Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Depression on Health-Related Quality of Life Is Mediated by Fatigue in Persons with Multiple Sclerosis
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Disruptions in Effective Connectivity within and between Default Mode Network and Anterior Forebrain Mesocircuit in Prolonged Disorders of Consciousness
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Brain Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/brainsci11060750
brainsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Timecourse of Electrophysiological Brain–Heart Interaction in DoC Patients

by
Francesco Riganello
1,*,
Martina Vatrano
1,
Simone Carozzo
1,
Miriam Russo
1,
Lucia Francesca Lucca
1,
Maria Ursino
1,
Valentina Ruggiero
1,
Antonio Cerasa
1,2 and
Camillo Porcaro
1,3,4,5
1
S.Anna Institute—Research in Advanced Neurorehabilitation, 88900 Crotone, Italy
2
Institute for Biomedical Research and Innovation (IRIB)—National Research Council of Italy (CNR), 87050 Mangone, Italy
3
Department of Information Engineering, Università Politecnica delle Marche, 60131 Ancona, Italy
4
Centre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
5
Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies (ISTC) - National Research Council (CNR), 00185 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Brain Sci. 2021, 11(6), 750; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060750
Submission received: 23 April 2021 / Revised: 31 May 2021 / Accepted: 3 June 2021 / Published: 5 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Disorders of Consciousness)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Disorders of Consciousness (DOC) are a spectrum of pathologies affecting one’s ability to interact with the external world. Two possible conditions of patients with DOC are Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome/Vegetative State (UWS/VS) and Minimally Conscious State (MCS). Analysis of spontaneous EEG activity and the Heart Rate Variability (HRV) are effective techniques in exploring and evaluating patients with DOC. This study aims to observe fluctuations in EEG and HRV parameters in the morning/afternoon resting-state recording. The study enrolled 13 voluntary Healthy Control (HC) subjects and 12 DOC patients (7 MCS, 5 UWS/VS). EEG and EKG were recorded. PSDalpha, PSDtheta powerband, alpha-blocking, alpha/theta of the EEG, Complexity Index (CI) and SDNN of EKG were analyzed. Higher values of PSDalpha, alpha-blocking, alpha/theta and CI values and lower values of PSD theta characterized HC individuals in the morning with respect to DOC patients. In the afternoon, we detected a significant difference between groups in the CI, PSDalpha, PSDtheta, alpha/theta and SDNN, with lower PSDtheta value for HC. CRS-R scores showed a strong correlation with recorded parameters mainly during evaluations in the morning. Our finding put in evidence the importance of the assessment, as the stimulation of DOC patients in research for behavioural response, in the morning.

