Diagnosis of the level of consciousness after coma due to severe brain injury is a well-known dilemma in the field of neurology and intensive care medicine. Coma after cardiac arrest or after traumatic brain injury may result in sustained altered states of consciousness. These patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC), irrespective of the aetiology, can be grouped into the unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) (Laureys et al., 2010), characterized by the presence of eye-opening and reflexive behaviours, and the minimally conscious state (MCS), characterized by consistent but fluctuant wilful conscious behaviours, such as command following or visual pursuit (Giacino et al., 2002; Schnakers et al., 2010). Recovery of consciousness is argued to emerge conjointly with restoration of resting-state functional brain networks (Edlow et al., 2021), which refers to patterns of neuronal interactions inferred by indirect (e.g. functional magnetic resonance imaging – fMRI) or direct (e.g. electro- and magneto-encephalography [EEG/MEG]) measurements. Analysis of these resting-state networks could potentially help in the diagnosis of patients with DoC and provide insight into the mechanisms that results in absence of recovery of consciousness in UWS.

Various resting-state networks that play an important role in the recovery of consciousness have been identified, among which the default mode network (DMN), fronto-parietal network (FPN), and the salience network are the most important (Amico et al., 2017; Heine et al., 2012). Recovery of the DMN in combination with recovery of the auditory network could for instance discriminate between MCS and UWS with a very high accuracy (~85%) (Demertzi et al., 2015). The mechanism of resting-state network restoration in DoC is yet unknown, however, thalamic activity and especially thalamo-cortical connectivity may be a driving force behind restorations of cortical network function that sustains conscious states (Fridman et al., 2014; Laureys et al., 2000). Previous work on resting-state networks in DoC have mainly focused on the ‘static’ picture of functional connectivity (Demertzi et al., 2013; Edlow et al., 2021; Giacino et al., 2014; Heine et al., 2012), that is connections are assessed over the entire duration of the (fMRI) recording and fluctuations in connectivity over time are ignored. However, the underlying dynamics of connectivity seem relevant for consciousness (Barttfeld et al., 2014; Luppi et al., 2019) and a static description may therefore be inadequate to provide mechanistic insight into failure of recovery of consciousness in DoC (Demertzi et al., 2019).

The analysis of dynamic or time-resolved functional connectivity, as well as the relationship between the underlying anatomical connections and emergent time-resolved functional connectivity (Avena-Koenigsberger et al., 2018; Suárez et al., 2020), may be clinically relevant in patients with DoC. Previous studies have already explored the role of time-resolved functional connectivity in DoC (Del Pozo et al., 2021; Golkowski et al., 2021; Sanz Perl et al., 2021). A recent study demonstrated that network states with long-distance connections occurred less frequently over time in MCS compared to UWS patients (Demertzi et al., 2019), emphasizing disintegration of interactions across the cortex in unconscious states. However, network states reminiscent of the well-known resting-state networks were not retrieved. Cao et al. used two methods to extract time-varying networks, that is independent component analysis and hidden Markov modelling, and revealed clinically relevant differences in network state durations between patients with DoC patients and healthy subjects (Cao et al., 2019), while lacking comparative analysis between patients in MCS and in UWS. In another fMRI study, the authors focused on the posterior cingulate area and the DMN using a spatiotemporal point process analysis and demonstrated decreased occurrence of DMN-like patterns in UWS. Dynamic connectivity analysis has also recently been applied to EEG data, revealing a loss of network integration and increased network segregation in DoC patients (Rizkallah et al., 2019). Spatiotemporal properties of networks have been explored using whole brain modelling, which shows reduction in stability, heterogeneity, and information flow in loss of consciousness (Escrichs et al., 2021; López-González et al., 2021; Panda et al., 2021). Despite the importance of the previously published work, the role of the well-known resting-state networks and especially thalamo-cortical functional connections (Monti et al., 2015) within the context of time-resolved connectivity and DoC has so far not been fully explored.

Another important aspect in the context of the emergence or restoration of resting-state networks is the underlying structural network, as anatomical connectivity patterns influence the repertoire of possible functional network states (Deco et al., 2013). It is widely assumed that switching between functional network states is achieved by so-called metastability in the brain (Deco and Kringelbach, 2016), that is winnerless competitive dynamics. A promising and robust approach to analyse the relationship between structural and functional network states is the so-called eigenmode approach (Atasoy et al., 2016; Robinson et al., 2016; Tewarie et al., 2020). With this approach, spatial harmonic components or eigenmodes are extracted from the anatomical network. These eigenmodes can be considered as patterns of ‘hidden connectivity’ that come to expression at the level of functional networks. It has been postulated that eigenmodes form elementary building blocks for spatiotemporal brain dynamics (Aqil et al., 2021). There is evidence that the well-known resting-state networks can be explained by the activation of a small set of eigenmodes (Atasoy et al., 2018). It can be hypothesized that switching between functional network states, as can be observed in the metastable brain, is accompanied by fluctuations in the expression of eigenmodes Preti and Van De Ville, 2019; therefore, a potential loss of metastability in DoC could co-occur with loss of modulations in eigenmode expression (Barttfeld et al., 2014).

In this context, the aim of the current study was fourfold. First, we tested whether loss of metastability and resting-state network activity, derived from time-resolved estimates of functional connectivity, could differentiate between MCS and UWS patients, with a potential extraction of a spatiotemporal thalamo-cortical network state. Second, we analysed whether time-resolved connectivity could be explained by modulations in expression of eigenmodes in DoC, and third, whether potential differences in eigenmode expression in DoC patients would co-occur with a loss of metastability. Finally, we conceptually link the findings of altered spatiotemporal dynamics underlying activity observed in the brain of DoC patients with several consciousness theories to increase our understanding of the mechanism behind pathological states of unconsciousness.

We included 34 healthy control subjects (HC, 39 [mean] ± 14 years [standard deviation], 20 males), 30 MCS (41 ± 13 years, 21 males) and 14 UWS patients (48 ± 16 years, 7 males). There was no difference in patients with MCS and UWS in terms of age (p > 0.05), gender (p > 0.05), time since injury (p > 0.05), and aetiology (p > 0.05). There was also no difference in age (p > 0.05) and gender (p > 0.05) between HC and DoC patients. Further details about the patient population are described in the methods and Supplementary file 1.

