Slashdot Mirror
Vegetative Patients Can Still Learn
enigma48 writes to mention that a collaborative study between the Universities of Buenos Aires and Cambridge have demonstrated that individuals in a vegetative state can still learn and demonstrate at least a partial consciousness. Their findings are reported in a recent online edition of Nature Neuroscience. "It is the first time that scientists have tested whether patients in vegetative and minimally conscious states can learn. By establishing that they can, it is believed that this simple test will enable practitioners to assess the patient's consciousness without the need of imaging. The abstract is also available in the advance issue of Nature."
Wrong. A earlier study in 2006 used fMRI. This study used a simple classical conditioning test where they played a tune before blowing in the patients eyelid.
FTFA:
Where in the description of the experiment involved do you find any mention of fMRI data?
In fact, I think you could mimic this experiment with a tuning fork and a turkey baster.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Actually, I believe the report said it used an electrocardiogram to determine learned behaviour to an aversive eye-puff (meaning that the vegetative patient's sympathetic nervous system was being activated in anticipation of the aversive stimulus). Regardless, the fMRI data from the dead salmon actually indicates what you can get from an MR machine if you set your parameters incorrectly. There are lots of artifacts in an MRI, and the statistics of its output is very complex, but the dead-salmon article's conclusion was about proper parameters being used, not a blanket statement about reliability of MR.
The spinal cord itself is actually a smart cable and does its own processing and reflex computations, so the fact that these patients anticipated a negative stimulus is not in and of itself evidence of cognitive function. Having not read anything but the abstract, if the aversive stimulus was in fact an eye-puff, that is a strong indicator that the brainstem, cerebellum and parts of the cerebral cortex are intact and functioning. If it were a foot stimulus, that says little about the brain. The classic experiment of the hinter-years involving a cat with its brain removed except for the brain stem and spinal cord, and yet the cat possessed the autonomic reflexes required to walk on a treadmill when properly positioned, is evidence of this. However, the article probably goes in depth about how this is viable for fundamental brain function, as is indicated by the abstract.
Holy cow, where did you learn that stuff? From Paul MacLean? None of that reflects anywhere near current neurobiological evidence, let alone terminology! And I think the Neo-Cortex must only exist inside the Matrix, most everyone that's not a loon from the 80s calls it the cerebral cortex, or simply cortex.
The cortex is actually responsible for muscle control and movement patterning, disinhibited in the basal ganglia, through sensory proprioception from the cerebellum. It's all nicely integrated. The cortex has nothing to do with cognition. Although it does store memory I would not consider memory to be the fundamental element of cognition.
At any rate, you are correct in the idea that there is not one core region of processing. For instance, the spinal cord itself is actually a smart cable and does its own processing and reflex computations, so the fact that these patients anticipated a negative stimulus is not in and of itself evidence of cognitive function. Having not read anything but the abstract, if the aversive stimulus was in fact an eye-puff, that is a strong indicator that the brainstem, cerebellum and parts of the cerebral cortex are intact and functioning. If it were a foot stimulus, that says little about the brain. The classic experiment of the hinter-years involving a cat with its brain removed except for the brain stem and spinal cord, and yet the cat possessed the autonomic reflexes required to walk on a treadmill when properly positioned, is evidence of this. However, the article probably goes in depth about how this is viable for fundamental brain function, as is indicated by the abstract.