Cited by 1,978Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Detecting awareness in the vegetative state

Open access
Owen, Adrian M., Coleman, Martin R., Boly, Melanie, Davis, Matthew H., Laureys, Steven, Pickard, John D.·2006·Science

Abstract

We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to demonstrate preserved conscious awareness in a patient fulfilling the criteria for a diagnosis of vegetative state. When asked to imagine playing tennis or moving around her home, the patient activated predicted cortical areas in a manner indistinguishable from that of healthy volunteers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.1130197

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The command-following test has high specificity in humans.

    “An example of a C-test with high speci fi city (in humans) is the command-following test [32]”

    From Tests for consciousness in humans and beyond (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

  • The command-following test is assumed to be a reliable indicator of consciousness in many clinical contexts-an embedded assumption in the diagnostic criteria for the minimally conscious state.

    “An example of a C-test with high speci fi city (in humans) is the command-following test [32], which is assumed to be a reliable indicator of consciousness in many clinical contexts -an embedded assumption in the diagnostic criteria for the minimally conscious state [52].”

    From Tests for consciousness in humans and beyond (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

  • The sensitivity of the command-following test in patients is presumably lower than its specificity, because there are many reasons why a patient might fail to follow a command despite being conscious.

    “For example, the sensitivity (in patients) of the command-following test [32] is presumably lower than its speci fi city, for there are many reasons whyapatient might fail to follow a command despite being conscious (e.g., they fail to hear or comprehend the command).”

    From Tests for consciousness in humans and beyond (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. N. D. Schiff et al., Brain 125, 1210 (2002).
  2. We thank D. Badwan, T. Bekinschtein, J. Rodd, J. Outtrim, D. Chatfield, D. Menon, I. Johnsrude, V. Lupson, R. Barker, J. Grahn, C. Frith, P. Maquet, the Cambridge Impaired Consciousness Research Group, and the staff of the Wellcome Trust Research Facility for their contributions. Funded by MRC program grant G9439390 ID 56833, the Smiths Charity, the Belgian Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique, and the Mind Science Foundation.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Owen, A. M., Coleman, M. R., Boly, M., Davis, M. H., Laureys, S., & Pickard, J. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Liège (BE)
  • Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge CB2 2EF, UK.
Corresponding author
Owen, Adrian M.
Venue
Science
Published
2006-09-08
Volume
313
Issue
5792
Pages
1402-1402
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2127501699
Cited by
1,978
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 113 · 2023: 86 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 93 · 2019: 142 · 2018: 128 · 2017: 70 · 2016: 91 · 2015: 103 · 2014: 106 · 2013: 125 · 2012: 90
FWCI
54.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORBi (University of Liège) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Mind Science Foundation
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
vegetative state, consciousness, awareness, functional MRI, mental imagery, motor cortex activation, brain-computer interface, minimally conscious state
MeSH terms
Adult, Awareness, Brain, Brain Injuries, Brain Mapping, Consciousness, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neurons, Persistent Vegetative State

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review