1. Introduction

Disorders of Consciousness (DOC) are a spectrum of pathologies affecting one’s ability to interact with the external world. It can be either due to a traumatic cause [1,2], non-traumatic cause [3,4], or a combination of both [5] and gives rise to ethically challenging questions [6,7,8], including the end-of-life decisions.
For clinical purposes, consciousness is commonly defined by wakefulness (i.e., the presence of spontaneous periods of opening the eyes) and awareness (i.e., the ability for a subject to respond to the internal/external stimuli in an integrated way). Two possible conditions of patients with DOC are Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome/Vegetative State (UWS/VS) [9] and Minimally Conscious State (MCS) [10]. The first is characterized by a spontaneous opening of the eyes and no sign of consciousness but reflexive responses to external stimuli [11,12]; the second condition exhibits minimal but discernible signs of non-reflex behaviours which occur reproducibly (yet inconsistently) as a response to visual, auditory, tactile, or noxious stimuli.
The DOC cover a broad population of very heterogeneous pathologies with diverse etiologies, injuries, and outcomes, making it hard to distinguish in the clinical practice between the different levels of consciousness [6], leading the examiners to a possible misdiagnosis [13,14,15,16]. The clinical assessment is based on clinical consensus and behavioural scales, such as the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) that represent the current “gold standard” for diagnosing patients with DOC [17,18]. The difficulty in assessing the consciousness level of UWS patients often depends on a subjective interpretation of the observed spontaneous and volitional behaviour [19]. In the absence of speech or cognitive functions, the motor response is the only way to observe evidence of consciousness in these patients [20,21,22]. A critical challenge in clinical practice is minimizing the diagnostic error to make a correct prognosis, the appropriate treatments, and facilitate end-of-life decisions [23,24]. Therefore, DOC patients’ behavioural fluctuation can significantly impact diagnostic accuracy [25].
Analysis of spontaneous EEG activity and the Heart Rate Variability (HRV) are effective techniques in exploring and evaluating patients with DOC [26,27]. Studies have evidenced a relationship between cortical EEG rhythms and general cognition in resting-state condition [28,29]. Decrement of posterior alpha rhythms was observed in subjects with mild cognitive impairment compared with normal elderly subjects [30,31]. The summation of post-synaptic potentials at their apical dendrites reflects the temporal synchronization of cortical pyramidal neurons in the EEG activity [32]. The EEG theta (range of frequency 4–7 Hz) and alpha band (range of frequency 8–12 Hz) constitute a significant neural substrate for human cognition [33,34,35,36]. The ratio between EEG alpha-band power recorded with open and closed eyes represents the reduction in spontaneously-recorded occipital band power at open eyes, and its circuits are thought to be involved in the consciousness [37]. The alpha-theta (α/θ) ratio was found to discriminate Alzheimer’s disease from healthy older controls, patients with mild and severe Alzheimer’s disease discriminate individuals with and without cognitive impairment in older individuals with Parkinson’s disease [38,39,40].
The Central Autonomic Network (CAN) is an integrative model that describes the interaction between neural structure and heart function involved and functionally linked in the affective, cognitive and autonomic regulation [41,42,43]. The principal neural structure of the CAN covers the brainstem (periaqueductal grey matter, nucleus ambiguous, and ventromedial medulla), limbic structures (amygdala and hypothalamus), prefrontal cortex (anterior cingulate, insula, orbitofrontal, and ventromedial cortex) and cerebellum [41,44]. HRV reflects the complex interaction between the brain and the cardiovascular system and describes the Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) functional setup [45,46,47]; evidence suggests these measures also reflect (to some extent and indirectly) higher brain functions and are reliable, independent indicators of Central Nervous System (CNS)/ANS interaction [48,49]. The HRV is generally analyzed in the time and frequency domains [46]. However, the physiological phenomena that characterize the biological events are dynamic and complex [50]. Because of the dynamic and complex nature of the physiological phenomena that characterize the biological events, the non-linear analysis represents a valuable approach to understanding brain–heart two-way interaction [43].
In the time domain, the standard deviation of EKG Interbeat interval (IBI) calculates with the ectopic beat removed (SDNN) represents the sympathovagal system’s contribution to the HRV. In the non-linear domain, the HRV entropy quantifies the interbeat interval’s unpredictability and complexity (IBI) series. Higher and lower entropy indicate, respectively, higher or lower unpredictable IBI sequence, and correspondingly a higher or lower Heart–Brain two-way interaction [51]. Approximate entropy (ApEn) and sample entropy (SampEn) allow quantifying time series data’s complexity like heart rate intervals [52].
Sample Entropy (SampEn) [53] and Multiscale Entropy [54] are among the most commonly applied non-linear analysis methods used in the HRV analysis. SampEn is a modification of ApEn and has been suggested to be independent of the data length. Given a series of data length N, defined the embedding dimension (m) and the tolerance (r), SampEn (N, m, r) is the negative value of the logarithm of the conditional probability that two similar sequences of m points remain similar at the next point m + 1 counting each vector over all the other vectors except on itself [53].
MSE investigates the information content in non-linear signals at different temporal scales (coarse-graining), generally using the SampEn to quantify the degree of unpredictability of time series [54].
The Complexity Index (CI) is calculated from the MSE measures and is the sum of the entropies computed for different scales (i.e., at different levels of resolution of the signal). Thus the CI provides a scalar score, which is the aggregation of MSE over multiple time scales, allowing to get insights into the integrated complexity of the brain–heart interaction.
However, it is well known that behavioural responses are influenced by circadian rhythms, with the suprachiasmatic nuclei (central pacemaker) influences adaptation and behavioural response to the environment [55,56,57]. Alteration of sleep/wake cycle could influence the fluctuation during the day in arousal and response to the command that potentially can confound the clinical assessment reliability in DOC patients [19,58,59]. Studies evaluating daily electrophysiological imbalances between heart–brain activities in DOC patients are lacking. For this reason, this study aims to observe fluctuations in EEG and HRV parameters in the morning/afternoon resting-state conditions. With this aim, we analyzed the power-spectrum density in alpha (PSDα) and theta (PSDθ), αB, α/θ, CI and SDNN. In particular, we expect to find (1) higher EEG PSDα, αB, α/θ, SDNN and CI in HC when compared to the DOC patients; (2) higher PSDα, SDNN and CI and lower PSDθ in the morning compared to the afternoon.

2. Materials and Methods

We enrolled 13 voluntary Healthy Control (HC) subjects (5 male, age 47 ± 7, 8 female, age 43 ± 5) and 12 patients with DOC, 7 diagnosed as MCS (3 male, age 55 ± 14, 4 female, age 60 ± 17) and 5 as UWS/VS (3 male, age 61 ± 18, 2 female, age 48 ± 21) (Table 1). The consciousness diagnosis was based on clinical consensus and CRS-R assessment [5]. The enrolled patients were hospitalized in a special rehabilitation unit for patients with severe DOC at the S. Anna Institute of Crotone (Italy). The inclusion criteria were: (1) age more than 16, (2) no administration of neuromuscular blockers or sedation within 24 h of enrolment, (3) eyes opening (indicating wakefulness and rest cycles), (4) diagnosis of UWS or MCS, based on behavioural assessments by way of CRS-R [17], (5) stable clinical condition. Exclusion criteria were: (1) documented history of brain injury; (2) previous psychiatric or neurologic disorders; (3) administration of pharmacological drugs interacting with the level of consciousness.
This study was carried out following the rules of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/, 20 January 2021) revised in 2013.
All participants were recorded by EEG and EKG in two time windows: during the morning (between 08:00 and 09:00) and afternoon (between 14:00 and 15:00). The patients were assessed by CRS-R in the morning. To avoid differences in the EEG/EKG recording, due to a different rehabilitative programme, the patients underwent the rehabilitation activity plan after the first EEG/EKG recording in the morning until noon, and no rehabilitative activity was planned before the second EEG/EKG recording.
The EEG/EKG recording was done in the electrophysiology laboratory in the absence of transient noise, with natural light equipped with a Faraday cage. EEG/EKG record lasted 5 min, 5 with closed eyes. Five minutes of EEG with open eyes were also recorded to calculate the αB. For the DOC patients, the closed eyes condition was maintained by a bandage.

2.1. Data Recording

EEG and EKG signals plus the EOG for the eye blink were acquired at 1024 Hz by the Neurowave device (http://khymeia.com/prodotti/neurowave/ 20 January 2021). A 32 channel cap with sintered Ag-AgCl ring electrodes was used for the EEG recording, and two polygraphy channels for the EKG (recorded by adhesive electrodes positioned on the chest) end the EOG.
Recording impedances were kept <5 kΩ. All signals were recorded with common reference; the signal ground was connected to an electrode on the left arm. Signals were filtered between 0.1 and 200 Hz and stored on a hard disk for offline processing.

