Owen, A. M., Coleman, M. R., Boly, M., Davis, M. H., Laureys, S. & Pickard, J. D. (2006). Science 313(5792):1402. doi:10.1126/science.1130197.
Key takeaways
From the reading, NOTE-962.
- The response. She understood spoken commands and responded “through her brain activity, rather than through speech or movement” (p. 1402): tennis imagery activated the supplementary motor area; imagining visiting the rooms of her house activated parahippocampal gyrus, posterior parietal and lateral premotor cortex, “indistinguishable” from 12 controls.
- The inference. “Her decision to cooperate … represents a clear act of intention, which confirmed beyond any doubt that she was consciously aware of herself and her surroundings.” Asserted, not argued.
- What does not count. Intact speech and ambiguity responses are “suggestive” but “not unequivocal evidence” of awareness; negative findings cannot show its absence.
- Not communication. No question was asked; the paper proposes the method for communication without attempting it. Monti et al. (LIT-1192) did.
Why this is here
For CASE-107. The record held this result only through Block (NOTE-497): an intentional act without report, which the reading confirms is what the paper shows. The output channel is a mental act with no motor output. But the act is motor imagery read from the supplementary motor area, so it fits CLAIM-337’s “action moved inward” literally, while acting on nothing outside the patient. It shows compliance with an instruction, not judgement about a question, so for judgement without action on the world (CLAIM-341) Monti et al. are the stronger citation. The patient was five months from injury and had built her model while acting.