Advertisement

Journal of Neurology

, Volume 260, Issue 4, pp 975–983 | Cite as

Global functional connectivity reveals highly significant differences between the vegetative and the minimally conscious state

  • Boris Kotchoubey
  • Susanne Merz
  • Simone Lang
  • Alexandra Markl
  • Friedemann Müller
  • Tao Yu
  • Christian Schwarzbauer
Original Communication

Abstract

A major challenge in the diagnosis of disorders of consciousness is the differential diagnosis between the vegetative state (VS) and the minimally conscious state (MCS). Clinically, VS is defined by complete unawareness, whereas MCS is defined by the presence of inconsistent but clearly discernible behavioural signs of consciousness. In healthy individuals, pain cries have been reported to elicit functional activation within the pain matrix of the brain, which may be interpreted as empathic reaction. In this study, pain cries were presented to six VS patients, six MCS patients, and 17 age-matched healthy controls. Conventional task-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) showed no significant differences in functional activation between the VS and MCS groups. In contrast to this negative finding, the application of a novel data-driven technique for the analysis of the brain’s global functional connectivity yielded a positive result. The weighted global connectivity (WGC) was significantly greater in the MCS group compared to the VS group (p < 0.05, family-wise error corrected). Using areas of significant WGC differences as ‘seed regions’ in a secondary connectivity analysis revealed extended functional networks in both MCS and healthy groups, whereas no such long-range functional connections were observed in the VS group. These results demonstrate the potential of functional connectivity MRI (fcMRI) as a clinical tool for differential diagnosis in disorders of consciousness.

Keywords

Traumatic brain injury Anoxic brain injury Coma Consciousness Functional connectivity Unresponsive wakefulness syndrome 

Notes

Acknowledgments

CS would like to thank the Chief Scientist Office of Scotland for partly funding this research. SM and CS acknowledge the support of the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) through the SINAPSE initiative (Scottish Imaging Network: A Platform for Scientific Excellence; http://www.sinapse.ac.uk). BK, SL, AM, FM and TY were supported by the German Research Society (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG). In addition BK acknowledges the support from the European Union (Grant DECODER).