2.2. Data Extraction

EEG signals were extracted and analyzed by EEGLAB (https://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/index.php, 20 January 2021) [60] and visually controlled for artefacts. After artefacts remotion by Independent Component Analysis (ICA) method, alpha and theta PSD were extracted.
EKG was analyzed by Kubios advanced software for HRV analysis [61]. The signals were controlled for artefacts and ectopic beats removed by the interpolation method. For the EKG analysis, the CI and the SDNN conditions were calculated.
The CI was based on the MSE approach quantifying the degree of irregularity over a range of coarse-grained scales (τ) from 1 to 5. The coarse-grained were constructed by averaging the IBI/tachogram’s data points within non-overlapping windows of increasing length τ. For each coarse-grained scales, the Sample Entropy was calculated, and the CI extracted as the sum of the Sample Entropy for each coarse-grained scale. The parameters m and r of SampEn were set to 2 and 0.2, respectively.

2.3. Data Analysis

For the statistical analysis was used the non-parametric exact test. This approach provides more accurate results when the sample size is small or in the case of tables sparse or imbalanced [62].
A Mann–Whitney exact test compared HC and Patients for PSD α and θ, αB, α/θ, SDNN and CI in the morning and the afternoon. Morning vs. afternoon was compared for each group by Wilcoxon exact test for EEG α and θ PSD, αB, α/θ, SDNN and CI.
The effect size was calculated as the absolute value of Z/√(N), where Z is the Z-statistic [63,64] of the statistical test and N is the total number of subjects. The effect size results were considered: r < 0.1 not significant; 0.1 ≤ r < 0.3 low; 0.3 ≤ r < 0.5 medium; r ≥ 0.5 high. Correlation between recorded parameters and CRS-R was observed by Spearman’s test. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.01.

3. Results

In the morning, we detected significant differences in the comparison between DOC and HC for PSDα, PSDθ, α/θ, αBand CI metrics (Mann–Whitney exact test: −3.699 ≤ Z ≤ −2.488, 0.0001 ≤ p ≤ 0.007, 0.37 ≤ r ≤ 0.52). Otherwise, In the afternoon significant additional differences were detected for PSDα, PSDθ, α/θ, CI, and SDNN (Mann–Whitney exact test: −3.481 ≤ Z ≤ −2.339, 0.0001 ≤ p ≤ 0.009, 0.33 ≤ r ≤ 0.49) (Figure 1).
Comparing MCS and UWS, significant differences were in the morning for PSDα (Mann–Whitney exact test: Z = −2.355, p = 0.009, r = 0.48) and α/θ, (Mann–Whitney exact test: Z = −2.680, p = 0.003, r = 0.59), and in the afternoon for SDNN (Mann–Whitney exact test: Z = −2.355, p = 0.009, r = 0.48)(Figure 2).
Comparing morning vs. afternoon, only in DOC patients showed a significant difference for the SDNN (Wilcoxon exact test: Z = −2.589, p = 0.003, r = 0.53) (Figure 1).
The CRS-R was positively correlated at Spearman correlation’s test, with PSDα (ρ = 0.805, p = 0.001), α/θ (ρ = −0.894, p = 0.0001), αB in the morning (ρ = 0.809, p = 0.001), and negatively with PSDθ (ρ = −0.693, p = 0.006). In the afternoon a positive correlation was for α/θ (ρ = −0.571, p = 0.026), and αB (ρ = 0.654, p = 0.011) (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