Metastability and time-resolved functional connectivity in patients with DoC

Time-resolved or dynamic connectivity for all subjects was extracted from the phase information of the fMRI data. We quantified a proxy measure for metastability defined as the standard deviation of the overall phase behaviour over time (i.e. the Kuramoto order parameter). This was followed by the extraction of spatiotemporal patterns using non-negative tensor factorization (NNTF) from phase connectivity data, corresponding to resting-state networks or network states (see Figure 1). Well-known resting-state networks as well as a residual component were used as initial conditions for spatial connectivity patterns for all network states to allow for stable convergence of the algorithm (i.e. DMN, FPN, visual network, sensorimotor network, salience network, and subcortical network; Finn et al., 2015). However, the NNTF algorithm allowed the spatial patterns of these network states to change in order to maximize the explained variance of the data. Temporal statistics from the network states were derived for every network state in terms of excursions from the median proxy for nonstationarity (Zalesky et al., 2014) and state duration (i.e. dwell time).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

A reduction of metastability was found in DoC patients compared to HCs (Figure 2A). Lower metastability was observed in UWS patients in comparison to MCS patients (Figure 2A). Reduced metastability is expected to occur with loss of switching between resting-state networks and potentially with dwelling within a more limited subset of resting-state networks in DoC. The output of the NNTF algorithm resulted in spatial topographies of some of the well-known resting-state networks, that is the DMN, a separate posterior DMN around the precuneus, the visual network, the salience network, the FPN, and a network consisting of subcortical fronto-temporoparietal regions (Sub-FTPN) (Figure 2I–N, Supplementary file 1B). Note that these network states were not identical to the initial conditions, for example the subcortical network that was provided as initial condition to NNTF was incorporated with the frontoparietal network (Figure 2N) by the NNTF algorithm. This modulated subcortical fronto-temporoparietal network consists of the following brain regions: bilateral thalamus, caudate, right putamen, bilateral anterior and middle cingulate, inferior and middle frontal areas, supplementary motor cortex, middle and inferior temporal gyrus, right superior temporal, bilateral inferior parietal, and supramarginal gyrus. At the same time, the sensorimotor network that was provided as initial condition disappeared as state. Excursions from the median were lower for most networks (DMN, visual, Salience, Posterior DMN, and Sub-FTPN) in DoC compared to HC (Figure 2C–F, H). Significant loss of nonstationarity was also found in UWS compared to MCS for the DMN, FPN, and Sub-FTPN (Figure 2C, G, H). The NNTF also yielded a residual state, with a lack of spatial structure, accounting for the variance of connectivity data not explained by the resting-state networks. The residual component had longer dwell times for the decreasing levels of consciousness (Figure 2B). In addition, there were lower dwell times in DoC patients for a specific set of resting-state networks (Salience, Posterior DMN, FPN, and Sub-FTPN), and dwell time was shorter in UWS patients compared to MCS patients only in the Sub-FTPN network (see results in Figure 2—figure supplement 1). These findings of very short dwell times in the posterior DMN, FPN, and Sub-FPTN and long dwell time in the residual network can be considered as a contraction of the functional network repertoire in DoC, which is in agreement with a loss in metastability in these patients.

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Relationship between structural eigenmodes and time-resolved functional connectivity in DoC

As resting-state network activity can be explained by the activation of structural eigenmodes, we next analyse the role of fluctuations in eigenmode expression over time. In order to put our findings into context, we first analysed the relationship between static functional networks and structural networks, using the Pearson correlation between static functional connectivity and structural connectivity (SC) for the different groups (Figure 3A). These results show that functional connectivity in DoC patients shows more correspondence with the underlying SC as compared to HCs, as the relationship between structural and functional connectivity was stronger for decreasing levels of consciousness (Figure 3A).

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

We next obtained the eigenmodes from the SC by extracting the eigenvectors of the graph Laplacian. These eigenmodes can be regarded as distinct spatial harmonics within the SC, where the first eigenmodes correspond to patterns with low spatial frequency and subsequent eigenmodes contain patterns with increasingly higher spatial frequencies. Given their spatial configuration, consecutive eigenmodes can be associated with increasing levels of segregation while the first eigenmodes can be linked with network integration. For every time point we predicted the extent to which phase connectivity could be explained by a weighted combination of the eigenmodes (Tewarie et al., 2020). Since phase connectivity can evolve over time, the weighting coefficients for the eigenmodes can modulate as well, resulting in fluctuations in the strength of the expressions of eigenmodes over time. For every eigenmode, we could then quantify the modulation strength (i.e. how much the eigenmode expression varied over time). In addition to the weighting coefficients, we also obtained the goodness-of-fit for the predictions of time-resolved functional connectivity.

The goodness-of-fit for the eigenmode predictions is displayed in Figure 3B, where we show the average correlation between eigenmode predicted FC and empirical FC for the three groups. Results show better predictions for HC and MCS compared to predictions for static FC (median and interquartile range of correlations HC static 0.18 ± 0.04, HC eigenmode 0.39 ± 0.09, Z = −7.1, p < 0.001, MCS static 0.2 ± 0.05, MCS eigenmode 0.35 ± 0.18, Z = −4.8, p < 0.001). In order to test whether these eigenmode predictions of time-varying connectivity could have been obtained by chance, we redid our analysis using surrogate BOLD data (see methods ‘Analysis steps’). Results show that eigenmode predictions for time-resolved connectivity from surrogate data performed significantly worse compared to genuine empirical data (for all comparisons with surrogate data p < 0.001; Figure 3B). We did not test whether the contribution of individual eigenmodes differed between groups since this would come with a serious multiple comparisons problem.

Instead, since SC appeared to correlate stronger with static FC in DoC compared to HC, we expected that eigenmode coefficients in DoC patients would hardly change over time, highlighting the observation of a ‘fixed’ structural–functional network relationship in DoC patients. To analyse this lack of change in the structural–functional network relationship over time in DoC patients, we quantified the modulation strength of the weighting coefficients over time (see methods ‘Analysis steps’). We performed this analysis separately for the dominant (1st to 107th eigenmode, first half) and non-dominant eigenmodes (108th to 214th eigenmode, second half). Results for the dominant eigenmodes show a clear reduction in modulation of the eigenmode weighting in DoC patients compared to HCs (Figure 3C), with a significantly lower modulation of eigenmode expression in UWS compared to MCS patients. This result could not be explained by chance, since the same results could not be obtained from surrogate data (Figure 3C). Note that no between group difference was obtained for non-dominant eigenmodes (Figure 3D).

