensitivity, and 50% specificity in the validation sample). Random EEG segments not locked to heartbeats were useful to predict unconsciousness/consciousness, but HERs were more accurate, indicating that HERs provide specific information on consciousness. HERs also led to more accurate classification than heart rate variability. HER-based consciousness scores correlate with glucose metabolism in the default-mode network node located in the right superior temporal sulcus, as well as with the right ventral occipitotemporal cortex. These results were obtained when consciousness was inferred from brain glucose met`abolism measured with positron emission topography. HERs reflected the consciousness diagnosis based on brain metabolism better than the consciousness diagnosis based on behavior (Coma Recovery Scale-Revised, 77% validation accuracy). HERs thus seem to capture a capacity for consciousness that does not necessarily translate into intentional overt behavior. These results confirm the role of HERs in consciousness, offer new leads for future bedside testing, and highlight the importance of defining consciousness and its neural mechanisms independently from behavior.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".