Multimodality evoked potential testing in acute mild closed head injury.

Department of PM&R, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (Impact Factor: 2.44). 02/1991; 72(1):31-4.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Multimodality evoked potential (MEP) testing, including brainstem auditory, visual, and somatosensory evoked potentials, have been reported to be useful in predicting outcome in severe closed head injury. Brainstem auditory evoked potentials have been demonstrated to be abnormal in 10% to 40% of acute mild head injury. A prospective study of 18 patients with mild closed head injury was undertaken to determine the usefulness of MEP screening within two weeks of the acute event. Long latency event-related potentials (P300s), in response to auditory stimuli with an oddball paradigm, were included in the screening. The subjects had several symptoms consistent with the postconcussive syndrome at the time of the evoked potential testing. Only one patient had an abnormal evoked potential response (greater than three standard deviations from the mean) from all the testing done. The standard methods of MEP testing were insensitive to quantifying the possible physiologic changes that are associated with memory deficits, lethargy, and emotional irritability after mild closed head injury.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Efforts to produce definitions and diagnostic standards for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) have a long and complex history. The diagnosis of TBI must be considered in the larger context of neuropsychiatric diagnosis. A major reconceptualization of diagnosis is now underway in which the classical syndrome conceptualization is being discarded. We address the question, what are the implications of this revision of thinking in the specific context of TBI? A recent literature on logical structures for neuropsychiatric disorders was reviewed. The symptom pattern of TBI was identified, and a literature survey determined the frequency of these symptom patterns in other disorders and in healthy control populations. The frequency of symptom endorsement in populations without a history of TBI can be equal to endorsement frequencies in populations with a history of mild TBI. In some studies, the frequency of symptom endorsement in healthy controls having no history of head injury actually exceeded the endorsement rates in a comparison group with a history mild TBI. The heterogeneity of this clinical population and their clinical presentations, the absence of a unitary etiology of postinjury deficits, and the complex idiosyncratic time course of the appearance of these deficits argue against the valid implementation of the classical model of diagnosis. In addition, the accepted criteria of diagnostic utility are not satisfied. TBI is not a disease; it is an event. More precisely, TBI is an event or a sequence of events that can, in some instances, lead to a diagnosable neurological or psychiatric disorder.
    08/2012; 73(2 Suppl 1):S13-23. DOI:10.1097/TA.0b013e318260604b
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Here we present a meta-analysis of studies that examined the reaction times (RT) of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) on decision tasks carried out under time pressure. To detect the presence of global components in the data describing the slowing of TBI patients, we used predictions of the difference engine model (DEM). According to this model, performance can be understood by referring to two separate and independent compartments, one cognitive and one sensory-motor. Results confirm previous observations that TBI patients are delayed with respect to matched controls by a multiplicative factor affecting performance over and above the specific characteristics of the tasks. This meta-analysis also shows that the global factor affecting TBI patients' performance is selective for the visual modality. No over-additivity was detected on tasks in the acoustic modality. Estimates of the time taken by the sensory-motor component of the task indicated substantial slowing in the TBI patients. This delay was particularly marked in patients with severe TBI.
    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 09/2013; 37(10). DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.08.013 · 10.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Measuring neuronal activity with electrophysiological methods may be useful in detecting neurological dysfunctions, such as mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). This approach may be particularly valuable for rapid detection in at-risk populations including military service members and athletes. Electrophysiological methods, such as quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) and recording event-related potentials (ERPs) may be promising; however, the field is nascent and significant controversy exists on the efficacy and accuracy of the approaches as diagnostic tools. For example, the specific measures derived from an electroencephalogram (EEG) that are most suitable as markers of dysfunction have not been clearly established. A study was conducted to summarize and evaluate the statistical rigor of evidence on the overall utility of qEEG as an mTBI detection tool. The analysis evaluated qEEG measures/parameters that may be most suitable as fieldable diagnostic tools, identified other types of EEG measures and analysis methods of promise, recommended specific measures and analysis methods for further development as mTBI detection tools, identified research gaps in the field, and recommended future research and development thrust areas. The qEEG study group formed the following conclusions: (1) Individual qEEG measures provide limited diagnostic utility for mTBI. However, many measures can be important features of qEEG discriminant functions, which do show significant promise as mTBI detection tools. (2) ERPs offer utility in mTBI detection. In fact, evidence indicates that ERPs can identify abnormalities in cases where EEGs alone are non-disclosing. (3) The standard mathematical procedures used in the characterization of mTBI EEGs should be expanded to incorporate newer methods of analysis including non-linear dynamical analysis, complexity measures, analysis of causal interactions, graph theory, and information dynamics. (4) Reports of high specificity in qEEG evaluations of TBI must be interpreted with care. High specificities have been reported in carefully constructed clinical studies in which healthy controls were compared against a carefully selected TBI population. The published literature indicates, however, that similar abnormalities in qEEG measures are observed in other neuropsychiatric disorders. While it may be possible to distinguish a clinical patient from a healthy control participant with this technology, these measures are unlikely to discriminate between, for example, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, or TBI. The specificities observed in these clinical studies may well be lost in real world clinical practice. (5) The absence of specificity does not preclude clinical utility. The possibility of use as a longitudinal measure of treatment response remains. However, efficacy as a longitudinal clinical measure does require acceptable test-retest reliability. To date, very few test-retest reliability studies have been published with qEEG data obtained from TBI patients or from healthy controls. This is a particular concern because high variability is a known characteristic of the injured central nervous system.
    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 02/2015; 9. DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00011 · 2.90 Impact Factor