We have so far shown a reduction in the modulation strength of eigenmode expressions in DoC patients compared to HC subjects, as well as a loss of metastability in DoC patients and dwelling of the brain in fewer network states in DoC patients. This poses the question of whether these two observations are related. In Figure 3E–G, we show that metastability is strongly correlated with modulations in eigenmode expression for the three groups. This underscores the notion that loss of dynamic modulations in functional network patterns due to a loss of metastability could indeed be related to a reduced modulation of eigenmode expression.

Differentiation between MCS and UWS is key for adequate diagnosis and prognosis in DoC patients as it is connected to medical-ethical end of life decisions. Use of imaging characteristics allows testing of hypotheses about causes of delayed, or failure of, recovery of consciousness. Here, we used state-of-the-art techniques to quantify time-varying functional connectivity, metastability, and the relationship between the underlying anatomical network and time-resolved functional connections. We demonstrated that these advanced techniques were sensitive to detect clinically relevant differences for the diagnosis of MCS and UWS patients. More specifically, we first demonstrated that UWS patients showed reduced metastability, and spend less time in states outside the natural equilibrium state that would favour cerebral processing in a cooperative and coordinated manner to support consciousness. This is accompanied by shorter state durations that the brain spends in the subcortical fronto-temporoparietal configuration in UWS. A loss of nonstationarity was observed in several resting-state networks (i.e. DMN, frontoparietal, and subcortical fronto-temporoparietal) in UWS compared to MCS patients. Finally, we showed that functional brain networks are more ‘fixed’ to the underlying anatomical connections and are less subject to spatial reconfigurations over time in UWS compared to MCS patients. The extent to which these spatial reconfigurations occurred (i.e. expressed as modulations in eigenmode expression) correlated strongly to metastability.

Our results are in agreement with several hypothesis and theories for the emergence of consciousness, of which most share the importance of thalamo-cortical connectivity for consciousness (Blumenfeld, 2021; Dehaene et al., 2011; Schiff, 2010). The mesocircuit hypothesis states that deafferentation between the frontal cortex and subcortical regions is crucial in explaining the failure of recovery of consciousness (Schiff, 2010). One of the most novel findings in the current work is the generation of the subcortical fronto-temporoparietal network. Although subcortical connections were, among others, used as initial conditions for the decomposition of the time-varying functional connectivity patterns into resting-state networks, incorporation with fronto-temporoparietal connections emerged from the data-driven NNTF algorithm. Another observation confirmed that this NNTF approach extracted DoC-relevant networks, namely that the sensorimotor network disappeared after optimization of spatial network patterns. This latter result is in line with the fact that somatosensory cortices are not directly involved in the emergence of consciousness, based on current theories (Naccache, 2018). In addition, we found that the subcortical fronto-temporoparietal network showed shorter dwell times in DoC patients compared to HC subjects, with even shorter state durations in UWS compared to MCS patients. Finally, this network also demonstrated a loss of nonstationarity in UWS compared to MCS patients. However, it should be noted that the subcortical fronto-temporoparietal network was not the only network with loss of time-resolved network characteristics; other resting-state networks also showed loss of nonstationarity, such as the DMN and FPN. However, a combination of shorter dwell times and loss of nonstationarity was only found for the subcortical fronto-temporoparietal network.

The mesocircuit hypothesis postulates that increased subcortical (specifically thalamic nuclei) inhibition and reduced excitatory output from the thalamus to the cortex (frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital) leads to weak neural activity and hampers consciousness in DoC patients (Fridman et al., 2014; Giacino et al., 2014). Although our method does not allow to assess excitatory and inhibitory activity, it may be tempting to interpret that the subcortical fronto-temporoparietal network may play a crucial role in orchestrating global network interactions and dwell times. Hence, this subnetwork may be instrumental for the observed loss of nonstationarity in the other subnetworks. Although the importance of functional connections between the thalamus and frontal cortex has been emphasized by the mesocircuit hypothesis, and shown to relate to consciousness in hypothesis-driven functional (e.g., Crone et al., 2018; Fridman et al., 2014; Monti et al., 2015) and structural (e.g., Annen et al., 2016; Weng et al., 2017) neuroimaging studies, this is the first demonstration of the ability of a (semi)data-driven approach to identify this sub-network in the context of time-resolved functional connectivity. Most previous data-driven approaches have been unable to extract such a network (Cao et al., 2019; Demertzi et al., 2019; Rizkallah et al., 2019). Our findings also support the global neuronal workspace (GNW) theory (Dehaene et al., 2011), which emphasizes the importance of long-distance, feedforward and recurrent functional connections, large-scale reverberant networks, and metastable brain states in the emergence and recovery of consciousness (Mashour et al., 2020). Specifically, the GNW postulates that conscious perception should rely on two neural circuits. First, the feedforward circuit encompasses the visual and sensory areas and propagates sensory input to higher order integration areas. Second, in order for sensory input to be accessible to consciousness, recurrent activity in the circuit is required, responsible for ignition in a wide range of high-order functional areas including visual, parieto-temporal, thalamic, and frontal areas (Aru et al., 2020; Baars, 2002; Dehaene and Changeux, 2011; Mashour et al., 2020). The subcortical fronto-temporoparietal network and frontoparietal network obtained in a data-driven fashion conjugates with the latter recurrent circuit proposed to be essential for consciousness by the GNW recurrent circuit. The breakdown of spatio-temporal coordination in the subcortical fronto-temporoparietal network and frontoparietal network was associated to reduced states of consciousness. So far, the importance of metastability has mainly been addressed in the context of recovery of consciousness from anaesthesia (Cavanna et al., 2018). Here, we underscore this finding and demonstrate that a reduction of subcortical–cortical spatiotemporal functional organization into metastable states can even differentiate between UWS and MCS patients aligning with key factors for consciousness as proposed by GNW and mesocircuit hypothesis.

