Listeners:
Top listeners:
play_arrow
Paul Verschure on consciousness and distributed adaptive control CSN Podcasts
play_arrow
Edvard Moser on grid cells and entorhinal cortex CSN Podcasts
play_arrow
Giacomo Rizzolatti on mirror neurons and action understanding CSN Podcasts
play_arrow
Robert Axelrod on game theory and prisoner's dilemma CSN Podcasts
play_arrow
Adrian Owen on disorders of consciousness and vegetative state CSN Podcasts
play_arrow
Jonathan Whitlock on markerless motion capture and posterior parietal cortex CSN Podcasts
play_arrow
Luis Puelles on neuroanatomy and prosomeric model CSN Podcasts
play_arrow
Zoltan Molnar on subplate neurons and cortical development CSN Podcasts
Episode 7 08.03.2010
play_arrow
PLAY EPISODE
What if patients diagnosed as vegetative are actually conscious but trapped , unable to signal their awareness through any behavioral channel? Adrian Owen describes how fMRI and EEG are revealing hidden minds and opening new paths to communication. Subscribe for more from the Convergent Science Network podcast series. Adrian Owen’s research confronts one of the most unsettling problems in clinical neuroscience: the possibility that a significant minority of patients diagnosed as vegetative are in fact aware, experiencing the world much as we do, but completely unable to demonstrate it. Using fMRI, Owen and his team have identified patients who can reliably modulate their brain activity on command , imagining playing tennis to activate premotor cortex, or imagining navigating their home to activate parahippocampal regions , despite showing no behavioral signs of consciousness whatsoever. The breakthrough came with the realization that active imagery tasks, unlike passive sensory stimulation, cannot be performed automatically. When a healthy volunteer is told to imagine playing tennis and deliberately chooses not to, no premotor activation appears. This volitional quality is what distinguishes Owen’s paradigm from earlier fMRI studies that showed brain responses in vegetative patients but could not rule out reflexive processing. The tennis task proved remarkably robust , it works in every healthy subject tested, likely because any version of tennis involves vigorous arm movements that reliably engage premotor cortex, regardless of individual differences in how people imagine the game. Owen has since used this approach to establish yes-or-no communication with a patient previously assumed to be in a vegetative state. By assigning tennis imagery to “yes” and spatial navigation imagery to “no,” the patient answered autobiographical questions correctly, confirming not only awareness but access to long-term memory and language comprehension. The team is now working to transfer this technology from expensive, immobile fMRI scanners to portable EEG systems , a transition complicated by the fact that many of these patients have damaged or surgically altered skulls that disrupt standard EEG source localization. The conversation also probes deeper questions about the taxonomy of consciousness disorders. Owen suggests that the distinction between vegetative and minimally conscious states may be less about depth of consciousness and more about temporal intermittency , patients may cycle in and out of awareness rather than occupying a fixed intermediate state. He argues that the practical goal of building communication channels for non-responsive patients should take priority over philosophical debates about the nature of consciousness itself.
Tagged as:
consciousness Diagnosed Vegetative disorders of consciousness Patients Diagnosed Playing Tennis vegetative state
About the author call_made
Both the triumphs of humanity and its most evil deeds have resulted from collaboration. In a time where humanity is required to aspire to the former and minimize the latter, the question arises of how collaboration arises and why it fails. Surprisingly, this phenomenon, so central to who we are, is not well understood. Hence, a collaborative effort is required to understand collaboration in its full biological, psychological, sociological, cultural, and economic complexity and to translate this understanding into operational impact. This series of podcasts is one step toward achieving these complementary goals. The Collaboration Podcast presents interviews with people who are central orchestrators of collaboration in various domains including business, government, science, art, health, sustainability, and the military. The discussions were conducted by Prof. Dr. Paul F.M.J. Verschure and members of the Program Advisory Committee of the Ernst Strungmann Forum on Collaboration (https://www.esforum.de/forums/ESF32_Collaboration.html) during 2021 and had the goal to sketch a map of opportunities, challenges, and obstacles in human collaboration. The forum took place in May 2022, and now we would like to share this series of interviews with a broader audience. The full report of the Forum will be published in 2023 by MIT Press. The podcast was produced by the Convergent Science Network (https://www.convergentsciencenetwork.org/). Context: The stability of social systems depends critically on realizing sustainable methods of “collaboration,” yet how and by which means collaboration is achieved is not clearly understood; neither are the conditions or processes that lead to its breakdown or failure. Collaboration can be understood as cooperation between agents toward mutually constructed goals. Part of the reason for our lack of understanding is that the phenomenon of collaboration is, by nature, a highly multidisciplinary problem, and effective research into its complexities has been difficult to achieve across the broad range of scientific and technical disciplines involved. The need for a fundamental understanding of collaboration, however, has become increasingly important. Not only does humankind demand answers as it attempts to address critical challenges at multiple scales (e.g., climate change, migration, enhanced automation, social and economic inequality), but ever-increasing technological and economic means of interconnecting people and societies are disrupting long-established, familiar patterns of how we interact. Radical technological changes that are ongoing have the potential to reshape collaboration in ways that are currently hard to predict or influence (e.g., by altering configurations in interaction, information creation, and modes of communication). On one hand, such changes could disrupt hitherto stable forms of collaboration by affecting critical communication channels and traditional roles, as can be observed in the rapidly changing patterns in governance, commerce, and social interaction. Conversely, technology could lead to the emergence of novel, successful forms of collaboration that deviate from traditional “hierarchical” architectures. Evidence of this can be seen in areas as diverse as highly automated manufacturing plants, the open science movement, collaborative software repositories, user-centered services, and the sharing of economy-based modes of organization. Without a fundamental understanding of the mechanisms, processes, and boundary conditions of collaboration, it is not possible to evaluate or predict which of these possible scenarios are sustainable or even plausible. The Forum “How Collaboration Arises and Why it Fails” (May 8–13, 2022, Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany) Chairs: Andreas Roepstorff and Paul Verschure Program Advisory Committee: Jenna Bednar, Julia R. Lupp, Bhavani R. Rao , Andreas Roepstorff, Ferdinand von Siemens, and Paul Verschure
Exploring the convergence of neuroscience, robotics, and AI through conversations with leading researchers since 2010.
A project of the Convergent Science Network Foundation.
© CSN Podcasts. Developed by IMCreative & WEBC
✖
✖
Are you sure you want to cancel your subscription? You will lose your Premium access and stored playlists.
✖
Be the first to leave a comment