Our study confirms that DOC patients are characterized by evident electrophysiological heart–brain fluctuations along the day with an evident reduction in the early afternoon [19,58]. This change in the level of consciousness due to the fluctuation of the arousal makes significantly challenging the interpretation of inconsistent behaviours or possible simple motor response [65].
Recording the resting-state EEG in the morning and the afternoon allows us to detect a significant difference between HC and DOC patients in several metrics, such as CI, PSDα, PSD θ and α/θ. In particular, we found higher values of PSDα and α/θ in HC and higher PSDθ for DOC patients. Moreover, additional significant differences were found for αB only in the morning and the SDNN only in the afternoon, with higher values for the HC. Similar results were detected comparing MCS and UWS/VS, with a significant difference in the morning for PSDα and α/θ, and in the afternoon for the SDNN. Finally, comparing the recorded parameters morning vs. afternoon, lower values of SDNN were found for the DOC patients in the afternoon. These findings are in line with those observed in previous studies. Indeed, higher values in the EEG theta power spectrum were documented in UWS/VS patients than MCS and healthy subjects [66,67,68]. Alpha and Theta EEG components were also observed associated with consciousness, with higher theta and lower alpha PSD detected in UWS/VS patients [30,67,69]. Finally, reduced alpha activity accompanied with higher power theta components was associated with worse clinical outcomes [27].
Interestingly we found that significant differences between HC and DOC patients were for αB only in the morning and the SDNN only in the afternoon, with higher values for HC. Danze and colleagues [70] reported that in around 10% of VS patients, the EEG is nearly normal late in the course of the disease but without evidence of αB. Classically, αB is the reduction in spontaneously-recorded occipital alpha band power in response to the opening of the eyes [71] and was associated with visual attention [72,73]. Differently from the cortical alpha that is thought to be generated by feedforward and feedback interactions between the thalamus and overlying cortex [74,75], blocking is considered to arise from changes in the phase synchrony of populations of these near-identical cortico-thalamic alpha oscillators [32,76] and is thought to be involved in consciousness circuitry [37]. Otherwise, the CI expresses the complex brain–heart two-way interaction. This dynamic process shows a reduced or absent complexity in pathological conditions [47,51]. The loss of significance observed in the differences between HC and DOC for αB in the early afternoon is compatible with reducing arousal in HC, which, however, shows a higher cardiac variability (SDNN).
Comparing MCS and UWS/VS, significant differences were found in the morning for PSDα and α/θ, with MCS patients showing the highest alpha power activity. However, these differences decreased in the afternoon. Similar to the HC, the difference between MCS and UWS/VS was for the SDNN in the afternoon, with higher values for MCS. We also found that the alpha/theta ratio was higher in HC than DOC and higher in MCS than UWS/VS. This evidence is in agreement with Lechinger et al. [67], although this difference was not evident between MCS and UWS/VS in the afternoon. Similarly, the correlation between CRS-R and αB and alpha/theta ratio were higher in the morning than in the afternoon. The fluctuation of arousal and consequently of the consciousness level could be related to the circadian rhythms of EEG alpha and theta band [77], of the Central/Autonomic Nervous System [57], abnormal sleep/wake cycle [59,78]. Nevertheless, these fluctuations might also be related to disturbed sleep/wake cycles due to modifications of the environment surrounding the patient caused by procedures of the staff and/or some interaction modalities of the relatives that may affect residual endogenous mechanisms of self-regulation [79]. The correct alternation between periods of sleep and wakefulness deriving from intact circadian rhythms’ system seems central for adequate arousal levels and then for consciousness [80]. It is crucial to consider that in UWS/VS patients, if it is possible to observe the presence of alternate periods of wakefulness and sleep, this does not imply preserved circadian sleep/wake cycling [81]. On the nocturnal melatonin levels and light-induced melatonin suppression, a study report altered levels of melatonin secretion and reduced light-induced melatonin suppression in UWS/VS patients [82]. Blume and colleagues find that higher levels of integrity in melatonin sulfate and temperature circadian rhythms are related to a better behavioural repertoire [83]. This finding implies that alteration in these circadian rhythms may also interfere in the observed fluctuation in EEG and EKG observed parameters.
A limitation to our study is due to the small sample size and age heterogeneity between patients and HC. If the used statistical approach considers these issues, the limited number of patients might cause low accuracy in results, as reported for the effect size [84]. For these reasons, our results need to be confirmed in a greater cohort of DOC patients.

5. Conclusions

For the first time, our study provides a daily electrophysiological timecourse of the functional imbalance characterizing the heart–brain relationship in the DOC patients. Despite the small sample size, the combined EEG and HRV analysis confirm that physiological parameters are nearer to normal values in the morning than in the afternoon and that the incomplete recovery of the circadian rhythms as the sleep/wake cycle might influence the reliable assessment of patients with severe DOC. Our study highlights the importance of considering the variability in behavioural response in DOC patients, which could induce misdiagnosis. Indeed, as already reported by our group in previous studies [19,58], the morning could be ideal for observing response in DOC patients. Again, these findings highlight how in DOC patients, the fluctuation in the arousal and alteration of the circadian rhythms (as observed in and the abnormal sleep/wake cycle) might influence the behavioural response, as also observed in the electrophysiological recordings.