Despite the overlapping cortical circuits important for the mesocircuit model and GNW, differences between the two hypotheses exist. While the occipital cortex is considered part of the same mesocircuit, its role is mostly for feedforward propagation in the GNW. We found a separate visual network that conceptually overlaps more with the feedforward network described by the GNW. In line with GNW predictions, the temporal dynamics in this feedforward network did not distinguish different states of consciousness (Dehaene and Changeux, 2011; Mashour et al., 2020). On the other hand, the involvement of subcortical areas in the subcortical fronto-temporoparietal network is specifically predicted by the mesocircuit model (Fridman et al., 2014; Giacino et al., 2014). Last, the two theories highlight different aspects of brain activity required for consciousness. The GNW proposes specific effective connectivity patterns required for stimuli to reach consciousness. The mesocircuit model, on the other hand, proposes that balanced excitatory and inhibitory activity within the network is a prerequisite for conscious states to be supported. Our resting-state study conceptually thus resonates more with the concepts of the mesocircuit model, yet, we might hypothesize that relative preservation of the recurrent network crucial for the GNW meets the minimal requirement for conscious stimulus processing.

Our observation of altered spatio-temporal dynamics of functional connectivity that are also more restricted to the SC has been observed in pharmacological and pathological loss of consciousness (Demertzi et al., 2019; López-González et al., 2021; Mashour et al., 2021; Uhrig et al., 2018). During unconscious states it has been demonstrated that cerebral regional connectivity leads to an important reconfiguration of the repertoire of functional brain states, that forms simpler connectivity patterns in the brain, which is predominantly shaped by anatomical connectivity and is characterized by the reduction of complex long range connectivity patterns (Barttfeld et al., 2014; Demertzi et al., 2019; Mashour et al., 2021; Uhrig et al., 2018). Previous studies have already demonstrated a strong signature of the underlying structural network in functional networks in DoC. However, these previously described functional networks were mostly obtained using time-averaged estimation methods (Annen et al., 2016; Enciso-Olivera et al., 2021; Kuceyeski et al., 2016; Lant et al., 2016), and have not provided insight into a stronger structural functional coupling in DoC. Using time-resolved functional connectivity and its relationship to eigenmodes, we shed light on this observation. The underlying anatomical connectivity contains so-called inherent ‘hidden patterns’ or eigenmodes with different spatial structures. In a dynamical system such as the brain, these eigenmodes, or a combination of eigenmodes, can be sequentially activated or deactivated (Atasoy et al., 2016; Tewarie et al., 2019), and thereby shape the repertoire of possible functional network states. Since we assume that structural and functional networks share the same eigenmodes (Abdelnour et al., 2018; Naze et al., 2021; Tewarie et al., 2020), the weighting coefficients of the eigenmodes that result in the structural network can be considered as ‘steady state’. Reconfigurations of spatiotemporal networks for the healthy brain are induced by strong deviations from this steady state, demonstrated by strong modulations in eigenmode expression in our work. In DoC however, there is strong tendency towards the ‘steady state’ with minimal deviations of eigenmode expressions over time, and hence leading to a strong signature of structural connections in functional networks in DoC. This inability was even more pronounced for UWS than for MCS.

A few methodological aspects of our retrospective study deserve further discussion. First of all, we did not analyse the contributions of individual eigenmodes for two reasons: (1) although earlier studies have demonstrated that a limited set of eigenmodes could already explain observed functional connectivity pattern (Atasoy et al., 2016), in our case, assessing group differences between MCS and UWS on the basis of individual eigenmodes would impose a multiple comparisons problem; (2) our analytical approach is based on the assumption that all eigenmodes are necessary in the mapping to functional connectivity instead of a statistical selection of eigenmodes. Second, concatenated data from all groups were fed into the NNTF analysis, instead of per group. This assumes that the spatial network structure is similar across groups. Even though this is not necessarily the case, the amount of data to allow for stable NNTF results for individual groups was limited, especially for the UWS group. Future (multicentric) studies with more patients should verify whether the decomposition of the dynamic functional connectivity patterns into the observed subnetworks holds for the separate groups. However, our approach to concatenate data from all groups made group comparison much easier since there was now no need to ‘match’ potentially slightly different networks from the different groups. This also allowed us to focus on networks that were important in DoC. Lastly, we have used a high temporal resolution method to estimate time-resolved connectivity at every time point instead of a sliding window-based method. Previous studies using sliding window approaches have provided novel insights into brain dynamics of loss of consciousness, such as the occurrence and reconfiguration of brain states in DoC patients (Demertzi et al., 2019) and anaesthesia induced loss of consciousness (Barttfeld et al., 2014; Uhrig et al., 2018). However, sliding window approaches have limited sensitivity to nonstationarity in the fMRI BOLD signals (Hindriks et al., 2016). Recent work on time-resolved connectivity shows that brief periods in co-modulation of BOLD signals are an important driving factor for functional connectivity (Zamani Esfahlani et al., 2020; Hindriks et al., 2016), and sliding window approaches may be less sensitive to detect such brief periods in co-modulation. Furthermore, sliding window approaches in DoC have so far demonstrated limited success in retrieving canonical resting-state networks in DoC, while exploration of spatiotemporal aspects of well-known resting-state networks is important to better understand the relation between brain dynamics and loss of consciousness.

Taken together, we have demonstrated that a (semi) data-driven approach has extracted clinically meaningful time-resolved functional brain networks. This unique network-based spatiotemporal characterization accounts for structure–function coupling (i.e. eigenmodes), and shows a relationship with stability of brain dynamics. The measures that differed between UWS and MCS patients most, were the dominant eigenmodes (reflecting structure–function coupling) and time-resolved functional connectivity in the DMN, frontoparietal network, and the subcortical fronto-temporoparietal network. Interestingly, the latter network was generated by the (semi)data-driven approach to better fit the data, and was the sole network to show shorter dwell times in UWS compared to MCS patients. This suggests that the subcortical fronto-temporoparietal network might play a pivotal role in supporting conscious network interactions, as several theoretical and hypothesis-driven studies indicated. Future work will be required to assess to what extent these advanced aspects of connectivity can serve as biomarkers to aid diagnosis and prognosis in DoC.

Connectivity matrices have been made available open access through EBRAINS of the Human Brain Project.

