Assessment & Research

A technology-assisted learning setup as assessment supplement for three persons with a diagnosis of post-coma vegetative state and pervasive motor impairment.

Lancioni et al. (2009) · Research in developmental disabilities 2009
★ The Verdict

Tiny microswitch responses can reveal hidden learning in adults labeled vegetative, opening the door to AAC.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who assess or treat adults with severe brain injury in medical or long-term care settings.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who work only with verbal clients or young children with autism.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team worked with three adults who had survived severe brain injury. All were thought to be in a vegetative state and could not speak or move on command.

Each person wore a tiny sensor on one hand and a blink monitor near one eye. Closing the hand or blinking twice triggered a short music clip or family voice.

The setup ran in short on/off blocks. When responses produced sound, that was the "on" phase. When responses did nothing, that was "off." The order switched back and forth to see if response rates followed the sound.

02

What they found

Two of the three people produced many more hand closures and blinks when sound followed the response. Their rate jumped as soon as the contingency started and dropped when it stopped.

The third person showed no clear change. Still, two clear positive cases show that some vegetative-state diagnoses miss real, measurable learning.

03

How this fits with other research

Meier et al. (2012) took the same microswitch idea and turned it into therapy. They showed that once you know a person can respond, you can let them use the switch to ask for preferred items or caregiver contact. The 2009 paper is the diagnostic first step; the 2012 paper is the daily-life payoff.

Carr et al. (2003) and Emerson et al. (2007) proved that children with multiple disabilities can master microswitch choice systems in days. The 2009 study mirrors that logic but applies it to adults trapped in post-coma silence. Same tech, new population, different goal—detection instead of communication teaching.

Together these papers form a ladder: first prove a response exists (2009), then teach requests (2003, 2007), then build full engagement programs (2012).

04

Why it matters

If you assess adults after brain injury, do not trust the chart that says "vegetative" until you test with sensitive microswitches. A five-minute sensor trial can show whether the person learns simple contingencies. When you see positive change, you can move straight to an AAC setup—hand closure for music, blink for nurse visit. The same sensor becomes both assessment tool and access method, giving your client a voice the medical team never knew existed.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Tape a pressure sensor to a post-coma client’s hand, deliver 10 s of favorite music each closure, and run three 5-min on/off blocks to see if response rate tracks the sound.

02At a glance

Intervention
other
Design
single case other
Sample size
3
Population
traumatic brain injury
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

Post-coma persons in an apparent condition of vegetative state and pervasive motor impairment pose serious problems in terms of assessment and intervention options. A technology-based learning assessment procedure might serve for them as a diagnostic supplement with possible implications for rehabilitation intervention. The learning assessment procedure adopted in this study relied on hand-closure and eye-blinking responses and on microswitch technology to detect such responses and to present stimuli. Three participants were involved in the study. The technology consisted of a touch/pressure sensor fixed on the hand or an optic sensor mounted on an eyeglasses' frame, which were combined with a control system linked to stimulus sources. The study adopted an ABABCB sequence, in which A represented baseline periods, B intervention periods with stimuli contingent on the responses, and C a control condition with stimuli presented non-contingently. Data showed that the level of responding during the B phases was significantly higher than the levels observed during the A phases as well as the C phase for two of the three participants (i.e., indicating clear signs of learning by them). Learning might be deemed to represent basic levels of knowledge/consciousness. Thus, detecting signs of learning might help one revise a previous diagnosis of vegetative state with wide implications for rehabilitation perspectives.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2009 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2009.02.006