Conscious processing of global and local auditory irregularities causes differentiated heartbeat-evoked responses ================================================================================================================= * Diego Candia-Rivera * Federico Raimondo * Pauline Pérez * Lionel Naccache * Catherine Tallon-Baudry * Jacobo D. Sitt ## Abstract Recent research suggests that brain-heart interactions are associated with perceptual and self-consciousness. In this line, the neural responses to visceral inputs have been hypothesized to play a leading role in shaping our subjective experience. This study aims to investigate whether the contextual processing of auditory irregularities modulates both direct neuronal responses to the auditory stimuli (ERPs) and the neural responses to heartbeats, as measured with heartbeat-evoked responses (HERs). HERs were computed in patients with disorders of consciousness, diagnosed with a minimally conscious state or unresponsive wakefulness syndrome. We tested whether HERs reflect conscious auditory perception, which can potentially provide additional information for the consciousness diagnosis. EEG recordings were taken during the local-global paradigm, which evaluates the capacity of a patient to detect the appearance of auditory irregularities at local (short-term) and global (long-term) levels. The results show that local and global effects produce distinct ERPs and HERs, which can help distinguish between the minimally conscious state and unresponsive wakefulness syndrome patients. Furthermore, we found that ERP and HER responses were not correlated suggesting that independent neuronal mechanisms are behind them. These findings suggest that HER modulations in response to auditory irregularities, especially local irregularities, may be used as a novel neural marker of consciousness and may aid in the bedside diagnosis of disorders of consciousness with a more cost-effective option than neuroimaging methods. ## Introduction Theoretical developments on consciousness and experimental research have rooted the basis of consciousness in how the brain responds to visceral inputs (Azzalini et al., 2019; Candia-Rivera, 2022; Park and Tallon-Baudry, 2014). In post-comatose patients, the consciousness diagnosis is primarily based on behavioral signs of consciousness (Bayne et al., 2017), which aims at distinguishing between patients showing only reflex-like responses to the environment, diagnosed as Vegetative State or Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome (VS/UWS; (Laureys et al., 2010), and patients with fluctuating but reproducible signs of non-reflex behavior, diagnosed as Minimally Conscious State (MCS), (Giacino et al., 2002), but see also (Naccache, 2018). However, recent results demonstrate that behavioral assessment is not sufficient and neuroimaging techniques are used to detect covert states of consciousness (Kondziella et al., 2020). The classification of MCS and UWS patients using EEG and cardiac features while undergoing processing of auditory regularities has shown an advantage over EEG features alone (Raimondo et al., 2017), implying that brain-heart interactions may be involved in the conscious processing of auditory inputs. Recent evidence on automatic classifications of heartbeat-evoked responses (HERs) in resting-state showed that these markers may capture residual signs of consciousness (Candia-Rivera et al., 2021a) suggesting that HERs might convey state-of-consciousness relevant information about how the brain responds to bodily-related stimuli. Further evidence exists in healthy participants, in which the processing of auditory stimuli may cause cognitive modulations to the cardiac cycle (Banellis and Cruse, 2020; Pérez et al., 2021; Pfeiffer and Lucia, 2017), and HERs correlate with perceptual awareness (Al et al., 2020; Park et al., 2014). We hypothesized that HERs can be modulated by contextual processing of different levels of auditory regularities, as presented in the local-global paradigm (Bekinschtein et al., 2009). In this study, we analyze HERs following the presentation of auditory irregularities, with special regard on distinguishing UWS (n=40) and MCS (n=46) patients. Note that the automated classification of this cohort was previously performed in another study (Raimondo et al., 2017). Therefore, our aim is to characterize the group-wise differences between UWS and MCS patients that may allow a multi-dimensional cognitive evaluation to infer the presence of consciousness (Sergent et al., 2017), but also complement the bedside diagnosis performed with neuroimaging methods that capture neural correlates of covert consciousness (Sanz et al., 2021). ## Materials and Methods ### Patients This study includes 46 MCS and 40 UWS patients. Patients were admitted at the Department of Neurology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital (Paris, France) for consciousness evaluation through Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) (Giacino et al., 2004). The study was approved by the ethics committee of CPP Île de France 1 (Paris, France). Informed consent was signed by the patients’ legal representatives for approval of participation in the study, as required by the declaration of Helsinki. ### Experimental paradigm Patients were recorded with high-density EEG (EGI 256 channels, 250 Hz sampling rate, referenced to the vertex) under the local-global paradigm that aims to evaluate the cognitive processing of local–short term–, and global–long term–auditory regularities (fig. 1A) (Bekinschtein et al., 2009). The paradigm consists of two embedded levels of auditory regularities in trials formed by five consecutive sounds. The 5th sound defines whether the trial is standard or deviant at two levels: local and global. The local level of regularities is defined within the trial. The global level of regularities is defined across trials (frequent trials ∼80% define the regularity, and rare ones ∼20% violate this regularity). In fig. 1A, in the XX blocks, the frequent stimulus corresponds to 5 equal sounds (local standard and global standard). In contrast, the infrequent stimulus corresponds to 4 equal sounds followed by a fifth different sound (local deviant and global deviant). In the XY blocks, the frequent stimulus corresponds to 4 equal sounds and a fifth different sound (local deviant and global standard). The infrequent stimulus corresponds to 5 equal sounds (local standard and global deviant). The patients included in this study performed at least 4 blocks (2 XX and 2 XY), in which one block has an approximate duration of 200 s. Each trial is formed by five consecutive sounds lasting 50 milliseconds, with a 150-millisecond gap between the sounds’ onsets and an intertrial interval ranging from 1,350 to 1,650 milliseconds. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/04/2021.10.27.21265539/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/04/2021.10.27.21265539/F1) Figure 1. Experimental description and EEG analysis. (A) Local-global paradigm. (B) Heartbeat-evoked response defined by the R-peaks that follow the 5th sound from all the trials, and the Auditory-related potential defined by the EEG activity locked to the stimuli. ### Data preprocessing MATLAB and Fieldtrip toolbox were used for data processing and analysis (Oostenveld et al., 2011). EEG data were offline filtered with a 1-25 Hz Butterworth band-pass order 4 filter, with a Hamming windowing at cutoff frequencies). The channels with large artifacts were rejected based on the area under the curve of their z-score. Channels exceeding > 3 standard deviations were discarded iteratively (11 ± 1 SEM channels rejected on average). Following the procedure described in (Raimondo et al., 2017), electrocardiograms (ECG) were recovered from the cardiac field artefact captured in EEG data using Independent Component Analysis (ICA) (default parameters from Fieldtrip). From this, ICA-corrected EEG data and an electrocardiogram derived from independent component analysis (ICA-ECG) is obtained. Note that the use of ICA-ECG instead of a standard ECG measured from the rib cage was successfully used in other two studies (Candia-Rivera et al., 2021a; Raimondo et al., 2017). Furthermore, it was shown that the differences between the R-peak timings obtained from the ECG and ICA-ECG differ in a range of 0-4 ms (Candia-Rivera et al., 2021a). To identify further noisy channels, the mean weighted-by-distance correlation of all channels between their neighbors was computed (36 ± 2 SEM channels rejected on average). Neighborhood relationships considered all channels up to distances of 4 cm. Channels with a mean weighted-by-distance correlation lower than 80% were replaced by spline interpolation of neighbors. EEG dataset was re-referenced using a common average and a subset of 64 channels was selected for data analysis (Candia-Rivera et al., 2021b). Heartbeats were detected on the ICA-ECG using an automated process based on a sliding time window detecting local maxima (R-peaks). Both peak detection and resulting histogram of interbeat interval duration were visually inspected in each patient. Ectopic interbeat intervals were automatically identified for review by detecting peaks on the derivative of the interbeat intervals time series. Manual addition/removal of peaks was performed if needed (23 ± 3 SEM manual corrections to individual heartbeats on average). Heartbeat-evoked responses (HERs) (Park and Blanke, 2019; Schandry et al., 1986) were computed by averaging EEG epochs from the R-peaks that follow the 5th sound from all the trials, up to 500 ms (fig. 1B). Epochs with amplitude larger than 300 μV on any channel, or where the next or preceding heartbeat occurred at an interval shorter than 500 ms, were discarded. The epochs in which the stimuli were located at less than 20 ms from the closest R-peaks were discarded as well. We also controlled that the average latency between the 5th sound and the next heartbeat did not differ between MCS and UWS patients (Wilcoxon tests, local standard: p = 0.2303, Z = 1.1991; local deviants: p = 0.3387, Z = 0.9567; global standard: p = 0.2047, Z = 1.2684; global deviant: p = 0.4182, Z = 0.8095). Auditory event-related potentials (ERPs) were computed for contrast by averaging EEG epochs from the 5th sound onset from all the trials, up to 1000 ms. Epochs with amplitude larger than 300 μV on any channel were discarded. ### Data analysis Two neural signatures were computed to compare MCS and UWS patients: ERPs, that relate to the average of EEG epochs locked to the auditory stimuli, and HERs that relate to the average of EEG epochs locked to the heartbeats that follow the auditory stimuli. The experimental conditions, in which ERPs and HERs were used to compare MCS and UWS patients, are: * - Local effect: average of the EEG epoch associated to local deviants (local deviant/global standard epochs + local deviant/global deviant epochs), minus the average of EEG epochs associated to local standards (local standard/global standard epochs + local standard/global deviant epochs). * - Global effect: average of the EEG epoch associated to global deviants (local standard/global deviant epochs + local deviant/global deviant epochs), minus the average of EEG epochs associated to global standards (local standard/global standard epochs + local deviant/global standard epochs). Additionally, HERs average and HERs variance were analyzed during the whole experimental protocol, i.e., the neural responses to heartbeats were analyzed with respect all heartbeats independently of stimuli. ### Statistical analysis Statistical comparisons were based on Wilcoxon rank sum and Spearman correlation, as specified in the main text. P-values were corrected for multiple comparisons by applying the Bonferroni rule or by using cluster-permutation analyses. Clustered effects were revealed using a non-parametric version of cluster permutation analysis (Candia-Rivera and Valenza, 2022). In brief, the cluster-based permutation test included a preliminary mask definition, identification of candidate clusters and the computation of cluster statistics with Monte Carlo’s p-value correction. The preliminary mask was defined through unpaired Wilcoxon test, with alpha = 0.05. The identification of neighbor channels was based on the default Fieldtrip channels’ neighborhood definition for 64 channels. A minimum cluster size of 4 channels was imposed. Adjacent candidate clusters on time were wrapped if they had at least one channel in common. Cluster statistics were computed from 10,000 random partitions. The proportion of random partitions that resulted in a lower p-value than the observed one was considered as the Monte Carlo p-value, with significance at alpha = 0.05. The cluster statistic considered is the Wilcoxon’s absolute maximum Z-value obtained from all the samples of the mask. Additionally, to confirm the presence of true effects in HERs, we compared the combined clustered effects with surrogates. We reallocated each heartbeat timing using a uniformly distributed pseudorandom process, between the first and the last sample of each recording. We computed 100 surrogates and repeated the aforementioned statistical analysis. We computed p-values as the proportion of the combined clustered effects found in the surrogates with a higher effect and cluster size, with respect to the real heartbeat timings. ### Data availability statement The data used in this study can be made available upon reasonable request. Because of the sensitive nature of the clinical information concerning the patients, the ethics protocol does not allow open data sharing. To access the raw data, the potential interested researcher would need to contact the corresponding authors of the study. Together they would need to ask for an authorization from the local ethics committee, CPP Île de France 1 (Paris, France). The codes and pre-processed data are publicly available at [https://github.com/diegocandiar/brain\_heart\_doc](https://github.com/diegocandiar/brain_heart_doc) ## Results We evaluated auditory ERPs and HERs in patients with disorders of consciousness undergoing the local-global paradigm that aims to evaluate the cognitive processing of local– short term–, and global–long term–auditory regularities. First, unpaired non-parametric cluster analysis was performed between MCS and UWS patients for ERPs, global and local effects. In Figure 2A are shown the clustered effects found with respect to the 5th sound, in the ERP global effect (main positive cluster: p = 0.0001, Z = 3.684, latency = 800-850 ms; main negative cluster: p = 0.0013, Z = -3.1905, latency = 280-336 ms) and ERP local effect (main positive cluster: p = 0.0011, Z = 3.4416, latency = 236-328 ms). The clustered effects were combined to obtain a single value for each patient, corresponding to ERP global and local effects. The distribution of the combined clustered effects is depicted in Figure 2B. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/04/2021.10.27.21265539/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/04/2021.10.27.21265539/F2) Figure 2. Auditory event-related potentials (ERPs) in the global and local effect. (A) Scalp topographies indicate the average group differences between MCS and UWS patients. Thick electrodes indicate a clustered effect (Monte Carlo p < 0.05). (B) Average of the clustered effects per patient, in the ERP global effect (main positive cluster: p = 0.0001, Z = 3.684, latency = 800-850 ms; main negative cluster: p = 0.0013, Z = -3.1905, latency = 280-336 ms) and ERP local effect (main positive cluster: p = 0.0011, Z = 3.4416, latency = 236-328 ms). ERPs: auditory event-related potentials, MCS: minimally conscious state, UWS: unresponsive wakefulness syndrome Consecutively, cluster permutation analysis was performed between MCS and UWS patients for HERs, global and local effects. In Figure 3A are shown the clustered effects found with respect to the R-peak following the 5th sound, in the HER global effect (main positive cluster: p = 0.0037, Z = 3.0173, latency = 112-130 ms; main negative cluster: p = 0.0058, Z = -3.0173, latency = 340-360 ms) and HER local effect (main positive cluster: p = 0.0029, Z = 3.0606, latency = 400-412 ms; main negative cluster: p = 0.0014, Z = -3.3983, latency = 0-40 ms). The clustered effects were combined to obtain a single value for each patient, corresponding to HER global and local effects. The distribution of the combined clustered effects is depicted in Figure 3B. The combined clustered effects were compared to 100 randomly distributed heartbeats to compute the surrogate p-value. The HER local effect was larger than what would be expected by chance as estimated from surrogate heartbeats (HER local effect, Monte Carlo p = 0.03; HER global effect, Monte Carlo p = 0.54). ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/04/2021.10.27.21265539/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/04/2021.10.27.21265539/F3) Figure 3. Heartbeat-evoked responses (HERs) in the global and local effect. (A) Scalp topographies indicate the average group differences between MCS and UWS patients. Thick electrodes indicate a clustered effect (Monte Carlo p < 0.05). (B) Average of the clustered effects per patient, in the HER global effect (main positive cluster: p = 0.0037, Z = 3.0173, latency = 112-130 ms; main negative cluster: p = 0.0058, Z = -3.0173, latency = 340-360 ms) and HER local effect (main positive cluster: p = 0.0029, Z = 3.0606, latency = 400-412 ms; main negative cluster: p = 0.0014, Z = -3.3983, latency = 0-40 ms). HERs: heartbeat-evoked responses, MCS: minimally conscious state, UWS: unresponsive wakefulness syndrome. We then tested whether the clusters found using cluster permutations at global and local effects, as measured from HERs and ERPs, come from a distribution with a median different from zero, i.e., whether the deviants differ from the standard 5th sounds within patients’ groups (Table 1). We found a significant ERP and HER local effect in both MCS and UWS patients. On the other hand, the global effect was significant only for MCS patients in both ERP and HER analysis. This result extends previous reports highlighting the predictive power for conscious state of the global effect (Perez et al., 2021). View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/04/2021.10.27.21265539/T1) Table 1. Wilcoxon sign test performed separately for MCS and UWS patients, to test whether the global and local effects as measured from HERs and ERPs come from a distribution with median different to zero. Bold indicates significance reached at α = 0.05/8 = 0.0063, according to Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. In Fig. 4A are presented all pair comparisons between ERPs and HERs. for local and global effects. The figure depicts that the measured effects do not show apparent correlations (details on Spearman correlation tests in Table 2). Fig. 4B shows that the four markers: ERP global, ERP local, HER global, and HER local present complementary information for the separation of the diagnostic groups. ![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/04/2021.10.27.21265539/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/04/2021.10.27.21265539/F4) Figure 4. Multi-dimensional analysis of the clustered effects found when comparing MCS and UWS patients. (A) Pairwise comparison between all possible combinations for ERPs and HERs, for local and global effects. Individual points corresponding to a single patient, and dotted line indicates the trend, separately per diagnosis. (B) Three-dimensional representation of the clustered effects: left panel for ERP global, ERP, local and HER global; and right panel for ERP global, ERP local and HER local. Each ellipsoid was constructed per diagnostic group, centered in the group means with ratio defined by the standard deviations, for the respective dimensions. HERs: heartbeat-evoked responses, ERPs: auditory event-related potentials, MCS: minimally conscious state, UWS: unresponsive wakefulness syndrome View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/04/2021.10.27.21265539/T2) Table 2. Group-wise Spearman correlation analysis performed separately for MCS and UWS patients, between the combined clustered effects found when comparing MCS vs UWS in the ERP global effect, ERP local effect, HER global effect, and HER local effect. Significance was set at α = 0.05/8 = 0.0063, according to Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. HER average during the whole protocol presents a small, clustered effect when comparing MCS and UWS patients (Fig. 5A, left). In Fig. 5A, right panel, is shown that a higher HER variance is observed in MCS compared to UWS during the whole protocol. A wide scalp coverage presents higher HER variance in MCS, as compared to UWS (cluster permutation test, p<0.0001, Z= 4.0772, latency= 20-5000 ms). The time courses of the clustered effects in HER average and variance are shown in Fig. 5B. ![Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/04/2021.10.27.21265539/F5.medium.gif) [Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/04/2021.10.27.21265539/F5) Figure 5. (A) HERs correlation analysis of global and local effect. (B) ΔIBI correlation analysis of global and local effect. (C) Results on HER average and HER variance for the whole protocol. Thick electrodes show significant differences after cluster permutation. (D) HER variance in MCS and UWS patients in the significant cluster. HERs: heartbeat-evoked responses, MCS: minimally conscious state, UWS: unresponsive wakefulness syndrome ## Discussion Considering that brain-heart interactions have been demonstrated to be involved in consciousness and relevant for the clinical assessment of disorders of consciousness (Candia-Rivera et al., 2021a; Pérez et al., 2021; Raimondo et al., 2017; Riganello et al., 2019), we analyzed neural responses to heartbeats during the processing of auditory irregularities to characterize MCS and UWS patients. The processing of short- and long-term auditory irregularities, i.e., the local and global effects, shows distinctive responses between MCS and UWS patients in their HERs. Correlation analyses showed that locking EEG to heartbeats provides complementary information (HERs), with respect to the ERPs locked to the auditory irregularities. The local effect, as evaluated with HERs, showed a better separability between MCS and UWS patients, and a greater specificity with respect to surrogate heartbeat analysis. These results support earlier findings that suggest the presence of auditory-cardiac synchrony (Banellis and Cruse, 2020; Pérez et al., 2021; Pfeiffer and Lucia, 2017). Additionally, our results suggest that heartbeat dynamics are involved in the conscious processing of auditory information and primarily on the distinction of short-term changes. Our results go in the same direction as previous evidence, in which automatic classifications of these patients showed a higher accuracy when locking EEG to heartbeats, with respect to the classification of EEG segments unrelated to the cardiac cycle (Candia-Rivera et al., 2021a). Nevertheless, the measured responses in ERPs and HERs do not separate MCS and UWS patients’ groups completely, suggesting that some patients do not react or only react to some trials that were attenuated when averaging all trials in the time-locked analysis. Our results contribute to the extensive experimental evidence showing that brain-heart interactions, as measured with HERs, are related to perceptual awareness (Azzalini et al., 2019; Skora et al., 2022). For instance, neural responses to heartbeats correlate with perception in a visual detection task (Park et al., 2014). Further evidence exists on somatosensory perception, where a higher detection of somatosensory stimuli occurs when the cardiac cycle is in diastole and it is reflected in HERs (Al et al., 2020). Evidence on heart transplanted patients shows that the ability of heartbeats sensation is reduced after surgery and recovered after one year, with the evolution of the heartbeats sensation recovery reflected in the neural responses to heartbeats as well (Salamone et al., 2020). The responses to heartbeats also covary with self-perception: bodily-self-identification of the full body (Park et al., 2016), and face (Sel et al., 2017), and the self-relatedness of spontaneous thoughts (Babo-Rebelo et al., 2016) and imagination (Babo-Rebelo et al., 2019). Moreover, brain-heart interactions measured from heart rate variability correlate with conscious auditory perception as well (Banellis and Cruse, 2020; Pérez et al., 2021; Pfeiffer and Lucia, 2017). We showed that ERPs and HERs are repeatedly larger in MCS patients, as compared to UWS, in both local and global effects. Furthermore, the ERPs and HERs (both for the local and global effects) are uncorrelated in all possible comparisons (see Figure 4A), in addition to the results showing differentiation of clustering effects in HER and ERP (see Figure 4B). These results suggest that the neuronal mechanisms behind these ERPs and HERs responses are independent. In addition, we found that HER variance is higher in MCS patients than in UWS patients, as previously reported in resting state (Candia-Rivera et al., 2021a). Put together these results suggest that two different neuronal signatures differentiate MCS from UWS patients. A first process probed with HER variability differentiates, irrespective of the current stimulus type being processed. This first process originates from central and right temporal scalp areas and has been linked with social cognition but could also correspond to a self-consciousness-state marker (Candia-Rivera et al., 2021a). Second, a modulation of HER in response to local and global auditory irregularities. These responses present several properties related to a neural signature of conscious access to local and global deviant stimuli. Such ERPs and HERs modulations by conscious access to a new stimulus attribute may well correspond to a self-consciousness updating process occurring ‘downstream’ to conscious access (Sergent and Naccache, 2012), and enabled for instance in a *global neuronal workspace* architecture (Dehaene and Naccache, 2001). Note that outliers are expected in disorders of consciousness and exact physiological characterization of the different levels of consciousness remains challenging. First, the standard assessment of consciousness based on behavioral measures has shown a high rate of misdiagnosis in MCS and UWS (Stender et al., 2014). The cause of the misdiagnosis of consciousness arises because consciousness does not necessarily translate into overt behavior (Hermann et al., 2021). Unresponsive and minimally conscious patients, namely non-behavioral MCS (Thibaut et al., 2021), represent the main diagnostic challenge in clinical practice. Second, some of these patients suffer from conditions that may translate to no response to stimuli, even in presence of consciousness. For instance, when they suffer from constant pain, fluctuations in arousal levels, or sensory impairments caused by brain damage (Chennu et al., 2013). Third, these patients were recorded in clinical setups, which may lead to a lower signal-to-noise ratio, and lead to biased measurements in evoked potentials (Clayson et al., 2013). A plethora of complementary neuroimaging techniques have been proposed to enhance the consciousness diagnosis, including anatomical and functional magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography (Kondziella et al., 2020; Sanz et al., 2021). However, those methodologies may not be accessible in all clinical setups, because of costs or medical contraindications. The foregoing evidence of EEG-based techniques to diagnose consciousness (Bai et al., 2021; Engemann et al., 2018) shows promising and low-cost opportunities to develop diagnostic methods that can capture residual consciousness. Our results contribute more evidence of the potential of EEG as a diagnostic tool, but also to the role of visceral signals in consciousness (Azzalini et al., 2019; Candia-Rivera, 2022; Sattin et al., 2020). This study gives evidence that HERs detect auditory conscious perception, in addition to the residual signs of consciousness in resting-state (Candia-Rivera et al., 2021a). ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors ## Funding C.T.B. is supported by a senior fellowship from the Canadian Institute For Advance Research (CIFAR) program in Brain, Mind and Consciousness, as well as by ANR-17-EURE-0017. J.D.S. is supported by the Paris Brain Institute (France) and the program “Investissements d’avenir” ANR-10-IAIHU-06, by the CARNOT maturation grant, Title: Con&Heart to JDS, by a Sorbonne Universités EMERGENCE grant, title: Brain-body interactions, a new window for conscious evaluation in brain-injured patients, as well as a the PerBrain study funded by the European Union (ERA PerMed JTC2019 “PerBrain”). P.P. received support from a Sorbonne PhD grant (“recherches interdisciplinaires émergentes “, France). ## Footnotes * Since one of the main concerns from reviewers and the editor was that healthy participants did not show an effect to the global effect, we have revised the inclusion criteria. In brief, the number of 'blocks' available in each participant varied to up to 12 blocks. We have set a threshold of at least 4 blocks (2 XX and 2 XY, as shown in Figure 1). With this new criterion, the new sets are 46 MCS and 40 UWS. * Received October 27, 2021. * Revision received April 4, 2023. * Accepted April 4, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. Al E, Iliopoulos F, Forschack N, Nierhaus T, Grund M, Motyka P, Gaebler M, Nikulin VV, Villringer A. 2020. Heart–brain interactions shape somatosensory perception and evoked potentials. PNAS 117:10575–10584. doi:10.1073/pnas.1915629117 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTE3LzE5LzEwNTc1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDQvMDQvMjAyMS4xMC4yNy4yMTI2NTUzOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 2. Azzalini D, Rebollo I, Tallon-Baudry C. 2019. Visceral Signals Shape Brain Dynamics and Cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23:488–509. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.03.007 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.tics.2019.03.007&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 3. Babo-Rebelo M, Buot A, Tallon-Baudry C. 2019. Neural responses to heartbeats distinguish self from other during imagination. NeuroImage 191:10–20. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.012 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30738205&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 4. Babo-Rebelo M, Richter CG, Tallon-Baudry C. 2016. Neural Responses to Heartbeats in the Default Network Encode the Self in Spontaneous Thoughts. J Neurosci 36:7829–7840. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0262-16.2016 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Njoiam5ldXJvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIzNi8zMC83ODI5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDQvMDQvMjAyMS4xMC4yNy4yMTI2NTUzOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 5. Bai Y, Lin Y, Ziemann U. 2021. Managing disorders of consciousness: the role of electroencephalography. J Neurol 268:4033–4065. doi:10.1007/s00415-020-10095-z [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00415-020-10095-z&link_type=DOI) 6. Banellis L, Cruse D. 2020. Skipping a Beat: Heartbeat-Evoked Potentials Reflect Predictions during Interoceptive-Exteroceptive Integration. Cerebral Cortex Communications 1:tgaa060. doi:10.1093/texcom/tgaa060 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/texcom/tgaa060&link_type=DOI) 7. Bayne T, Hohwy J, Owen AM. 2017. Reforming the taxonomy in disorders of consciousness. Annals of Neurology 82:866–872. doi:10.1002/ana.25088 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ana.25088&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29091304&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 8. Bekinschtein TA, Dehaene S, Rohaut B, Tadel F, Cohen L, Naccache L. 2009. Neural signature of the conscious processing of auditory regularities. PNAS 106:1672–1677. doi:10.1073/pnas.0809667106 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiMTA2LzUvMTY3MiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA0LzA0LzIwMjEuMTAuMjcuMjEyNjU1MzkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 9. Candia-Rivera D. 2022. Brain-heart interactions in the neurobiology of consciousness. Current Research in Neurobiology 3:100050. doi:10.1016/j.crneur.2022.100050 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.crneur.2022.100050&link_type=DOI) 10. Candia-Rivera D, Annen J, Gosseries O, Martial C, Thibaut A, Laureys S, Tallon-Baudry C. 2021a. Neural Responses to Heartbeats Detect Residual Signs of Consciousness during Resting State in Postcomatose Patients. J Neurosci 41:5251–5262. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1740-20.2021 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Njoiam5ldXJvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI0MS8yNC81MjUxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDQvMDQvMjAyMS4xMC4yNy4yMTI2NTUzOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 11. Candia-Rivera D, Catrambone V, Valenza G. 2021b. The role of electroencephalography electrical reference in the assessment of functional brain–heart interplay: From methodology to user guidelines. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 360:109269. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2021.109269 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jneumeth.2021.109269&link_type=DOI) 12. Candia-Rivera D, Valenza G. 2022. Cluster permutation analysis for EEG series based on non-parametric Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney statistical tests. SoftwareX 19:101170. doi:10.1016/j.softx.2022.101170 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.softx.2022.101170&link_type=DOI) 13. Chennu S, Finoia P, Kamau E, Monti MM, Allanson J, Pickard JD, Owen AM, Bekinschtein TA. 2013. Dissociable endogenous and exogenous attention in disorders of consciousness. NeuroImage: Clinical 3:450–461. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2013.10.008 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.nicl.2013.10.008&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24273727&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000209276900048&link_type=ISI) 14. Clayson PE, Baldwin SA, Larson MJ. 2013. How does noise affect amplitude and latency measurement of event-related potentials (ERPs)? A methodological critique and simulation study. Psychophysiology 50:174–186. doi:10.1111/psyp.12001 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/psyp.12001&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23216521&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000313259900006&link_type=ISI) 15. Dehaene S, Naccache L. 2001. Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition 79:1–37. doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00123-2 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00123-2&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11164022&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000167587700001&link_type=ISI) 16. Engemann DA, Raimondo F, King J-R, Rohaut B, Louppe G, Faugeras F, Annen J, Cassol H, Gosseries O, Fernandez-Slezak D, Laureys S, Naccache L, Dehaene S, Sitt JD. 2018. Robust EEG-based cross-site and cross-protocol classification of states of consciousness. Brain 141:3179–3192. doi:10.1093/brain/awy251 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/brain/awy251&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30285102&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 17. Giacino JT, Ashwal S, Childs N, Cranford R, Jennett B, Katz DI, Kelly JP, Rosenberg JH, Whyte J, Zafonte RD, Zasler ND. 2002. The minimally conscious state: definition and diagnostic criteria. Neurology 58:349–353. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/WNL.58.3.349&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11839831&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 18. Giacino JT, Kalmar K, Whyte J. 2004. The JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised: measurement characteristics and diagnostic utility. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85:2020–2029. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.apmr.2004.02.033&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15605342&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000225609400019&link_type=ISI) 19. Hermann B, Sangaré A, Munoz-Musat E, Salah AB, Perez P, Valente M, Faugeras F, Axelrod V, Demeret S, Marois C, Pyatigorskaya N, Habert M-O, Kas A, Sitt JD, Rohaut B, Naccache L. 2021. Importance, limits and caveats of the use of “disorders of consciousness” to theorize consciousness. Neuroscience of Consciousness 2021:iab048. doi:10.1093/nc/niab048 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nc/niab048&link_type=DOI) 20. Kondziella D, Bender A, Diserens K, Erp W van, Estraneo A, Formisano R, Laureys S, Naccache L, Ozturk S, Rohaut B, Sitt JD, Stender J, Tiainen M, Rossetti AO, Gosseries O, Chatelle C. 2020. European Academy of Neurology guideline on the diagnosis of coma and other disorders of consciousness. European Journal of Neurology 27:741–756. doi:10.1111/ene.14151 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/ene.14151&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32090418&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 21. Laureys S, Celesia GG, Cohadon F, Lavrijsen J, León-Carrión J, Sannita WG, Sazbon L, Schmutzhard E, Wild KR, Zeman A, Dolce G, the 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. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-68 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1741-7015-8-68&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21040571&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 22. Naccache L. 2018. Minimally conscious state or cortically mediated state? Brain 141:949–960. doi:10.1093/brain/awx324 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/brain/awx324&link_type=DOI) 23. Oostenveld R, Fries P, Maris E, Schoffelen J-M. 2011. FieldTrip: Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2011:9 pages. doi:10.1155/2011/156869 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1155/2011/156869&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21837235&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 24. Park H-D, Bernasconi F, Bello-Ruiz J, Pfeiffer C, Salomon R, Blanke O. 2016. Transient Modulations of Neural Responses to Heartbeats Covary with Bodily Self-Consciousness. J Neurosci 36:8453–8460. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0311-16.2016 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Njoiam5ldXJvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIzNi8zMi84NDUzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDQvMDQvMjAyMS4xMC4yNy4yMTI2NTUzOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 25. Park H-D, Blanke O. 2019. Heartbeat-evoked cortical responses: Underlying mechanisms, functional roles, and methodological considerations. NeuroImage 197:502–511. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.04.081 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.04.081&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31051293&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 26. Park H-D, Correia S, Ducorps A, Tallon-Baudry C. 2014. Spontaneous fluctuations in neural responses to heartbeats predict visual detection. Nat Neurosci 17:612–618. doi:10.1038/nn.3671 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nn.3671&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24609466&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 27. Park H-D, Tallon-Baudry C. 2014. The neural subjective frame: from bodily signals to perceptual consciousness. Phil Trans R Soc B 369:20130208. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0208 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1098/rstb.2013.0208&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24639580&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 28. Pérez P, Madsen J, Banellis L, Türker B, Raimondo F, Perlbarg V, Valente M, Niérat M-C, Puybasset L, Naccache L, Similowski T, Cruse D, Parra LC, Sitt JD. 2021. Conscious processing of narrative stimuli synchronizes heart rate between individuals. Cell Rep 36:109692. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109692 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109692&link_type=DOI) 29. Perez P, Valente M, Hermann B, Sitt J, Faugeras F, Demeret S, Rohaut B, Naccache L. 2021. Auditory Event-Related “Global Effect” Predicts Recovery of Overt Consciousness. Frontiers in Neurology 11. 30. Pfeiffer C, Lucia MD. 2017. Cardio-audio synchronization drives neural surprise response. Scientific Reports 7:14842. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13861-8 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41598-017-13861-8&link_type=DOI) 31. Raimondo F, Rohaut B, Demertzi A, Valente M, Engemann DA, Salti M, Slezak DF, Naccache L, Sitt JD. 2017. Brain–heart interactions reveal consciousness in noncommunicating patients. Annals of Neurology 82:578–591. doi:10.1002/ana.25045 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ana.25045&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28892566&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 32. Riganello F, Larroque SK, Di Perri C, Prada V, Sannita WG, Laureys S. 2019. Measures of CNS-Autonomic Interaction and Responsiveness in Disorder of Consciousness. Frontiers in Neuroscience 13:530. doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00530 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/fnins.2019.00530&link_type=DOI) 33. Salamone PC, Sedeño L, Legaz A, Bekinschtein T, Martorell M, Adolfi F, Fraile-Vazquez M, Rodríguez Arriagada N, Favaloro L, Peradejordi M, Absi DO, García AM, Favaloro R, Ibáñez A. 2020. Dynamic neurocognitive changes in interoception after heart transplant. Brain Communications 2:fcaa095. doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcaa095 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/braincomms/fcaa095&link_type=DOI) 34. Sanz LRD, Thibaut A, Edlow BL, Laureys S, Gosseries O. 2021. Update on neuroimaging in disorders of consciousness. Curr Opin Neurol 34:488–496. doi:10.1097/WCO.0000000000000951 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/WCO.0000000000000951&link_type=DOI) 35. Sattin D, Leonardi M, Picozzi M. 2020. The autonomic nervous system and the brainstem: A fundamental role or the background actors for consciousness generation? Hypothesis, evidence, and future directions for rehabilitation and theoretical approaches. Brain and Behavior 10:e01474. doi:10.1002/brb3.1474 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/brb3.1474&link_type=DOI) 36. Schandry R, Sparrer B, Weitkunat R. 1986. From the heart to the brain: a study of heartbeat contingent scalp potentials. Int J Neurosci 30:261–275. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3109/00207458608985677&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3793380&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 37. Sel A, Azevedo RT, Tsakiris M. 2017. Heartfelt Self: Cardio-Visual Integration Affects Self-Face Recognition and Interoceptive Cortical Processing. Cereb Cortex 27:5144–5155. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhw296 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cercor/bhw296&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28334126&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 38. Sergent C, Faugeras F, Rohaut B, Perrin F, Valente M, Tallon-Baudry C, Cohen L, Naccache L. 2017. Multidimensional cognitive evaluation of patients with disorders of consciousness using EEG: A proof of concept study. NeuroImage: Clinical 13:455–469. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2016.12.004 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.nicl.2016.12.004&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28116238&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 39. Sergent C, Naccache L. 2012. Imaging neural signatures of consciousness: “what”, “when”, “where” and “how” does it work? Arch Ital Biol 150:91–106. doi:10.4449/aib.v150i2.1270 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.4449/aib.v150i2.1270&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23165871&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 40. Skora LI, Livermore JJA, Roelofs K. 2022. The functional role of cardiac activity in perception and action. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 137:104655. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104655 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104655&link_type=DOI) 41. Stender J, Gosseries O, Bruno M-A, Charland-Verville V, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Demertzi A, Chatelle C, Thonnard M, Thibaut A, Heine L, Soddu A, Boly M, Schnakers C, Gjedde A, Laureys S. 2014. Diagnostic precision of PET imaging and functional MRI in disorders of consciousness: a clinical validation study. The Lancet 384:514–522. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60042-8 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60042-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24746174&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F04%2F2021.10.27.21265539.atom) 42. Thibaut A, Panda R, Annen J, Sanz LRD, Naccache L, Martial C, Chatelle C, Aubinet C, Bonin EAC, Barra A, Briand M-M, Cecconi B, Wannez S, Stender J, Laureys S, Gosseries O. 2021. Preservation of Brain Activity in Unresponsive Patients Identifies MCS Star. Ann Neurol 90:89–100. doi:10.1002/ana.26095 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ana.26095&link_type=DOI)