1. 1. López-González A
   2. Panda R
   3. Barra A
   4. Bonin EAC
   5. Ponce-Alvarez A
   6. Zamora-López G
   7. Sanz LRD
   8. Escrichs A
   9. Cecconi B
   10. Martial C
   11. Thibaut A
   12. Gosseries O
   13. Annen J
   14. Deco G
   15. Laureys S

   (2021) Human Brain Project

   Phase-interaction matrices of the phase relationships of different pathological states of consciousness.

   https://doi.org/10.25493/9GES-37K

1. 1. Abdelnour F
   2. Dayan M
   3. Devinsky O
   4. Thesen T
   5. Raj A

   (2018) Functional brain connectivity is predictable from anatomic network’s Laplacian eigen-structure

   NeuroImage 172:728–739.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.02.016

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Amico E
   2. Marinazzo D
   3. Di Perri C
   4. Heine L
   5. Annen J
   6. Martial C
   7. Dzemidzic M
   8. Kirsch M
   9. Bonhomme V
   10. Laureys S
   11. Goñi J

   (2017) Mapping the functional connectome traits of levels of consciousness

   NeuroImage 148:201–211.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.01.020

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Andersson CA
   2. Bro R

   (2000) The n-way toolbox for matlab

   Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 52:1–4.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7439(00)00071-X

   • Google Scholar
4. Report

   1. Andersson JLR
   2. Jenkinson M
   3. Smith S

   (2007) Non-linear registrationakaSpatial normalisation

   FMRIB Analysis Group.

   https://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/datasets/techrep/tr07ja2/tr07ja2.pdf

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Andersson JLR
   2. Sotiropoulos SN

   (2016) An integrated approach to correction for off-resonance effects and subject movement in diffusion MR imaging

   NeuroImage 125:1063–1078.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.019

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Annen J
   2. Heine L
   3. Ziegler E
   4. Frasso G
   5. Bahri M
   6. Di Perri C
   7. Stender J
   8. Martial C
   9. Wannez S
   10. D’ostilio K
   11. Amico E
   12. Antonopoulos G
   13. Bernard C
   14. Tshibanda F
   15. Hustinx R
   16. Laureys S

   (2016) Function-structure connectivity in patients with severe brain injury as measured by MRI-DWI and FDG-PET

   Human Brain Mapping 37:3707–3720.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23269

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Aqil M
   2. Atasoy S
   3. Kringelbach ML
   4. Hindriks R

   (2021) Graph neural fields: A framework for spatiotemporal dynamical models on the human connectome

   PLOS Computational Biology 17:e1008310.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008310

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Aru J
   2. Suzuki M
   3. Larkum ME

   (2020) Cellular mechanisms of conscious processing

   Trends in Cognitive Sciences 24:814–825.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.006

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Atasoy S
   2. Donnelly I
   3. Pearson J

   (2016) Human brain networks function in connectome-specific harmonic waves

   Nature Communications 7:10340.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10340

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Atasoy S
    2. Deco G
    3. Kringelbach ML
    4. Pearson J

    (2018) Harmonic brain modes: a unifying framework for linking space and time in brain dynamics

    The Neuroscientist 24:277–293.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858417728032

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Avena-Koenigsberger A
    2. Misic B
    3. Sporns O

    (2018) Communication dynamics in complex brain networks

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 19:17–33.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.149

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Baars BJ

    (2002) The conscious access hypothesis: origins and recent evidence

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6:47–52.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01819-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Barttfeld P
    2. Uhrig L
    3. Sitt JD
    4. Sigman M
    5. Jarraya B
    6. Dehaene S

    (2014) Signature of consciousness in the dynamics of resting-state brain activity

    PNAS 112:887–892.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418031112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Behrens TEJ
    2. Woolrich MW
    3. Jenkinson M
    4. Johansen-Berg H
    5. Nunes RG
    6. Clare S
    7. Matthews PM
    8. Brady JM
    9. Smith SM

    (2003) Characterization and propagation of uncertainty in diffusion-weighted MR imaging

    Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 50:1077–1088.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.10609

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Behrens TEJ
    2. Berg HJ
    3. Jbabdi S
    4. Rushworth MFS
    5. Woolrich MW

    (2007) Probabilistic diffusion tractography with multiple fibre orientations: What can we gain?

    NeuroImage 34:144–155.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.09.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Benjamini Y
    2. Hochberg Y

    (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 57:289–300.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Blumenfeld H

    (2021) Brain mechanisms of conscious awareness: detect, pulse, switch, and wave

    The Neuroscientist 1:378.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/10738584211049378

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Bro R

    (1997) PARAFAC: Tutorial and applications

    Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 38:149–171.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7439(97)00032-4

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Cao B
    2. Chen Y
    3. Yu R
    4. Chen L
    5. Chen P
    6. Weng Y
    7. Chen Q
    8. Song J
    9. Xie Q
    10. Huang R

    (2019) Abnormal dynamic properties of functional connectivity in disorders of consciousness

    NeuroImage. Clinical 24:102071.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.102071

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Cavanna F
    2. Vilas MG
    3. Palmucci M
    4. Tagliazucchi E

    (2018) Dynamic functional connectivity and brain metastability during altered states of consciousness

    NeuroImage 180:383–395.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.09.065

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Crone JS
    2. Bio BJ
    3. Vespa PM
    4. Lutkenhoff ES
    5. Monti MM

    (2018) Restoration of thalamo-cortical connectivity after brain injury: recovery of consciousness, complex behavior, or passage of time?

