Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Psychol.
Sec. Neuropsychology
Volume 15 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1395434
This article is part of the Research Topic Neuropsychological Testing: From Psychometrics to Clinical Neuropsychology View all 8 articles

USING BEHAVIOR AND EYE-FIXATIONS TO DETECT FEIGNED MEMORY IMPAIRMENT

Provisionally accepted
Filomena Gomes Filomena Gomes 1*Inês Ferreira Inês Ferreira 2*Bruno Rosa Bruno Rosa 2*Ana Martins Da Silva Ana Martins Da Silva 3Sara Cavaco Sara Cavaco 1,4,5*
  • 1 Neuropsychology Service, Hospital de Santo António, Porto, Portugal
  • 2 Laboratory of Neurobiology of Human Behavior, Hospital de Santo António, Porto, Portugal
  • 3 Neurology Department, Hospital de Santo António, Porto, Portugal
  • 4 Unit for Multidisciplinary Research in Biomedicine, Abel Salazar Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
  • 5 Laboratory for Integrative and Translational Research in Populational Health, Institute of Public Health, University of Porto, Porto, Porto, Portugal

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Background: Detecting invalid cognitive performance is an important clinical challenge in neuropsychological assessment. The aim of this study was to explore behavior and eye-fixations responses during the performance of a computerized version of the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM-C) under standard vs. feigning conditions.Participants and Methods: TOMM-C with eye-tracking recording was performed by 60 healthy individuals (31 with standard instruction -SI; and 29 were instructed to feign memory impairment: 21 Naïve Simulators -NS and 8 Coached Simulators -CS) and 14 patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and memory complaints performed (Figure 1). Number of correct responses, response time, number of fixations, and fixation time in old vs. new stimuli were recorded. Nonparametric tests were applied for group comparison.Results: NS produced fewer correct responses and had longer response times in comparison to SI on all three trials. SI showed more fixations and longer fixation time on previously presented stimuli (i.e., familiarity preference) specially on Trial 1, whereas NS had more fixations and longer fixation time on new stimuli (i.e., novelty preference) specially in the Retention trial. MS patients produced longer response time and had a different fixation pattern than SI subjects. No behavioral or oculomotor difference was observed between NS and CS.Conclusions: Healthy simulators have a distinct behavioral and eye-fixation response pattern, reflecting a novelty preference. Oculomotor measures may be useful to detect exaggeration or fabrication of cognitive dysfunction. Though, its application in clinical populations may be limited.

    Keywords: Malingering, Novelty preference, Familiarity preference, Eye-tracking, performance validity tests

    Received: 03 Mar 2024; Accepted: 25 Jul 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Gomes, Ferreira, Rosa, Martins Da Silva and Cavaco. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Filomena Gomes, Neuropsychology Service, Hospital de Santo António, Porto, Portugal
    Inês Ferreira, Laboratory of Neurobiology of Human Behavior, Hospital de Santo António, Porto, Portugal
    Bruno Rosa, Laboratory of Neurobiology of Human Behavior, Hospital de Santo António, Porto, Portugal
    Sara Cavaco, Neuropsychology Service, Hospital de Santo António, Porto, Portugal

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.