Abstract
Measuring electroencephalographic responses to nTMS/EEG harbors a huge potential to investigate cortico-cortical connectivity. In the present chapter, we address one major application of nTMS/EEG in neurosurgery: the problem of objectively estimating the brain’s capacity for consciousness in severely brain-injured patients who show little or no interaction with the outer world. Recently, a theory-inspired measure (perturbational complexity index—PCI) computed from nTMS/EEG has been developed to gauge the ability of thalamocortical circuits to integrate information, irrespectively of the integrity of sensory processing, motor behavior, and subject participation. The validation of PCI has implied its computation on a large benchmark population in order to derive an empirical cutoff (PCI*) able to distinguish between consciousness and unconsciousness as assessed through subjective reports. Notably, this benchmark population deliberately included conscious brain-injured patients and healthy subjects who were unresponsive during the recordings but retrospectively reported having had vivid conscious experiences upon awakening from dreaming and ketamine anesthesia (disconnected consciousness). Then, PCI has been demonstrated to accurately detect minimally conscious state (MCS) patients who may show fluctuating but unequivocal behavioral signs of consciousness. The extremely high sensitivity of PCI prompts its application to further stratify vegetative state (VS) patients, who are seemingly characterized by behavioral unresponsiveness but might actually show different potentiality for consciousness as measured from the capacity to integrate information within their brain. In order to demonstrate the use of nTMS/EEG in neurosurgery, the present chapter therefore addresses the detection of consciousness in severely brain-injured patients by nTMS/EEG as one of its major application in neurosurgery.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Casali AG, Gosseries O, Rosanova M, et al. A theoretically based index of consciousness independent of sensory processing and behavior. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5:198ra105. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3006294.
Casarotto S, Comanducci A, Rosanova M, et al. Stratification of unresponsive patients by an independently validated index of brain complexity. Ann Neurol. 2016;80:718–29. doi:10.1002/ana.24779.
Chatelle C, Chennu S, Noirhomme Q, et al. Brain–computer interfacing in disorders of consciousness. Brain Inj. 2012;26:1510–22. doi:10.3109/02699052.2012.698362.
Di Perri C, Stender J, Laureys S, Gosseries O. Functional neuroanatomy of disorders of consciousness. Epilepsy Behav. 2014;30:28–32. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2013.09.014.
Domino EF. Taming the ketamine tiger. Anesthesiology. 2010;113:678–84. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181ed09a2.
Fernández-Espejo D, Owen AM. Detecting awareness after severe brain injury. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14:801–9.
Fernández-Espejo D, Rossit S, Owen AM. A thalamocortical mechanism for the absence of overt motor behavior in covertly aware patients. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72:1442–50. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.2614.
Fridman EA, Schiff ND. Neuromodulation of the conscious state following severe brain injuries. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2014;29:172–7. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2014.09.008.
Fridman EA, Beattie BJ, Broft A, et al. Regional cerebral metabolic patterns demonstrate the role of anterior forebrain mesocircuit dysfunction in the severely injured brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:6473–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320969111.
Friston K. Beyond phrenology: what can neuroimaging tell us about distributed circuitry? Annu Rev Neurosci. 2002;25:221–50. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.25.112701.142846.
Giacino JT, Ashwal S, Childs N, et al. The minimally conscious state definition and diagnostic criteria. Neurology. 2002;58:349–53.
Giacino JT, Kalmar K, Whyte J. The JFK coma recovery scale-revised: measurement characteristics and diagnostic utility. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:2020–9. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2004.02.033.
Gosseries O, Di H, Laureys S, Boly M. Measuring consciousness in severely damaged brains. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2014;37:457–78. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-062012-170339.
Gosseries O, Sarasso S, Casarotto S, et al. On the cerebral origin of EEG responses to TMS: insights from severe cortical lesions. Brain Stimul. 2015;8:142–9. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2014.10.008.
Harrison AH, Connolly JF. Finding a way in: a review and practical evaluation of fMRI and EEG for detection and assessment in disorders of consciousness. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013;37:1403–19. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.05.004.
Laureys S, Schiff ND. Coma and consciousness: paradigms (re)framed by neuroimaging. Neuroimage. 2012;61:478–91. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.041.
Laureys S, Goldman S, Phillips C, et al. Impaired effective cortical connectivity in vegetative state: preliminary investigation using PET. Neuroimage. 1999;9:377–82. doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0414.
Majerus S, Gill-Thwaites H, Andrews K, Laureys S. Behavioral evaluation of consciousness in severe brain damage. Prog Brain Res. 2005;150:397–413.
Mutanen T, Mäki H, Ilmoniemi RJ. The effect of stimulus parameters on TMS–EEG muscle artifacts. Brain Stimul. 2013;6:371–6. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2012.07.005.
Naci L, Monti MM, Cruse D, et al. Brain-computer interfaces for communication with nonresponsive patients. Ann Neurol. 2012;72:312–23. doi:10.1002/ana.23656.
Noreika V, Jylhänkangas L, Móró L, et al. Consciousness lost and found: subjective experiences in an unresponsive state. Brain Cogn. 2011;77:327–34. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.09.002.
Peterson A, Cruse D, Naci L, et al. Risk, diagnostic error, and the clinical science of consciousness. Neuroimage Clin. 2015;7:588–97. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2015.02.008.
Sanders RD, Tononi G, Laureys S, Sleigh J. Unresponsiveness ≠ Unconsciousness. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:946–59. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e318249d0a7.
Sanders RD, Raz A, Banks MI, et al. Is consciousness fragile? Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:1–3. doi:10.1093/bja/aev354.
Schiff ND. Recovery of consciousness after brain injury: a mesocircuit hypothesis. Trends Neurosci. 2010;33:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2009.11.002.
Schiff ND, Giacino JT, Kalmar K, et al. Behavioural improvements with thalamic stimulation after severe traumatic brain injury. Nature. 2007;448:600–3. doi:10.1038/nature06041.
Stickgold R, Malia A, Fosse R, et al. Brain-mind states: I. Longitudinal field study of sleep/wake factors influencing mentation report length. Sleep. 2001;24:171–9.
Tononi G. An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neurosci. 2004;5:42.
Tononi G, Boly M, Massimini M, Koch C. Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2016;17:450–61. doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.44.
Valentin A, Arunachalam R, Mesquita-Rodrigues A, et al. Late EEG responses triggered by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the evaluation of focal epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2008;49(3):470–80.
Virtanen J, Ruohonen J, Näätänen R, Ilmoniemi RJ. Instrumentation for the measurement of electric brain responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1999;37:322–6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Casarotto, S., Comanducci, A., Sarasso, S., Fecchio, M., Rosanova, M., Massimini, M. (2017). The Potential of nTMS/EEG: Measuring Consciousness. In: M. Krieg, S. (eds) Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Neurosurgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54918-7_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54918-7_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54917-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54918-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)