    Journal of Neuroscience Research 96:671–687.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.24115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Deco G
    2. Ponce-Alvarez A
    3. Mantini D
    4. Romani GL
    5. Hagmann P
    6. Corbetta M

    (2013) Resting-state functional connectivity emerges from structurally and dynamically shaped slow linear fluctuations

    The Journal of Neuroscience 33:11239–11252.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1091-13.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Deco G
    2. Kringelbach ML

    (2016) Metastability and coherence: extending the communication through coherence hypothesis using a whole-brain computational perspective

    Trends in Neurosciences 39:125–135.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2016.01.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Deco G
    2. Kringelbach ML
    3. Jirsa VK
    4. Ritter P

    (2017) The dynamics of resting fluctuations in the brain: metastability and its dynamical cortical core

    Scientific Reports 7:3095.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-03073-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Dehaene S
    2. Changeux JP

    (2011) Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing

    Neuron 70:200–227.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Dehaene S
    2. Changeux JP
    3. Naccache L

    (2011) The global neuronal workspace model of conscious access: from neuronal architectures to clinical applications

    Charact Conscious From Cogn to Clin 1:55–84.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18015-6_4

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Del Pozo SM
    2. Laufs H
    3. Bonhomme V
    4. Laureys S
    5. Balenzuela P
    6. Tagliazucchi E

    (2021) Unconsciousness reconfigures modular brain network dynamics

    Chaos 31:093117.

    https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0046047

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Demertzi A
    2. Soddu A
    3. Laureys S

    (2013) Consciousness supporting networks

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 23:239–244.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.12.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Demertzi A
    2. Antonopoulos G
    3. Heine L
    4. Voss HU
    5. Crone JS
    6. de Los Angeles C
    7. Bahri MA
    8. Di Perri C
    9. Vanhaudenhuyse A
    10. Charland-Verville V
    11. Kronbichler M
    12. Trinka E
    13. Phillips C
    14. Gomez F
    15. Tshibanda L
    16. Soddu A
    17. Schiff ND
    18. Whitfield-Gabrieli S
    19. Laureys S

    (2015) Intrinsic functional connectivity differentiates minimally conscious from unresponsive patients

    Brain: A Journal of Neurology 138:2619–2631.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awv169

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Demertzi A
    2. Tagliazucchi E
    3. Dehaene S
    4. Deco G
    5. Barttfeld P
    6. Raimondo F
    7. Martial C
    8. Fernández-Espejo D
    9. Rohaut B
    10. Voss HU
    11. Schiff ND
    12. Owen AM
    13. Laureys S
    14. Naccache L
    15. Sitt JD

    (2019) Human consciousness is supported by dynamic complex patterns of brain signal coordination

    Science Advances 5:eaat7603.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat7603

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Edlow BL
    2. Claassen J
    3. Schiff ND
    4. Greer DM

    (2021) Recovery from disorders of consciousness: mechanisms, prognosis and emerging therapies

    Nature Reviews. Neurology 17:135–156.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-020-00428-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Enciso-Olivera CO
    2. Ordóñez-Rubiano EG
    3. Casanova-Libreros R
    4. Rivera D
    5. Zarate-Ardila CJ
    6. Rudas J
    7. Pulido C
    8. Gómez F
    9. Martínez D
    10. Guerrero N
    11. Hurtado MA
    12. Aguilera-Bustos N
    13. Hernández-Torres CP
    14. Hernandez J
    15. Marín-Muñoz JH

    (2021) Structural and functional connectivity of the ascending arousal network for prediction of outcome in patients with acute disorders of consciousness

    Scientific Reports 11:22952.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98506-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. Preprint

    1. Escrichs A
    2. Perl YS
    3. Uribe C
    4. Camara E
    5. Türker B
    6. Pyatigorskaya N
    7. López-González A
    8. Pallavicini C
    9. Panda R
    10. Annen J
    11. Grosseries O
    12. Laureys S
    13. Naccache L
    14. Sitt JD
    15. Laufs H
    16. Tagliazucchi E
    17. Kringelbach ML
    18. Deco G

    (2021) Unifying turbulent dynamics framework distinguishes different brain states

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.14.464380

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Finn ES
    2. Shen X
    3. Scheinost D
    4. Rosenberg MD
    5. Huang J
    6. Chun MM
    7. Papademetris X
    8. Constable RT

    (2015) Functional connectome fingerprinting: identifying individuals using patterns of brain connectivity

    Nature Neuroscience 18:1664–1671.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4135

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Fridman EA
    2. Beattie BJ
    3. Broft A
    4. Laureys S
    5. Schiff ND

    (2014) Regional cerebral metabolic patterns demonstrate the role of anterior forebrain mesocircuit dysfunction in the severely injured brain

    PNAS 111:6473–6478.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320969111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Giacino JT
    2. Ashwal S
    3. Childs N
    4. Cranford R
    5. Jennett B
    6. Katz DI
    7. Kelly JP
    8. Rosenberg JH
    9. Whyte J
    10. Zafonte RD
    11. Zasler ND

    (2002) The minimally conscious state: definition and diagnostic criteria

    Neurology 58:349–353.

    https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.58.3.349

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Giacino JT
    2. Kalmar K
    3. Whyte J

    (2004) The jfk coma recovery scale-revised: measurement characteristics and diagnostic utility

    Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 85:2020–2029.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2004.02.033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Giacino JT
    2. Fins JJ
    3. Laureys S
    4. Schiff ND

    (2014) Disorders of consciousness after acquired brain injury: the state of the science

    Nature Reviews. Neurology 10:99–114.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2013.279

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Glerean E
    2. Salmi J
    3. Lahnakoski JM
    4. Jääskeläinen IP
    5. Sams M

    (2012) Functional magnetic resonance imaging phase synchronization as a measure of dynamic functional connectivity

    Brain Connectivity 2:91–101.

    https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2011.0068

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Golkowski D
    2. Willnecker R
    3. Rösler J
    4. Ranft A
    5. Schneider G
    6. Jordan D
    7. Ilg R

    (2021) Dynamic patterns of global brain communication differentiate conscious from unconscious patients after severe brain injury

    Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 15:e919.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2021.625919

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Griffanti L
    2. Salimi-Khorshidi G
    3. Beckmann CF
    4. Auerbach EJ
    5. Douaud G
    6. Sexton CE
    7. Zsoldos E
    8. Ebmeier KP
    9. Filippini N
    10. Mackay CE
    11. Moeller S
    12. Xu J
    13. Yacoub E
    14. Baselli G
    15. Ugurbil K
    16. Miller KL
    17. Smith SM

    (2014) ICA-based artefact removal and accelerated fMRI acquisition for improved resting state network imaging

    NeuroImage 95:232–247.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Heine L
    2. Soddu A
    3. Gómez F
    4. Vanhaudenhuyse A
    5. Tshibanda L
    6. Thonnard M
    7. Charland-Verville V
    8. Kirsch M
    9. Laureys S
    10. Demertzi A

    (2012) Resting state networks and consciousness

    Frontiers in Psychology 3:295.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00295

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Hindriks R
    2. Adhikari MH
    3. Murayama Y
    4. Ganzetti M
    5. Mantini D
    6. Logothetis NK
    7. Deco G

    (2016) Can sliding-window correlations reveal dynamic functional connectivity in resting-state fMRI?

    NeuroImage 127:242–256.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.055

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Jenkinson M
    2. Smith S

    (2001) A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images

    Medical Image Analysis 5:143–156.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s1361-8415(01)00036-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Kuceyeski A
    2. Shah S
    3. Dyke JP
    4. Bickel S
    5. Abdelnour F
    6. Schiff ND
    7. Voss HU
    8. Raj A

    (2016) The application of a mathematical model linking structural and functional connectomes in severe brain injury

    NeuroImage. Clinical 11:635–647.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.04.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Lant ND
    2. Gonzalez-Lara LE
    3. Owen AM
    4. Fernández-Espejo D

    (2016) Relationship between the anterior forebrain mesocircuit and the default mode network in the structural bases of disorders of consciousness

    NeuroImage. Clinical 10:27–35.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2015.11.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Laureys S
    2. Faymonville ME
    3. Luxen A
    4. Lamy M
    5. Franck G
    6. Maquet P

    (2000) Restoration of thalamocortical connectivity after recovery from persistent vegetative state

    The Lancet 355:1790–1791.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02271-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Laureys S
    2. Celesia GG
    3. Cohadon F
    4. Lavrijsen J
    5. León-Carrión J
    6. Sannita WG
    7. Sazbon L
    8. Schmutzhard E
    9. von Wild KR
    10. Zeman A
    11. Dolce G
    12. European Task Force on Disorders of Consciousness

    (2010) Unresponsive wakefulness syndrome: A new name for the vegetative state or apallic syndrome

    BMC Medicine 8:68.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-68

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. López-González A
    2. Panda R
    3. Ponce-Alvarez A
    4. Zamora-López G
    5. Escrichs A
    6. Martial C
    7. Thibaut A
    8. Gosseries O
    9. Kringelbach ML
    10. Annen J
    11. Laureys S
    12. Deco G

    (2021) Loss of consciousness reduces the stability of brain hubs and the heterogeneity of brain dynamics

    Communications Biology 4:1037.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02537-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Luppi AI
    2. Craig MM
    3. Pappas I
    4. Finoia P
    5. Williams GB
    6. Allanson J
    7. Pickard JD
    8. Owen AM
    9. Naci L
    10. Menon DK
    11. Stamatakis EA

    (2019) Consciousness-specific dynamic interactions of brain integration and functional diversity

    Nature Communications 10:4616.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12658-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Mashour GA
    2. Roelfsema P
    3. Changeux JP
    4. Dehaene S

    (2020) Conscious processing and the global neuronal workspace hypothesis

    Neuron 105:776–798.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.01.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Mashour GA
    2. Palanca BJA
    3. Basner M
    4. Li D
    5. Wang W
    6. Blain-Moraes S
    7. Lin N
    8. Maier K
    9. Muench M
    10. Tarnal V
    11. Vanini G
    12. Ochroch EA
    13. Hogg R
    14. Schwartz M
    15. Maybrier H
    16. Hardie R
    17. Janke E
    18. Golmirzaie G
    19. Picton P
    20. McKinstry-Wu AR
    21. Avidan MS
    22. Kelz MB

    (2021) Recovery of consciousness and cognition after general anesthesia in humans

    eLife 10:e59525.

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

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Monti MM
    2. Rosenberg M
    3. Finoia P
    4. Kamau E
    5. Pickard JD
    6. Owen AM

    (2015) Thalamo-frontal connectivity mediates top-down cognitive functions in disorders of consciousness

    Neurology 84:167–173.

    https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000001123

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Naccache L

    (2018) Minimally conscious state or cortically mediated state?

    Brain 141:949–960.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awx324

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Naze S
    2. Proix T
    3. Atasoy S
    4. Kozloski JR

    (2021) Robustness of connectome harmonics to local gray matter and long-range white matter connectivity changes

    NeuroImage 224:117364.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117364

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. Preprint

    1. Panda R
    2. López-González A
    3. Gilson M
    4. Gosseries O
    5. Thibaut A
    6. Frasso G
    7. Cecconi B
    8. Escrichs A
    9. Deco G
    10. Laureys S
    11. Zamora-López G
    12. Annen J

    (2021) Posterior integration and thalamo-frontotemporal broadcasting are impaired in disorders of consciousness

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.08.467694

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Ponce-Alvarez A
    2. Deco G
    3. Hagmann P
    4. Romani GL
    5. Mantini D
    6. Corbetta M

    (2015) Resting-state temporal synchronization networks emerge from connectivity topology and heterogeneity

    PLOS Computational Biology 11:e1004100.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004100

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Preti MG
    2. Van De Ville D

    (2019) Decoupling of brain function from structure reveals regional behavioral specialization in humans

    Nature Communications 10:1–7.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12765-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Quian Quiroga R
    2. Kraskov A
    3. Kreuz T
    4. Grassberger P

    (2002) Performance of different synchronization measures in real data: A case study on electroencephalographic signals

    Physical Review. E, Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 65:041903.

    https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.65.041903

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Rizkallah J
    2. Annen J
    3. Modolo J
    4. Gosseries O
    5. Benquet P
    6. Mortaheb S
    7. Amoud H
    8. Cassol H
    9. Mheich A
    10. Thibaut A
    11. Chatelle C
    12. Hassan M
    13. Panda R
    14. Wendling F
    15. Laureys S

    (2019) Decreased integration of EEG source-space networks in disorders of consciousness

    NeuroImage. Clinical 23:101841.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101841

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Robinson PA
    2. Zhao X
    3. Aquino KM
    4. Griffiths JD
    5. Sarkar S
    6. Mehta-Pandejee G

    (2016) Eigenmodes of brain activity: Neural field theory predictions and comparison with experiment

    NeuroImage 142:79–98.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.050

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Sanz Perl Y
    2. Pallavicini C
    3. Pérez Ipiña I
    4. Demertzi A
    5. Bonhomme V
    6. Martial C
    7. Panda R
    8. Annen J
    9. Ibañez A
    10. Kringelbach M
    11. Deco G
    12. Laufs H
    13. Sitt J
    14. Laureys S
    15. Tagliazucchi E

