↓ Skip to main content

Auditory Predictive Coding across Awareness States under Anesthesia: An Intracranial Electrophysiology Study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroscience, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Auditory Predictive Coding across Awareness States under Anesthesia: An Intracranial Electrophysiology Study
Published in
Journal of Neuroscience, August 2018
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.0967-18.2018
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The systems-level mechanisms underlying loss of consciousness (LOC) under anesthesia remain unclear. General anesthetics suppress sensory responses within higher-order cortex and feedback connections, both critical elements of predictive coding hypotheses of conscious perception. Responses to auditory novelty may offer promise as biomarkers for consciousness. This study examined anesthesia-induced changes in auditory novelty responses over short ("local deviant", LD) and long ("global deviant", GD) time scales, envisioned to engage pre-attentive and conscious levels of processing, respectively. Electrocorticographic recordings were obtained in human neurosurgical patients (3 male, 3 female) from four hierarchical processing levels: core auditory cortex, non-core auditory cortex, auditory-related and prefrontal cortex (PFC). Stimuli were vowel patterns incorporating deviants within and across stimuli (LD and GD). Subjects were presented with stimuli while awake, and during sedation (responsive) and following LOC (unresponsive) under propofol anesthesia. LD and GD effects were assayed as the averaged evoked potential (AEP) and high gamma (70-150 Hz) activity. In the awake state, LD and GD effects were present in all recorded regions, with AEP effects more broadly distributed than high gamma activity. Under sedation, LD effects were preserved in all regions except PFC. LOC was accompanied by loss of LD effects outside of auditory cortex. By contrast, GD effects were markedly suppressed under sedation in all regions and were absent following LOC. Thus, although the presence of GD effects is indicative of being awake, its absence is not indicative of LOC. Loss of LD effects in higher-order cortical areas may constitute an alternative biomarker of LOC.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTDevelopment of a biomarker that indexes changes in the brain upon loss of consciousness (LOC) under general anesthesia has broad implications for elucidating the neural basis of awareness and clinical relevance to mechanisms of sleep, coma and disorders of consciousness. Using intracranial recordings from neurosurgery patients, we investigated changes in the activation of cortical networks involved in auditory novelty detection over short ('local deviance') and long ('global deviance') time scales associated with sedation and LOC under propofol anesthesia. Our results indicate that while the presence of global deviance effects can index awareness, their loss cannot serve as a biomarker for LOC. The dramatic reduction of local deviance effects in areas beyond auditory cortex may constitute an alternative biomarker of LOC.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Master 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 31 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 36 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 8%
Psychology 10 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 42 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 June 2026.
All research outputs
#1,492,051
of 34,400,738 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroscience
#1,892
of 23,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,651
of 373,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroscience
#50
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,400,738 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.