Ethics standard statement

The study was approved by the local ethics committee.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Andrews K, Murphy L, Munday R, Littlewood C (1996) Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit. Br Med J 313:13–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avenanti A, Bueti D, Galati G, Aglioti SM (2005) Transcranial magnetic stimulation highlights the sensorimotor side of empathy for pain. Nat Neurosci 8:955–960PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baars BJ (1988) A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baars BJ (1997) In the theater of consciousness. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bekinschtein TA, Shalom DE, Forcato C, Herrera M et al (2009) Classical conditioning in the vegetative and minimally conscious state. Nat Neurosci 12:1343–1349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benuzzi F, Lui F, Duzzi D, Nichelli PF, Porro CA (2008) Does it look painful or disgusting? Ask your parietal and cingulate cortex. J Neurosci 28:923–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Block N (2007) Consciousness, accessibility, and the mesh between psychology and neuroscience. Behav Brain Sci 30:481–499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boly M, Faymonville ME, Peigneux P, Lambermont B, Damas P, Del Fiore G, Degueldre C, Franck G, Luxen A, Lamy M, Moonen G, Maquet P, Laureys S (2004) Auditory processing in severely brain injured patients: differences between the minimally conscious state and the persistent vegetative state. Arch Neurol 61:233–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boly M, Phillips C, Tshibanda L, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Schabus M, Dang-Vu T, Moonen G, Hustinx R, Maquet P, Laureys S (2008) Intrinsic brain activity in altered states of consciousness: how conscious is the default mode of brain function? Ann N Y Acad Sci 1129:119–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boly M, Tshibanda L, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Noirhomme Q, Schnakers C, Ledoux D, Boveroux P, Garweg P, Lambernmont B, Phillips C, Luxen A, Moonen G, Bassetti C, Maquet P, Laureys S (2009) Functional connectivity in the default network during resting state is preserved in a vegetative but not in a brain dead patient. Hum Brain Mapp 30:2393–2400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boly M, Garrido MI, Gossieres O, Bruno M-A, Boveroux P, Schnakers C, Massimini M, Litvak V, Laureys S, Friston KJ (2011) Preserved feedforward but impaired top-down processes in the vegetative state. Science 332:858–862PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bradley MM, Lang PJ (1999). International Affective Digitized Sounds (IADS): Stimuli, instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical report B-2: The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brooks J, Tracey I (2005) From nociception to pain perception: imaging the spinal and supraspinal pathways. J Anat 207:19–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calhoun VD, Pearlson GD (2012) A selective review of simulated driving studies: combining naturalistic and hybrid paradigms, analysis approaches, and future directions. Neuroimage 59:25–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cole MW, Pathak S, Schneider W (2010) Identifying the brain’s most globally connected regions. Neuroimage 49:3132–3148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Damasio AR (1999) The feeling of what happens: body and emotion in the making of consciousness. Harcourt, San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dehaene S, Changeaux JP, Naccache L, Sackur J, Sergent C (2006) Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy. Trends Cogn Sci 10:204–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Friston KJ, Holmes AP, Worsley KJ, Poline JP, Frith CD, Frackowiak RSJ (1995) Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: a general linear approach. Hum Brain Mapp 2:189–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giacino JT, Ashwal S, Childs N, Cranford R, Jennett B, Katz DI, Kelly JP, Rosenberg JH, Whyte J, Zafonte RD, Zasler ND (2002) The minimally conscious state. Definition and diagnostic criteria. Neurology 58:349–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giacino JT, Kalmar K, Whyte J (2004) The JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised: measurement characteristics and diagnostic utility. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85:2020–2029PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gu X, Han S (2007) Attention and reality constraints on the neural processes of empathy for pain. Neuroimage 36:256–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kotchoubey B (2009). Vegetative state. In: Squire L (ed) Encyclopedia of neuroscience, vol 10. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 61–66Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kotchoubey B, Yu T, Markl A, Vogel D, Müller F, Lang S (2011) On the way to the deep layers of consciousness. Adv Clin Neurosci Rehabil 11:10–13Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lang S, Yu T, Markl A, Müller F, Kotchoubey B (2011) Hearing others’ pain: neural activity related to empathy. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 11:386–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Laureys S, Goldman S, Phillips C, Van Bogaert P, Aerts J, Luxen A, Franck G, Maquet P (1999) Impaired effective cortical connectivity in vegetative state: preliminary investigation using PET. Neuroimage 9:377–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laureys S, Faymonville ME, Luxen A, Lamy M, Franck G, Maquet P (2000) Restoration of thalamocortical connectivity after recovery from persistent vegetative state. The Lancet 355:1790–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Laureys S, Faymonville ME, Peigneux P, Damas P, Lambermont B, Del Fiore G, Degueldre C, Maquet P (2002) Cortical processing of noxious somatosensory stimuli in the persistent vegetative state. Neuroimage 17:732–741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Laureys S (2005) Death, unconsciousness and the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:899–909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lohmann G, Margulies DS, Horstmann A, Pleger B, Lepsien J, Goldhahn D, Schloegl H, Stumvoll M, Villringer A, Turner R (2010) Eigenvector centrality mapping for analyzing connectivity patterns in fMRI data of the human brain. PLoS ONE 5:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moriguchi Y, Decety J, Ohnishi T, Maeda M, Mori T, Nemoto K, Matsuda H, Komaki G (2007) Empathy and judging other’s pain: an fMRI study of alexithymia. Cereb Cortex 17:2223–2234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moulton EA, Schmahmann JD, Becerra L, Borsook D (2010) The cerebellum and pain: passive integrator or active participator? Brain Res Rev 65:14–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nichols T, Hayasaka S (2003) Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: a comparative review. Stat Methods Med Res 12:419–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nichols TE, Holmes AP (2002) Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: a primer with examples. Hum Brain Mapp 15:1–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Panksepp J (2005) Affective consciousness: core emotional feelings in animals and humans. Conscious Cogn 14:30–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peltier SJ, Kerssens C, Hamann SB, Sebel PS, Byas-Smith M, Hu X (2005) Functional connectivity changes with concentration of sevoflurane anesthesia. NeuroReport 16:285–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Perrin JS, Merz S, Bennett DM, Currie J, Steele DJ, Reid IC, Schwarzbauer C (2012) Electroconvulsive therapy reduces frontal cortical connectivity in severe depressive disorder. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:5464–5468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sander K, Frome Y, Scheich H (2007) FMRI activations of amygdala, cingulate cortex, and auditory cortex by infant laughing and crying. Hum Brain Mapp 18:1007–1022Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schnakers C, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Giacino J, Ventura M, Boly M, Majerus S, Moonen G, Laureys S (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of the vegetative and minimally conscious state: clinical consensus versus standardized neurobehavioral assessment. BMC Neurology 9, Article 35Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Singer T, Seymour B, O’Doherty JP, Kaube H, Dolan RJ, Frith CD (2004) Empathy for brain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science 303:1157–1162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tononi G (2008) Consciousness as integrated information: a provisional manifesto. Biol Bull 215:216–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris Kotchoubey
    • 1
  • Susanne Merz
    • 2
  • Simone Lang
    • 3
  • Alexandra Markl
    • 1
    • 4
  • Friedemann Müller
    • 4
  • Tao Yu
    • 1
  • Christian Schwarzbauer
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Medical Psychology and Behavioral NeurobiologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Aberdeen Coma Science GroupUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of PsychologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  4. 4.Schön KlinikBad AiblingGermany

Personalised recommendations