Author Contributions

C.P. developed the experimental design; F.R. and M.V. performed the analysis; S.C., M.R. and V.R. acquired EEG and EKG data; M.U. and L.F.L. selected the patients, F.R. and A.C. write the paper. All the participants contribute to the final version of the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of “Regione Calabria Comitato Etico Sezione Area Centro” n.ro 172 17–July–2020.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The informed consent of the patients was obtained from their familiars or legal representant.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Meaney, D.F.; Morrison, B.; Dale Bass, C. The Mechanics of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Review of What We Know and What We Need to Know for Reducing Its Societal Burden. J. Biomech. Eng. 2014, 136, 021008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Roebuck-Spencer, T.; Cernich, A. Epidemiology and Societal Impact of Traumatic Brain Injury. In Handbook on the Neuropsychology of Traumatic Brain Injury; Clinical Handbooks in Neuropsychology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 3–23. ISBN 978-1-4939-0783-0. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gitler, A.D.; Dhillon, P.; Shorter, J. Neurodegenerative Disease: Models, Mechanisms, and a New Hope. Dis. Model Mech. 2017, 10, 499–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Erkkinen, M.G.; Kim, M.-O.; Geschwind, M.D. Clinical Neurology and Epidemiology of the Major Neurodegenerative Diseases. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2018, 10, a033118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Giacino, J.T.; Katz, D.I.; Schiff, N.D.; Whyte, J.; Ashman, E.J.; Ashwal, S.; Barbano, R.; Hammond, F.M.; Laureys, S.; Ling, G.S.F.; et al. Comprehensive Systematic Review Update Summary: Disorders of Consciousness. Neurology 2018, 91, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Fins, J.J. Clinical pragmatism and the care of brain damaged patients: Toward a palliative neuroethics for disorders of consciousness. In Progress in Brain Research; Laureys, S., Ed.; The Boundaries of Consciousness: Neurobiology and Neuropathology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; Volume 150, pp. 565–582. [Google Scholar]
  7. Demertzi, A.; Ledoux, D.; Bruno, M.-A.; Vanhaudenhuyse, A.; Gosseries, O.; Soddu, A.; Schnakers, C.; Moonen, G.; Laureys, S. Attitudes towards End-of-Life Issues in Disorders of Consciousness: A European Survey. J. Neurol. 2011, 258, 1058–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Riganello, F.; Macrì, S.; Alleva, E.; Petrini, C.; Soddu, A.; Leòn-Carriòn, J.; Dolce, G. Pain Perception in Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome May Challenge the Interruption of Artificial Nutrition and Hydration: Neuroethics in Action. Front. Neurol. 2016, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Laureys, S.; Celesia, G.G.; Cohadon, F.; Lavrijsen, J.; León-Carrión, J.; Sannita, W.G.; Sazbon, L.; Schmutzhard, E.; von Wild, K.R.; Zeman, A.; et al. Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome: A New Name for the Vegetative State or Apallic Syndrome. BMC Med. 2010, 8, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Giacino, J.T.; Ashwal, S.; Childs, N.; Cranford, R.; Jennett, B.; Katz, D.I.; Kelly, J.P.; Rosenberg, J.H.; Whyte, J.; Zafonte, R.D.; et al. The Minimally Conscious State Definition and Diagnostic Criteria. Neurology 2002, 58, 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jennett, B. The Vegetative State. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2002, 73, 355–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Dolce, G.; Lucca, L.F.; Candelieri, A.; Rogano, S.; Pignolo, L.; Sannita, W.G. Visual Pursuit in the Severe Disorder of Consciousness. J. Neurotrauma 2010, 28, 1149–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Andrews, K.; Murphy, L.; Munday, R.; Littlewood, C. Misdiagnosis of the Vegetative State: Retrospective Study in a Rehabilitation Unit. BMJ 1996, 313, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Bosco, A.; Lancioni, G.E.; Belardinelli, M.O.; Singh, N.N.; O’Reilly, M.F.; Sigafoos, J. Vegetative State: Efforts to Curb Misdiagnosis. Cogn. Process 2010, 11, 87–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Peterson, A.; Cruse, D.; Naci, L.; Weijer, C.; Owen, A.M. Risk, Diagnostic Error, and the Clinical Science of Consciousness. Neuroimage Clin. 2015, 7, 588–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. van Erp, W.S.; Lavrijsen, J.C.M.; Vos, P.E.; Bor, H.; Laureys, S.; Koopmans, R.T.C.M. The Vegetative State: Prevalence, Misdiagnosis, and Treatment Limitations. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2015, 16, 85.e9–85.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Giacino, J.T.; Kalmar, K.; Whyte, J. The JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised: Measurement Characteristics and Diagnostic Utility. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2004, 85, 2020–2029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Seel, R.T.; Sherer, M.; Whyte, J.; Katz, D.I.; Giacino, J.T.; Rosenbaum, A.M.; Hammond, F.M.; Kalmar, K.; Pape, T.L.-B.; Zafonte, R.; et al. Assessment Scales for Disorders of Consciousness: Evidence-Based Recommendations for Clinical Practice and Research. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2010, 91, 1795–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Cortese, M.D.; Riganello, F.; Arcuri, F.; Pugliese, M.E.; Lucca, L.F.; Dolce, G.; Sannita, W.G. Coma Recovery Scale-r: Variability in the Disorder of Consciousness. BMC Neurol. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Chatelle, C.; Thibaut, A. Pain Issues in Disorders of Consciousness. Brain Inj. 2014, 28, 1202–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Naro, A.; Leo, A.; Bramanti, P.; Calabrò, R.S. Moving Toward Conscious Pain Processing Detection in Chronic Disorders of Consciousness: Anterior Cingulate Cortex Neuromodulation. J. Pain 2015, 16, 1022–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Cortese, D.; Riganello, F.; Arcuri, F.; Lucca, L.; Tonin, P.; Schnakers, C.; Laureys, S. The Trace Conditional Learning of the Noxious Stimulus in UWS Patients and Its Prognostic Value in a GSR and HRV Entropy Study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2020, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liberati, G.; Hünefeldt, T.; Belardinelli, M.O. Questioning the Dichotomy between Vegetative State and Minimally Conscious State: A Review of the Statistical Evidence. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. O’Donnell, J.C.; Browne, K.D.; Kilbaugh, T.J.; Chen, H.I.; Whyte, J.; Cullen, D.K. Challenges and Demand for Modeling Disorders of Consciousness Following Traumatic Brain Injury. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2019, 98, 336–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wannez, S.; Heine, L.; Thonnard, M.; Gosseries, O.; Laureys, S.; Coma Science Group collaborators. The Repetition of Behavioral Assessments in Diagnosis of Disorders of Consciousness. Ann. Neurol. 2017, 81, 883–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Riganello, F.; Candelieri, A.; Quintieri, M.; Conforti, D.; Dolce, G. Heart Rate Variability: An Index of Brain Processing in Vegetative State? An Artificial Intelligence, Data Mining Study. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2010, 121, 2024–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bagnato, S.; Boccagni, C.; Sant’Angelo, A.; Prestandrea, C.; Mazzilli, R.; Galardi, G. EEG Predictors of Outcome in Patients with Disorders of Consciousness Admitted for Intensive Rehabilitation. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2015, 126, 959–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Jeong, J. EEG Dynamics in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2004, 115, 1490–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Koenig, T.; Prichep, L.; Dierks, T.; Hubl, D.; Wahlund, L.O.; John, E.R.; Jelic, V. Decreased EEG Synchronization in Alzheimer’s Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment. Neurobiol. Aging 2005, 26, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Babiloni, C.; Binetti, G.; Cassetta, E.; Dal Forno, G.; Del Percio, C.; Ferreri, F.; Ferri, R.; Frisoni, G.; Hirata, K.; Lanuzza, B.; et al. Sources of Cortical Rhythms Change as a Function of Cognitive Impairment in Pathological Aging: A Multicenter Study. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2006, 117, 252–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Rossini, P.M.; Rossi, S.; Babiloni, C.; Polich, J. Clinical Neurophysiology of Aging Brain: From Normal Aging to Neurodegeneration. Prog. Neurobiol. 2007, 83, 375–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nunez, P.L.; Srinivasan, R. Electric fields of the brain: The neurophysics of EEG; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; ISBN 978-0-19-505038-7. [Google Scholar]
  33. Klimesch, W. Event-Related Band Power Changes and Memory Performance. Event-Related Desynchronization and Related Oscillatory Phenomena of the Brain. Handb. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1999, 6, 151–178. [Google Scholar]
  34. Klimesch, W.; Doppelmayr, M.; Stadler, W.; Pöllhuber, D.; Sauseng, P.; Röhm, D. Episodic Retrieval Is Reflected by a Process Specific Increase in Human Electroencephalographic Theta Activity. Neurosci. Lett. 2001, 302, 49–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Klimesch, W.; Schack, B.; Schabus, M.; Doppelmayr, M.; Gruber, W.; Sauseng, P. Phase-Locked Alpha and Theta Oscillations Generate the P1-N1 Complex and Are Related to Memory Performance. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 2004, 19, 302–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sauseng, P.; Klimesch, W.; Gruber, W.; Doppelmayr, M.; Stadler, W.; Schabus, M. The Interplay between Theta and Alpha Oscillations in the Human Electroencephalogram Reflects the Transfer of Information between Memory Systems. Neurosci. Lett. 2002, 324, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Schiff, N.D. Recovery of Consciousness after Brain Injury: A Mesocircuit Hypothesis. Trends Neurosci. 2010, 33, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Schmidt, M.; Kanda, P.; Basile, L.; da Silva Lopes, H.F.; Baratho, R.; Demario, J.; Jorge, M.; Nardi, A.; Machado, S.; Ianof, J.N.; et al. Index of Alpha/Theta Ratio of the Electroencephalogram: A New Marker for Alzheimer’s Disease. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2013, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Bousleiman, H.; Chaturvedi, M.; Gschwandtner, U.; Hatz, F.; Schindler, C.; Zimmermann, R.; Fuhr, P. P122. Alpha1/Theta Ratio from Quantitative EEG (QEEG) as a Reliable Marker for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease (PD). Clin. Neurophysiol. 2015, 126, e150–e151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Penttila, M.; Partanen, J.V.; Soininen, H.; Riekkinen, P.J. Quantitative analysis of occipital eeg in different stages of alzheimer’s disease. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1985, 60, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Benarroch, E.E. The autonomic nervous system: Basic anatomy and physiology. Contin. Lifelong Learn. Neurol. 2007, 13, 13–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Thayer, J.F.; Lane, R.D. Claude Bernard and the Heart–Brain Connection: Further Elaboration of a Model of Neurovisceral Integration. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2009, 33, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Riganello, F. Responsiveness and the Autonomic Control–CNS Two-Way Interaction in Disorders of Consciousness. In Brain Function and Responsiveness in Disorders of Consciousness; Monti, M.M., Sannita, W.G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Swizerland, 2016; pp. 145–155. ISBN 978-3-319-21424-5. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lane, R.; Mcrae, K.; Reiman, E.; Chen, K.; Ahern, G.; Thayer, J. Neural Correlates of Heart Rate Variability during Emotion. NeuroImage 2009, 44, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shaffer, F.; McCraty, R.; Zerr, C.L. A Healthy Heart Is Not a Metronome: An Integrative Review of the Heart’s Anatomy and Heart Rate Variability. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Shaffer, F.; Ginsberg, J.P. An Overview of Heart Rate Variability Metrics and Norms. Front. Public Health 2017, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Riganello, F.; Larroque, S.K.; Di Perri, C.; Prada, V.; Sannita, W.G.; Laureys, S. Measures of CNS-Autonomic Interaction and Responsiveness in Disorder of Consciousness. Front. Neurosci. 2019, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Thayer, J.F.; Åhs, F.; Fredrikson, M.; Sollers, J.J.; Wager, T.D. A Meta-Analysis of Heart Rate Variability and Neuroimaging Studies: Implications for Heart Rate Variability as a Marker of Stress and Health. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2012, 36, 747–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ernst, G. Heart-Rate Variability—More than Heart Beats? Front. Public Health 2017, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Billman, G.E.; Huikuri, H.V.; Sacha, J.; Trimmel, K. An Introduction to Heart Rate Variability: Methodological Considerations and Clinical Applications. Front. Physiol. 2015, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Riganello, F.; Larroque, S.K.; Bahri, M.A.; Heine, L.; Martial, C.; Carrière, M.; Charland-Verville, V.; Aubinet, C.; Vanhaudenhuyse, A.; Chatelle, C.; et al. A Heartbeat Away From Consciousness: Heart Rate Variability Entropy Can Discriminate Disorders of Consciousness and Is Correlated With Resting-State FMRI Brain Connectivity of the Central Autonomic Network. Front. Neurol. 2018, 9, 769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fusheng, Y.; Bo, H.; Qingyu, T. Approximate Entropy and Its Application to Biosignal Analysis. In Nonlinear Biomedical Signal Processing; Akay, M., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000; pp. 72–91. ISBN 978-0-470-54537-9. [Google Scholar]
  53. Delgado-Bonal, A.; Marshak, A. Approximate Entropy and Sample Entropy: A Comprehensive Tutorial. Entropy 2019, 21, 541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Costa, M.; Goldberger, A. Generalized Multiscale Entropy Analysis: Application to Quantifying the Complex Volatility of Human Heartbeat Time Series. Entropy 2015, 17, 1197–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schibler, U.; Ripperger, J.; Brown, S.A. Peripheral Circadian Oscillators in Mammals: Time and Food. J. Biol. Rhythm. 2003, 18, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ivanov, P.C.; Hu, K.; Hilton, M.F.; Shea, S.A.; Stanley, H.E. Endogenous Circadian Rhythm in Human Motor Activity Uncoupled from Circadian Influences on Cardiac Dynamics. PNAS 2007, 104, 20702–20707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Riganello, F.; Prada, V.; Soddu, A.; di Perri, C.; Sannita, W.G. Circadian Rhythms and Measures of CNS/Autonomic Interaction. IJERPH 2019, 16, 2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Candelieri, A.; Cortese, M.D.; Dolce, G.; Riganello, F.; Sannita, W.G. Visual Pursuit: Within-Day Variability in the Severe Disorder of Consciousness. J. Neurotrauma 2011, 28, 2013–2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cologan, V.; Drouot, X.; Parapatics, S.; Delorme, A.; Gruber, G.; Moonen, G.; Laureys, S. Sleep in the Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome and Minimally Conscious State. J. Neurotrauma 2013, 30, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Delorme, A.; Makeig, S. EEGLAB: An Open Source Toolbox for Analysis of Single-Trial EEG Dynamics Including Independent Component Analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods 2004, 134, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Tarvainen, M.P.; Niskanen, J.-P.; Lipponen, J.A.; Ranta-Aho, P.O.; Karjalainen, P.A. Kubios HRV–Heart Rate Variability Analysis Software. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2014, 113, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gibbons, J.D.; Chakraborti, S. Nonparametric Statistical Inference. In International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science; Lovric, M., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 977–979. ISBN 978-3-642-04897-5. [Google Scholar]
  63. Rosenthal, R. Effect Sizes: Pearson’s Correlation, Its Display via the BESD, and Alternative Indices. Am. Psychol. 1991, 46, 1086–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fritz, C.O.; Morris, P.E.; Richler, J.J. Effect Size Estimates: Current Use, Calculations, and Interpretation. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2012, 141, 2–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Giacino, J.T.; Katz, D.I.; Schiff, N.D.; Whyte, J.; Ashman, E.J.; Ashwal, S.; Barbano, R.; Hammond, F.M.; Laureys, S.; Ling, G.S.F.; et al. Practice Guideline Update Recommendations Summary: Disorders of Consciousness: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology; the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine; and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. Arch Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2018, 99, 1699–1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lehembre, R.; Bruno, M.-A.; Vanhaudenhuyse, A.; Chatelle, C.; Cologan, V.; Leclercq, Y.; Soddu, A.; Macq, B.; Laureys, S.; Noirhomme, Q. Resting-State EEG Study of Comatose Patients: A Connectivity and Frequency Analysis to Find Differences between Vegetative and Minimally Conscious States. Funct. Neurol. 2012, 27, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  67. Lechinger, J.; Bothe, K.; Pichler, G.; Michitsch, G.; Donis, J.; Klimesch, W.; Schabus, M. CRS-R Score in Disorders of Consciousness Is Strongly Related to Spectral EEG at Rest. J. Neurol. 2013, 260, 2348–2356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Piarulli, A.; Bergamasco, M.; Thibaut, A.; Cologan, V.; Gosseries, O.; Laureys, S. EEG Ultradian Rhythmicity Differences in Disorders of Consciousness during Wakefulness. J. Neurol. 2016, 263, 1746–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Babiloni, C.; Sarà, M.; Vecchio, F.; Pistoia, F.; Sebastiano, F.; Onorati, P.; Albertini, G.; Pasqualetti, P.; Cibelli, G.; Buffo, P.; et al. Cortical Sources of Resting-State Alpha Rhythms Are Abnormal in Persistent Vegetative State Patients. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2009, 120, 719–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Danze, F.; Brule, J.F.; Haddad, K. Chronic Vegetative State after Severe Head Injury: Clinical Study; Electrophysiological Investigations and CT Scan in 15 Cases. Neurosurg. Rev. 1989, 12, 477–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Chang, B.S.; Schomer, D.L.; Niedermeyer, E. Normal EEG and Sleep: Adults and Elderly. In Niedermeyer’s Electroencephalography: Basic Principles, Clinical Applications, and Related Fields; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2012; pp. 183–214. [Google Scholar]
