, 1996 and Schnakers et al., 2009b). The introduction of familiar voices aims at

increasing the bottom-up stimulus strength by adding emotional valence, which should make it easier to attend to the presented stimuli and will provide us with important information regarding the processing of emotional see more and self-relevant information in the absence of an explicit cognitive demand. We will focus on on-going oscillatory activity that is not necessarily exactly time-locked to the presentation of the stimulus, like event-related potentials. In fact, time–frequency analysis, quantifying evoked as well as induced brain activity, has been shown to be more sensitive than mere evoked responses which are more prone to temporal dispersion (Mouraux and Iannetti, 2008). Furthermore, concerning the intended clinical application in DOC patients in the future, it is important to consider that many DOC patients have prevailing background activity in the delta range that can interfere substantially with event-related potentials (Kotchoubey et al., 2005, Neumann and Kotchoubey, 2004 and Sabri and Campbell, 2002). Consequently, we believe that using time-frequency analysis together with a modified own name

paradigm using emotionally Cabozantinib cost and personally salient stimuli will be a more sensitive measure in identifying cognitive, and in future clinical applications, conscious processing. The main findings of ANOVA CONDITION (target vs. non-target; both spoken in a familiar voice)×ELECTRODES (Fz vs. Cz vs. Pz)×TIME (t1 vs. t2 vs. t3 vs. t4; t1=0–200 ms, t2 =200–400 ms, t3=400–600 and t4=600–800 ms post-stimulus),) showed that alpha desynchronization was higher for the target than for non-targets (F1/13=5.98, p<.05) (cf. Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). Additionally, main effects for ELECTRODES Etofibrate (F2/26=5.46, p<.05) and TIME (F3/39=8.05, p<.001) were revealed. Post hoc tests revealed that t3 and t4 significantly differed from t1 (t(13)=−3.88, p<.05; t(13)=−3.18, p<.05) while t3 differed from t2 (t(13)=−3.55, p<.05). Furthermore,

alpha ERD was higher on the electrode Pz compared to Cz (t(13)=2.86, p<.05) indicating generally larger desynchronization in the posterior part of the scalp and in particular in the last two time windows. The difference between the two conditions is also embedded in the interactions CONDITION×ELECTRODES (F2/26=5.27, p<.05) and CONDITION×TIME (F3/39=11.44, p<.001). Post-hoc tests on the first interaction revealed that target stimuli evoke stronger alpha ERD compared to non-targets mainly over Pz (t(13)=2.51, p=0.013) while post-hoc testing of the latter indicated that alpha ERD was stronger in response to targets as compared to non-targets only in the later time windows (t3: t(13)=−2.47, p<.05; t4: t(13)=−4.32, p<0.001).