When EEG Becomes Click-Bait: The dangers of oversimplifying science

It’s not often that a piece of EEG research becomes click-bait, but that’s what happened a few weeks ago.

The publication of ‘Enhanced Interplay of Neuronal Coherence and Coupling in the Dying Human Brain’ in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience this February caused waves in the mainstream media. When a continuous EEG captured the death of a patient, Neurosurgeon Dr Ajmal Zemmar and his team set out to use the accidentally acquired data to better understand the neurophysiological ‘footprint’ of brain activity in the peri-death period. Interestingly, this is the first published case of someone dying while undergoing continuous EEG monitoring. Prior to this animal studies formed the basis of our understanding on the topic.

A multi-national team used 900 seconds of EEG data, recorded from an 87-year-old Louisville man who, during this EEG, suffered a cardiac arrest and died. Standard 10-20 positioned electrodes recorded raw EEG data which was then processed and analysed using spectral power analysis, cross-frequency coupling (phase-amplitude coupling) and coherence analysis. The analysis and subsequent findings are technical but the salient finding appears to be that coordinated activity in the brain may be generated after cardiac arrest. In particular, cross frequency coupling between the alpha and gamma bands was seen, a finding which in healthy subjects, is involved in cognitive processes and memory recall.

On the back of this finding, a single line in the discussion posited that ‘it is intriguing to speculate that such activity could support a last ‘recall of life’ that may take place in the near-death state’.  This single sentence set the media on fire.

There were headlines about this everywhere, even a segment on Sunrise. ‘Our lives really DO flash before us: Scientists record the brain activity of an 87-year-old man at the moment he died, revealing a rapid ‘memory retrieval’ process’ (the Daily Mail), ‘What happens just before we die? Brain scan reveals our last thoughts’ (news.com.au), ‘Does life flash before your eyes? Brain scan of dying man says it’s possible’ (the Guardian) just to name a few.

How did we get from ‘it is intriguing to speculate’ to ‘our lives really DO flash before our eyes’?

Peer review, of course, dictates a more measured approach and recognition of limitations of the study. The paper acknowledges its many potentially confounding factors starting with the fact that this is a case report of one man’s EEG. A man with a traumatic brain injury, bilateral SDH with midline shift necessitating a decompressive craniotomy, electrographic NCSE, multiple anti-epileptic agents (+ I would imagine anaesthetic agents) and burst suppression. At no point during the recording was any normal EEG captured. Can the EEG of such an abnormal brain with additional iatrogenic factors (anticonvulsants, anaesthetics agents and probably breach) be used at all? And if ‘cross coupling between alpha and gamma activity is involved in cognitive processes and memory recall in healthy subjects’ does the same apply to ‘unhealthy’ subjects?

The popular media really ran with this story and I can understand why. We, and everyone we know, will die at some point. Why not take comfort in the thought that our loved ones will experience a ‘highlight’ real of their best memories as they die? But I just don’t think this paper tells us that. It tells us that during the transition to death, in one man’s traumatically, surgically and pharmacologically affected brain, there is a surge in gamma power which appeared to be modulated by the alpha band. This may represent the brain displaying stereotyped and coordinated patterns during death which is absolutely fascinating and really cool science but it is not what the media reported.

What has been highlighted to me, is how the media flattened this extremely complex piece of research into a one line soundbite which lacked all the nuance and careful reasoning that forms the bedrock of science as a field. It made me reflect on all the popular science articles I have read in the past that I took on face value, accepting that the article had the basic premise right and that I understood it as a scientist. Finally, it made me appreciate the peer review process and the protection it affords science. Science doesn’t live or die by clicks and for that, we are truly lucky.

Vicente R, Rizzuto M, Sarica C, Yamamoto K, Sadr M, Khajuria T, Fatehi M, Moien-Afshari F, Haw CS, Llinas RR, Lozano AM, Neimat JS and Zemmar A (2022) ‘Enhanced Interplay of Neuronal Coherence and Coupling in the Dying Human Brain’. Front. Aging Neurosci. 14:813531. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.813531

Written by Brianna Jackson

Royal Melbourne Hospital