  72. Vázquez Marrufo, M.; Vaquero, E.; Cardoso, M.J.; Gómez, C.M. Temporal Evolution of Alpha and Beta Bands during Visual Spatial Attention. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 2001, 12, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Thut, G.; Nietzel, A.; Brandt, S.A.; Pascual-Leone, A. Alpha-Band Electroencephalographic Activity over Occipital Cortex Indexes Visuospatial Attention Bias and Predicts Visual Target Detection. J. Neurosci. 2006, 26, 9494–9502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Vijayan, S.; Ching, S.; Purdon, P.L.; Brown, E.N.; Kopell, N.J. Thalamocortical Mechanisms for the Anteriorization of α Rhythms during Propofol-Induced Unconsciousness. J. Neurosci. 2013, 33, 11070–11075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Abeysuriya, R.G.; Rennie, C.J.; Robinson, P.A. Physiologically Based Arousal State Estimation and Dynamics. J. Neurosci. Methods 2015, 253, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Elul, R. The Genesis of the Eeg. In International Review of Neurobiology; Pfeiffer, C.C., Smythies, J.R., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1972; Volume 15, pp. 227–272. [Google Scholar]
  77. Aeschbach, D.; Matthews, J.R.; Postolache, T.T.; Jackson, M.A.; Giesen, H.A.; Wehr, T.A. Two Circadian Rhythms in the Human Electroencephalogram during Wakefulness. Am. J. Physiol. 1999, 277, R1771–R1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mertel, I.; Pavlov, Y.G.; Barner, C.; Müller, F.; Diekelmann, S.; Kotchoubey, B. Sleep in Disorders of Consciousness: Behavioral and Polysomnographic Recording. BMC Med. 2020, 18, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Riganello, F.; Napoletano, G.; Cortese, M.D.; Arcuri, F.; Solano, A.; Lucca, L.F.; Tonin, P.; Soddu, A. What Impact Can Hospitalization Environment Produce on the ANS Functioning in Patients with Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome?—24-Hour Monitoring. Brain Inj. 2019, 33, 1347–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Broughton, R. Biorhythmic Variations in Consciousness and Psychological Functions. Can. Psychol. Rev. Psychol. Can. 1975, 16, 217–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bekinschtein, T.A.; Golombek, D.A.; Simonetta, S.H.; Coleman, M.R.; Manes, F.F. Circadian Rhythms in the Vegetative State. Brain Inj. 2009, 23, 915–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Guaraldi, P.; Sancisi, E.; Morgia, C.L.; Calandra-Buonaura, G.; Carelli, V.; Cameli, O.; Battistini, A.; Cortelli, P.; Piperno, R. Nocturnal Melatonin Regulation in Post-Traumatic Vegetative State: A Possible Role for Melatonin Supplementation? Chronobiol. Int. 2014, 31, 741–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Blume, C.; Angerer, M.; Raml, M.; del Giudice, R.; Santhi, N.; Pichler, G.; Kunz, A.B.; Scarpatetti, M.; Trinka, E.; Schabus, M. Healthier Rhythm, Healthier Brain? Integrity of Circadian Melatonin and Temperature Rhythms Relates to the Clinical State of Brain-Injured Patients. Eur. J. Neurol. 2019, 26, 1051–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Morse, D.T. Minsize2: A Computer Program for Determining Effect Size and Minimum Sample Size for Statistical Significance for Univariate, Multivariate, and Nonparametric Tests. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1999, 59, 518–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brainsci 11 00750 g001 550
Figure 1. Boxplot of patients and healthy control (HC) compared for PSDα, PSDθ and alpha-blocking are displayed in the first line and SDNN, whereas Complexity Index (CI) and ratio alpha/theta in the second line. Morning recording in dark grey (T1) and afternoon recording in light grey (T2).
Figure 1. Boxplot of patients and healthy control (HC) compared for PSDα, PSDθ and alpha-blocking are displayed in the first line and SDNN, whereas Complexity Index (CI) and ratio alpha/theta in the second line. Morning recording in dark grey (T1) and afternoon recording in light grey (T2).
Brainsci 11 00750 g001
Brainsci 11 00750 g002 550
Figure 2. Boxplot of unresponsive wakefulness syndrome/vegetative state (UWS/VS) and minimally conscious state (MCS) patients compared for PSDα, SDNN and alpha/theta. Morning recording in dark grey (T1) and afternoon recording in light grey (T2).
Figure 2. Boxplot of unresponsive wakefulness syndrome/vegetative state (UWS/VS) and minimally conscious state (MCS) patients compared for PSDα, SDNN and alpha/theta. Morning recording in dark grey (T1) and afternoon recording in light grey (T2).
Brainsci 11 00750 g002
Brainsci 11 00750 g003 550
Figure 3. Scatter plot of the correlation between Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) and PSDα, ratio alpha/theta, alpha-blocking and PSDθ in the morning (first line), and between CRS-R and ratio alpha/theta and alpha-blocking in the afternoon (second line).
Figure 3. Scatter plot of the correlation between Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) and PSDα, ratio alpha/theta, alpha-blocking and PSDθ in the morning (first line), and between CRS-R and ratio alpha/theta and alpha-blocking in the afternoon (second line).
Brainsci 11 00750 g003
Table
Table 1. Demographics information.
Table 1. Demographics information.
SUBJECTGENDERAGEFROM EVENT TO HOSPITALIZATION (DAYS)ETIOLOGYDIAGNOSISCRS
1M7240HEMMCS11
2F7126HEMMCS9
3F7236HEMMCS9
4M7122TBIUWS6
5F6514HEMMCS9
6F3335TBIUWS6
7M4039HEMUWS8
8F6353ISCUWS6
9M7349ISCUWS6
10M4526ISCMCS13
11F3434HEMMCS10
12M4834HEMMCS11
13M48 HC
14M40 HC
15F36 HC
16F38 HC
17M51 HC
18F40 HC
19F51 HC
20F45 HC
21M40 HC
22M55 HC
23F49 HC
24F40 HC
25F46 HC
M: Male; F: Female; HEM: Hemorrhage; TBI: Traumatic Brain Injury; ISC: Ischemic; MCS: Minimally Conscious State; UWS/VS: Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome; HC: Healthy Controls.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Riganello, F.; Vatrano, M.; Carozzo, S.; Russo, M.; Lucca, L.F.; Ursino, M.; Ruggiero, V.; Cerasa, A.; Porcaro, C. The Timecourse of Electrophysiological Brain–Heart Interaction in DoC Patients. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 750. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060750

AMA Style

Riganello F, Vatrano M, Carozzo S, Russo M, Lucca LF, Ursino M, Ruggiero V, Cerasa A, Porcaro C. The Timecourse of Electrophysiological Brain–Heart Interaction in DoC Patients. Brain Sciences. 2021; 11(6):750. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060750

Chicago/Turabian Style

Riganello, Francesco, Martina Vatrano, Simone Carozzo, Miriam Russo, Lucia Francesca Lucca, Maria Ursino, Valentina Ruggiero, Antonio Cerasa, and Camillo Porcaro. 2021. "The Timecourse of Electrophysiological Brain–Heart Interaction in DoC Patients" Brain Sciences 11, no. 6: 750. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060750

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop