1999
DOI: 10.1006/ccog.1998.0373
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Anesthesia and the Electrophysiology of Auditory Consciousness

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
40
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
1
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Of the earlier components, the N1 seems to be the most closely related to conscious state [74,239,240,242,246,247,253]. While some have identified the middle-latency and associated auditory steady-state responses as potential markers [251], we know from other studies that these responses are themselves insufficient to infer consciousness [108]. However, the absence of these responses is taken to be a strong indicator of unconsciousness [252].…”
Section: Auditory Markers Of States/levels Of Consciousnessmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Of the earlier components, the N1 seems to be the most closely related to conscious state [74,239,240,242,246,247,253]. While some have identified the middle-latency and associated auditory steady-state responses as potential markers [251], we know from other studies that these responses are themselves insufficient to infer consciousness [108]. However, the absence of these responses is taken to be a strong indicator of unconsciousness [252].…”
Section: Auditory Markers Of States/levels Of Consciousnessmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…No specific suggestion was proposed for the processes critical for perception. However, it was hypothesized that consciousness was identical with the spatiotemporal pattern of an electromagnetic field surrounding neuronal activity rather than the firing of particular neurons (Pockett, 1999).…”
Section: Binding As a Field Propertymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are many possible reasons for this variability, but the upshot of it is that I am quite happy to state here and now that my choice of a figure of 80 ms for the latency of simple sensation might well be wrong-or it might be right for some subjects and not others, or it might be right for some sensory systems and not others (e.g., for somatosensation but not for vision), or it might be right for some feature of conscious perception and not others (e.g., within the visual system for color or motion but not for metacontrast), or it might be right for any particular subject/sensation combination when the subject is paying attention to the stimulus and not when they're not-and so on. My personal working hypothesis at this stage is that conscious sensations/perceptions evolve over time, starting from about 60-80 ms poststimulus for a simple sensation (Pockett, 1999) and continuing up to at least 300 ms and possibly longer if one includes perceptions to do with comparison of the just-felt simple sensation to previous sensations and decisions on what to do or say about the whole business. In fact, it seems likely that much of the difficulty with interpretation of Libet's data follows from the fact that, like everyone else in the business so far, he failed to find a way of distinguishing clearly between simple sensation per se and the various comparisons, interpretations, and decisions which follow hard thereon, being necessary intermediaries for reportage of the sensation.…”
Section: Libet's Reply To My Papermentioning
confidence: 99%