创伤性脑损伤(TBI)严重程度和认知功能的事件相关电位(ERP)标记-了解脑外伤后大脑如何工作和思考

Priya Miranda, Christopher D Cox, Michael Alexander, S. Danev, J. Lakey
{"title":"创伤性脑损伤(TBI)严重程度和认知功能的事件相关电位(ERP)标记-了解脑外伤后大脑如何工作和思考","authors":"Priya Miranda, Christopher D Cox, Michael Alexander, S. Danev, J. Lakey","doi":"10.15761/JSIN.1000225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One fact is that other injuries often co-occur with traumatic brain Injury (TBI), thus event related potentials (ERPs) elicited using electroencephalography (EEG) machines like NeuralScan by Medeia often reflect the sum of both injuries. The second fact is that cognitive function includes domains from knowledge, attention, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and “computation” to problem solving and decision-making. The third is that cross-border mental or neurocognitive or non-traumatic brain disorders that exhibit similar symptoms post-TBI will exhibit impairments in similar domains. Therefore, what if observing similar a) altered EEG-functional connectivity in post-TBI as in Alzheimer’s, epileptic seizures, schizophrenia, stroke etc or b) altered network geometries in post- TBI as in CNS tumors, depression etc is the status quo? What if the reason we are not able to identify pathognomic ERP-markers of cognitive impairment post-TBI that are highly specific and sensitive is simply because we are not thinking as the brain does? What if trying to validate ERP markers of TBI-severity and cognitive function post-TBI in the same manner one validates a candidate diagnostic test is what’s wrong in the first place? Is it possible that domain- and symptom-based identification, management and treatment of cognitive-impairments or TBI-severity are the way to go?","PeriodicalId":87318,"journal":{"name":"Journal of systems and integrative neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Event-related-potential (ERP) markers of traumatic brain injury (TBI) severity and cognitive function – Understanding how the brain works and thinks post TBI\",\"authors\":\"Priya Miranda, Christopher D Cox, Michael Alexander, S. Danev, J. Lakey\",\"doi\":\"10.15761/JSIN.1000225\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One fact is that other injuries often co-occur with traumatic brain Injury (TBI), thus event related potentials (ERPs) elicited using electroencephalography (EEG) machines like NeuralScan by Medeia often reflect the sum of both injuries. The second fact is that cognitive function includes domains from knowledge, attention, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and “computation” to problem solving and decision-making. The third is that cross-border mental or neurocognitive or non-traumatic brain disorders that exhibit similar symptoms post-TBI will exhibit impairments in similar domains. Therefore, what if observing similar a) altered EEG-functional connectivity in post-TBI as in Alzheimer’s, epileptic seizures, schizophrenia, stroke etc or b) altered network geometries in post- TBI as in CNS tumors, depression etc is the status quo? What if the reason we are not able to identify pathognomic ERP-markers of cognitive impairment post-TBI that are highly specific and sensitive is simply because we are not thinking as the brain does? What if trying to validate ERP markers of TBI-severity and cognitive function post-TBI in the same manner one validates a candidate diagnostic test is what’s wrong in the first place? Is it possible that domain- and symptom-based identification, management and treatment of cognitive-impairments or TBI-severity are the way to go?\",\"PeriodicalId\":87318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of systems and integrative neuroscience\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of systems and integrative neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15761/JSIN.1000225\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of systems and integrative neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15761/JSIN.1000225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

一个事实是,其他损伤通常与创伤性脑损伤(TBI)同时发生,因此使用media公司的NeuralScan等脑电图(EEG)机器引发的事件相关电位(erp)通常反映了两种损伤的总和。第二个事实是,认知功能包括从知识、注意力、记忆和工作记忆、判断和评估、推理和“计算”到解决问题和决策等领域。第三,跨界精神或神经认知或非创伤性脑障碍在创伤性脑损伤后表现出类似症状,将在类似领域表现出损伤。因此,如果观察到类似的a)脑外伤后脑电图功能连接的改变,如阿尔茨海默氏症、癫痫发作、精神分裂症、中风等,或b)脑外伤后神经网络几何形状的改变,如中枢神经系统肿瘤、抑郁症等,是现状呢?如果我们无法识别高度特异和敏感的脑外伤后认知损伤的病理erp标记的原因仅仅是因为我们没有像大脑那样思考呢?如果试图验证脑外伤严重程度和脑外伤后认知功能的ERP标记与验证候选诊断测试的方式相同,那么问题就出在哪里呢?基于领域和症状的识别、管理和治疗认知障碍或创伤性脑损伤严重程度是否可能是未来的发展方向?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Event-related-potential (ERP) markers of traumatic brain injury (TBI) severity and cognitive function – Understanding how the brain works and thinks post TBI
One fact is that other injuries often co-occur with traumatic brain Injury (TBI), thus event related potentials (ERPs) elicited using electroencephalography (EEG) machines like NeuralScan by Medeia often reflect the sum of both injuries. The second fact is that cognitive function includes domains from knowledge, attention, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and “computation” to problem solving and decision-making. The third is that cross-border mental or neurocognitive or non-traumatic brain disorders that exhibit similar symptoms post-TBI will exhibit impairments in similar domains. Therefore, what if observing similar a) altered EEG-functional connectivity in post-TBI as in Alzheimer’s, epileptic seizures, schizophrenia, stroke etc or b) altered network geometries in post- TBI as in CNS tumors, depression etc is the status quo? What if the reason we are not able to identify pathognomic ERP-markers of cognitive impairment post-TBI that are highly specific and sensitive is simply because we are not thinking as the brain does? What if trying to validate ERP markers of TBI-severity and cognitive function post-TBI in the same manner one validates a candidate diagnostic test is what’s wrong in the first place? Is it possible that domain- and symptom-based identification, management and treatment of cognitive-impairments or TBI-severity are the way to go?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信