Cargando…

Performance Differences Using a Vibro-Tactile P300 BCI in LIS-Patients Diagnosed With Stroke and ALS

Patients with locked-in syndrome (LIS) are typically unable to move or communicate and can be misdiagnosed as patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC). Behavioral assessment scales are limited in their ability to detect signs of consciousness in this population. Recent research has shown that...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heilinger, Alexander, Ortner, Rupert, La Bella, Vincenzo, Lugo, Zulay R., Chatelle, Camille, Laureys, Steven, Spataro, Rossella, Guger, Christoph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080415/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30108476
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00514
_version_ 1783345471120474112
author Heilinger, Alexander
Ortner, Rupert
La Bella, Vincenzo
Lugo, Zulay R.
Chatelle, Camille
Laureys, Steven
Spataro, Rossella
Guger, Christoph
author_facet Heilinger, Alexander
Ortner, Rupert
La Bella, Vincenzo
Lugo, Zulay R.
Chatelle, Camille
Laureys, Steven
Spataro, Rossella
Guger, Christoph
author_sort Heilinger, Alexander
collection PubMed
description Patients with locked-in syndrome (LIS) are typically unable to move or communicate and can be misdiagnosed as patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC). Behavioral assessment scales are limited in their ability to detect signs of consciousness in this population. Recent research has shown that brain-computer interface (BCI) technology could supplement behavioral scales and allows to establish communication with these severely disabled patients. In this study, we compared the vibro-tactile P300 based BCI performance in two groups of patients with LIS of different etiologies: stroke (n = 6) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) (n = 9). Two vibro-tactile paradigms were administered to the patients to assess conscious function and command following. The first paradigm is called vibrotactile evoked potentials (EPs) with two tactors (VT2), where two stimulators were placed on the patient’s left and right wrist, respectively. The patients were asked to count the rare stimuli presented to one wrist to elicit a P300 complex to target stimuli only. In the second paradigm, namely vibrotactile EPs with three tactors (VT3), two stimulators were placed on the wrists as done in VT2, and one additional stimulator was placed on his/her back. The task was to count the rare stimuli presented to one wrist, to elicit the event-related potentials (ERPs). The VT3 paradigm could also be used for communication. For this purpose, the patient had to count the stimuli presented to the left hand to answer “yes” and to count the stimuli presented to the right hand to answer “no.” All patients except one performed above chance level in at least one run in the VT2 paradigm. In the VT3 paradigm, all 6 stroke patients and 8/9 ALS patients showed at least one run above chance. Overall, patients achieved higher accuracies in VT2 than VT3. LIS patients due to ALS exhibited higher accuracies that LIS patients due to stroke, in both the VT2 and VT3 paradigms. These initial data suggest that controlling this type of BCI requires specific cognitive abilities that may be impaired in certain sub-groups of severely motor-impaired patients. Future studies on a larger cohort of patients are needed to better identify and understand the underlying cortical mechanisms of these differences.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6080415
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60804152018-08-14 Performance Differences Using a Vibro-Tactile P300 BCI in LIS-Patients Diagnosed With Stroke and ALS Heilinger, Alexander Ortner, Rupert La Bella, Vincenzo Lugo, Zulay R. Chatelle, Camille Laureys, Steven Spataro, Rossella Guger, Christoph Front Neurosci Neuroscience Patients with locked-in syndrome (LIS) are typically unable to move or communicate and can be misdiagnosed as patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC). Behavioral assessment scales are limited in their ability to detect signs of consciousness in this population. Recent research has shown that brain-computer interface (BCI) technology could supplement behavioral scales and allows to establish communication with these severely disabled patients. In this study, we compared the vibro-tactile P300 based BCI performance in two groups of patients with LIS of different etiologies: stroke (n = 6) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) (n = 9). Two vibro-tactile paradigms were administered to the patients to assess conscious function and command following. The first paradigm is called vibrotactile evoked potentials (EPs) with two tactors (VT2), where two stimulators were placed on the patient’s left and right wrist, respectively. The patients were asked to count the rare stimuli presented to one wrist to elicit a P300 complex to target stimuli only. In the second paradigm, namely vibrotactile EPs with three tactors (VT3), two stimulators were placed on the wrists as done in VT2, and one additional stimulator was placed on his/her back. The task was to count the rare stimuli presented to one wrist, to elicit the event-related potentials (ERPs). The VT3 paradigm could also be used for communication. For this purpose, the patient had to count the stimuli presented to the left hand to answer “yes” and to count the stimuli presented to the right hand to answer “no.” All patients except one performed above chance level in at least one run in the VT2 paradigm. In the VT3 paradigm, all 6 stroke patients and 8/9 ALS patients showed at least one run above chance. Overall, patients achieved higher accuracies in VT2 than VT3. LIS patients due to ALS exhibited higher accuracies that LIS patients due to stroke, in both the VT2 and VT3 paradigms. These initial data suggest that controlling this type of BCI requires specific cognitive abilities that may be impaired in certain sub-groups of severely motor-impaired patients. Future studies on a larger cohort of patients are needed to better identify and understand the underlying cortical mechanisms of these differences. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6080415/ /pubmed/30108476 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00514 Text en Copyright © 2018 Heilinger, Ortner, La Bella, Lugo, Chatelle, Laureys, Spataro and Guger. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Heilinger, Alexander
Ortner, Rupert
La Bella, Vincenzo
Lugo, Zulay R.
Chatelle, Camille
Laureys, Steven
Spataro, Rossella
Guger, Christoph
Performance Differences Using a Vibro-Tactile P300 BCI in LIS-Patients Diagnosed With Stroke and ALS
title Performance Differences Using a Vibro-Tactile P300 BCI in LIS-Patients Diagnosed With Stroke and ALS
title_full Performance Differences Using a Vibro-Tactile P300 BCI in LIS-Patients Diagnosed With Stroke and ALS
title_fullStr Performance Differences Using a Vibro-Tactile P300 BCI in LIS-Patients Diagnosed With Stroke and ALS
title_full_unstemmed Performance Differences Using a Vibro-Tactile P300 BCI in LIS-Patients Diagnosed With Stroke and ALS
title_short Performance Differences Using a Vibro-Tactile P300 BCI in LIS-Patients Diagnosed With Stroke and ALS
title_sort performance differences using a vibro-tactile p300 bci in lis-patients diagnosed with stroke and als
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080415/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30108476
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00514
work_keys_str_mv AT heilingeralexander performancedifferencesusingavibrotactilep300bciinlispatientsdiagnosedwithstrokeandals
AT ortnerrupert performancedifferencesusingavibrotactilep300bciinlispatientsdiagnosedwithstrokeandals
AT labellavincenzo performancedifferencesusingavibrotactilep300bciinlispatientsdiagnosedwithstrokeandals
AT lugozulayr performancedifferencesusingavibrotactilep300bciinlispatientsdiagnosedwithstrokeandals
AT chatellecamille performancedifferencesusingavibrotactilep300bciinlispatientsdiagnosedwithstrokeandals
AT laureyssteven performancedifferencesusingavibrotactilep300bciinlispatientsdiagnosedwithstrokeandals
AT spatarorossella performancedifferencesusingavibrotactilep300bciinlispatientsdiagnosedwithstrokeandals
AT gugerchristoph performancedifferencesusingavibrotactilep300bciinlispatientsdiagnosedwithstrokeandals