↓ Skip to main content

Functional MRI Motor Imagery Tasks to Detect Command Following in Traumatic Disorders of Consciousness

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
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.
Title
Functional MRI Motor Imagery Tasks to Detect Command Following in Traumatic Disorders of Consciousness
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00688
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yelena G. Bodien, Joseph T. Giacino, Brian L. Edlow

Abstract

Severe traumatic brain injury impairs arousal and awareness, the two components of consciousness. Accurate diagnosis of a patient's level of consciousness is critical for determining treatment goals, access to rehabilitative services, and prognosis. The bedside behavioral examination, the current clinical standard for diagnosis of disorders of consciousness, is prone to misdiagnosis, a finding that has led to the development of advanced neuroimaging techniques aimed at detection of conscious awareness. Although a variety of paradigms have been used in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to reveal covert consciousness, the relative accuracy of these paradigms in the patient population is unknown. Here, we compare the rate of covert consciousness detection by hand squeezing and tennis playing motor imagery paradigms in 10 patients with traumatic disorders of consciousness [six male, six acute, mean ± SD age = 27.9 ± 9.1 years, one coma, four unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, two minimally conscious without language function, and three minimally conscious with language function, per bedside examination with the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R)]. We also tested the same paradigms in 10 healthy subjects (nine male, mean ± SD age = 28.5 ± 9.4 years). In healthy subjects, the hand squeezing paradigm detected covert command following in 7/10 and the tennis playing paradigm in 9/10 subjects. In patients who followed commands on the CRS-R, the hand squeezing paradigm detected covert command following in 2/3 and the tennis playing paradigm in 0/3 subjects. In patients who did not follow commands on the CRS-R, the hand squeezing paradigm detected command following in 1/7 and the tennis playing paradigm in 2/7 subjects. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (ACC) of detecting covert command following in patients who demonstrated this behavior on the CRS-R was 66.7, 85.7, and 80% for the hand squeezing paradigm and 0, 71.4, and 50% for the tennis playing paradigm, respectively. Overall, the tennis paradigm performed better than the hand squeezing paradigm in healthy subjects, but in patients, the hand squeezing paradigm detected command following with greater ACC. These findings indicate that current fMRI motor imagery paradigms frequently fail to detect command following and highlight the need for paradigm optimization to improve the accuracy of covert consciousness detection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Researcher 10 10%
Other 8 8%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 30 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 24 23%
Psychology 12 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 10%
Engineering 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 36 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,753,407
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#3,802
of 11,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,893
of 439,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#33
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 439,916 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.