ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Using behavior and eye-fixations to detect feigned memory impairment.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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. 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. Conclusion: 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.