    (2021) Perturbations in dynamical models of whole-brain activity dissociate between the level and stability of consciousness

    PLOS Computational Biology 17:e1009139.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009139

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Schiff ND

    (2010) Recovery of consciousness after brain injury: a mesocircuit hypothesis

    Trends in Neurosciences 33:1–9.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2009.11.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Schnakers C
    2. Chatelle C
    3. Vanhaudenhuyse A
    4. Majerus S
    5. Ledoux D
    6. Boly M
    7. Bruno M-A
    8. Boveroux P
    9. Demertzi A
    10. Moonen G
    11. Laureys S

    (2010) The Nociception Coma Scale: a new tool to assess nociception in disorders of consciousness

    Pain 148:215–219.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2009.09.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Shen X
    2. Tokoglu F
    3. Papademetris X
    4. Constable RT

    (2013) Groupwise whole-brain parcellation from resting-state fMRI data for network node identification

    NeuroImage 82:403–415.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.081

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Stender J
    2. Gosseries O
    3. Bruno MA
    4. Charland-Verville V
    5. Vanhaudenhuyse A
    6. Demertzi A
    7. Chatelle C
    8. Thonnard M
    9. Thibaut A
    10. Heine L
    11. Soddu A
    12. Boly M
    13. Schnakers C
    14. Gjedde A
    15. Laureys S

    (2014) Diagnostic precision of PET imaging and functional MRI in disorders of consciousness: a clinical validation study

    Lancet 384:514–522.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60042-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Suárez LE
    2. Markello RD
    3. Betzel RF
    4. Misic B

    (2020) Linking structure and function in macroscale brain networks

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 24:302–315.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Tewarie P
    2. Abeysuriya R
    3. Byrne Á
    4. O’Neill GC
    5. Sotiropoulos SN
    6. Brookes MJ
    7. Coombes S

    (2019) How do spatially distinct frequency specific MEG networks emerge from one underlying structural connectome? The role of the structural eigenmodes

    NeuroImage 186:211–220.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.079

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Tewarie P
    2. Prasse B
    3. Meier JM
    4. Santos FAN
    5. Douw L
    6. Schoonheim MM
    7. Stam CJ
    8. Van Mieghem P
    9. Hillebrand A

    (2020) Mapping functional brain networks from the structural connectome: Relating the series expansion and eigenmode approaches

    NeuroImage 216:116805.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116805

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Tewarie P
    2. Prasse B
    3. Meier J
    4. Mandke K
    5. Warrington S
    6. Stam CJ
    7. Brookes MJ
    8. Van Mieghem P
    9. Sotiropoulos SN
    10. Hillebrand A

    (2022) Predicting time-resolved electrophysiological brain networks from structural eigenmodes

    Human Brain Mapping 1:e5967.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25967

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Timmerman ME
    2. Kiers HAL

    (2000) Three-mode principal components analysis: choosing the numbers of components and sensitivity to local optima

    The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 53 (Pt 1):1–16.

    https://doi.org/10.1348/000711000159132

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Uhrig L
    2. Sitt JD
    3. Jacob A
    4. Tasserie J
    5. Barttfeld P
    6. Dupont M
    7. Dehaene S
    8. Jarraya B

    (2018) Resting-state dynamics as a cortical signature of anesthesia in monkeys

    Anesthesiology 129:942–958.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002336

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Weng L
    2. Xie Q
    3. Zhao L
    4. Zhang R
    5. Ma Q
    6. Wang J
    7. Jiang W
    8. He Y
    9. Chen Y
    10. Li C
    11. Ni X
    12. Xu Q
    13. Yu R
    14. Huang R

    (2017) Abnormal structural connectivity between the basal ganglia, thalamus, and frontal cortex in patients with disorders of consciousness

    Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 90:71–87.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.02.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Zalesky A
    2. Fornito A
    3. Cocchi L
    4. Gollo LL
    5. Breakspear M

    (2014) Time-resolved resting-state brain networks

    PNAS 111:10341–10346.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400181111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Zamani Esfahlani F
    2. Jo Y
    3. Faskowitz J
    4. Byrge L
    5. Kennedy DP
    6. Sporns O
    7. Betzel RF

    (2020) High-amplitude cofluctuations in cortical activity drive functional connectivity

    PNAS 117:28393–28401.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005531117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Rajanikant Panda

   1. Coma Science Group, GIGA-Consciousness, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
   2. Centre du Cerveau, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0960-4340

2. Aurore Thibaut

   1. Coma Science Group, GIGA-Consciousness, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
   2. Centre du Cerveau, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – review and editing, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Ane Lopez-Gonzalez

   Computational Neuroscience Group, Center for Brain and Cognition, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Bracelona, Spain

   Contribution

   Software, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Anira Escrichs

   Computational Neuroscience Group, Center for Brain and Cognition, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Bracelona, Spain

   Contribution

   Software, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6482-9737

5. Mohamed Ali Bahri

   GIGA-Cyclotron Research Centre-In Vivo Imaging, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium

   Contribution

   Validation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Arjan Hillebrand

   Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Clinical Neurophysiology and MEG Center, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Supervision, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8508-3532

7. Gustavo Deco

   1. Computational Neuroscience Group, Center for Brain and Cognition, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Bracelona, Spain
   2. Institució Catalana de la Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain
   3. Department of Neuropsychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany
   4. School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Steven Laureys

   1. Coma Science Group, GIGA-Consciousness, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
   2. Centre du Cerveau, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium
   3. CERVO Research Center, Laval University, Québec, Canada

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Olivia Gosseries

   1. Coma Science Group, GIGA-Consciousness, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
   2. Centre du Cerveau, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Jitka Annen

    1. Coma Science Group, GIGA-Consciousness, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
    2. Centre du Cerveau, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Formal analysis, Supervision, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Prejaas Tewarie

    For correspondence

    jitka.annen@uliege.be

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Prejaas Tewarie

    1. Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Clinical Neurophysiology and MEG Center, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    2. Sir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Jitka Annen

    For correspondence

    prejaas.tewarie@nottingham.ac.uk

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3311-4990

• 2,416

  views

• 741

  downloads

• 25

  citations

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