Abstract

Understanding how the brain recovers from unconsciousness can inform neurobiological theories of consciousness and guide clinical investigation. To address this question, we conducted a multicenter study of 60 healthy humans, half of whom received general anesthesia for three hours and half of whom served as awake controls. We administered a battery of neurocognitive tests and recorded electroencephalography to assess cortical dynamics. We hypothesized that recovery of consciousness and cognition is an extended process, with differential recovery of cognitive functions that would commence with return of responsiveness and end with return of executive function, mediated by prefrontal cortex. We found that, just prior to the recovery of consciousness, frontal-parietal dynamics returned to baseline. Consistent with our hypothesis, cognitive reconstitution after anesthesia evolved over time. Contrary to our hypothesis, executive function returned first. Early engagement of prefrontal cortex in recovery of consciousness and cognition is consistent with global neuronal workspace theory.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data have been provided for Figures 2-5.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. George A Mashour

    Anesthesiology; Neuroscience, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    For correspondence
    gmashour@umich.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5457-5932
  2. Ben JA Palanca

    Anesthesiology, Washington University, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Mathias Basner

    Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Duan Li

    Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Wei Wang

    Statistics, Washington University, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Stephanie Blain-Moraes

    Occupational Therapy; Biomedical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Nan Lin

    Statistics, Washington University, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Kaitlyn Maier

    Anesthesiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Maxwell Muench

    Anesthesiology, Washington University, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Vijay Tarnal

    Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Giancarlo Vanini

    Anesthesiology; Neuroscience, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. E Andrew Ochroch

    Anesthesiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Rosemary Hogg

    Anesthesiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Marlon Schwartz

    Anesthesiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Hannah Maybrier

    Anesthesiology, Washington University, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Randall Hardie

    Anesthesiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Ellen Janke

    Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Goodarz Golmirzaie

    Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Paul Picton

    Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Andrew R McKinstry-Wu

    Anesthesiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7078-4603
  21. Michael S Avidan

    Anesthesiology, Washington University, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Max B Kelz

    Bioengineering, Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2803-6078

Funding

James S. McDonnell Foundation (Understanding Human Cognition)

  • George A Mashour

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: The study received ethics committee approval from the University of Michigan, Washington University, and the University of Pennsylvania; written informed consent was obtained after careful discussion with each participant.

Copyright

© 2021, Mashour et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 12,814
    views
  • 1,445
    downloads
  • 68
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. George A Mashour
  2. Ben JA Palanca
  3. Mathias Basner
  4. Duan Li
  5. Wei Wang
  6. Stephanie Blain-Moraes
  7. Nan Lin
  8. Kaitlyn Maier
  9. Maxwell Muench
  10. Vijay Tarnal
  11. Giancarlo Vanini
  12. E Andrew Ochroch
  13. Rosemary Hogg
  14. Marlon Schwartz
  15. Hannah Maybrier
  16. Randall Hardie
  17. Ellen Janke
  18. Goodarz Golmirzaie
  19. Paul Picton
  20. Andrew R McKinstry-Wu
  21. Michael S Avidan
  22. Max B Kelz
(2021)
Recovery of consciousness and cognition after general anesthesia in humans
eLife 10:e59525.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59525

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59525

Further reading

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Medicine
    Haiyi Fei, Xiaowen Lu ... Lingling Jiang
    Research Article

    Preeclampsia (PE), a major cause of maternal and perinatal mortality with highly heterogeneous causes and symptoms, is usually complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, a comprehensive understanding of the immune microenvironment in the placenta of PE and the differences between PE and GDM is still lacking. In this study, cytometry by time of flight indicated that the frequencies of memory-like Th17 cells (CD45RACCR7+IL-17A+CD4+), memory-like CD8+ T cells (CD38+CXCR3CCR7+HeliosCD127CD8+) and pro-inflam Macs (CD206CD163CD38midCD107alowCD86midHLA-DRmidCD14+) were increased, while the frequencies of anti-inflam Macs (CD206+CD163CD86midCD33+HLA-DR+CD14+) and granulocyte myeloid-derived suppressor cells (gMDSCs, CD11b+CD15hiHLA-DRlow) were decreased in the placenta of PE compared with that of normal pregnancy (NP), but not in that of GDM or GDM&PE. The pro-inflam Macs were positively correlated with memory-like Th17 cells and memory-like CD8+ T cells but negatively correlated with gMDSCs. Single-cell RNA sequencing revealed that transferring the F4/80+CD206 pro-inflam Macs with a Folr2+Ccl7+Ccl8+C1qa+C1qb+C1qc+ phenotype from the uterus of PE mice to normal pregnant mice induced the production of memory-like IL-17a+Rora+Il1r1+TNF+Cxcr6+S100a4+CD44+ Th17 cells via IGF1–IGF1R, which contributed to the development and recurrence of PE. Pro-inflam Macs also induced the production of memory-like CD8+ T cells but inhibited the production of Ly6g+S100a8+S100a9+Retnlg+Wfdc21+ gMDSCs at the maternal–fetal interface, leading to PE-like symptoms in mice. In conclusion, this study revealed the PE-specific immune cell network, which was regulated by pro-inflam Macs, providing new ideas about the pathogenesis of PE.

    1. Medicine
    Gabriel O Heckerman, Eileen Tzng ... Adrienne Mueller
    Research Article

    Background: Several fields have described low reproducibility of scientific research and poor accessibility in research reporting practices. Although previous reports have investigated accessible reporting practices that lead to reproducible research in other fields, to date, no study has explored the extent of accessible and reproducible research practices in cardiovascular science literature.

    Methods: To study accessibility and reproducibility in cardiovascular research reporting, we screened 639 randomly selected articles published in 2019 in three top cardiovascular science publications: Circulation, the European Heart Journal, and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC). Of those 639 articles, 393 were empirical research articles. We screened each paper for accessible and reproducible research practices using a set of accessibility criteria including protocol, materials, data, and analysis script availability, as well as accessibility of the publication itself. We also quantified the consistency of open research practices within and across cardiovascular study types and journal formats.

    Results: We identified that fewer than 2% of cardiovascular research publications provide sufficient resources (materials, methods, data, and analysis scripts) to fully reproduce their studies. Of the 639 articles screened, 393 were empirical research studies for which reproducibility could be assessed using our protocol, as opposed to commentaries or reviews. After calculating an accessibility score as a measure of the extent to which an article makes its resources available, we also showed that the level of accessibility varies across study types with a score of 0.08 for Case Studies or Case Series and 0.39 for Clinical Trials (p = 5.500E-5) and across journals (0.19 through 0.34, p = 1.230E-2). We further showed that there are significant differences in which study types share which resources.

    Conclusion: Although the degree to which reproducible reporting practices are present in publications varies significantly across journals and study types, current cardiovascular science reports frequently do not provide sufficient materials, protocols, data, or analysis information to reproduce a study. In the future, having higher standards of accessibility mandated by either journals or funding bodies will help increase the reproducibility of cardiovascular research.

    Funding: Authors Gabriel Heckerman, Arely Campos-Melendez, and Chisomaga Ekwueme were supported by an NIH R25 grant from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (R25HL147666). Eileen Tzng was supported by an AHA Institutional Training Award fellowship (18UFEL33960207).