89 Detecting Feigned Cognitive Impairment Using Pupillometry on the Warrington Recognition Memory Test for Words
Authors: Patrick Sarah D , Rapport Lisa J , Hanks Robin A , Kanser Robert J 
Published: December 2023

Objective:Traditional methods of assessing performance validity have numerous weaknesses, among them, results can be consciously manipulated by examinees who wish to feign cognitive impairment. This study tested the ability of pupillary dilation patterns during a performance validity test (PVT) to enhance diagnostic accuracy in discriminating true from feigned impairment of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Pupillometry provides information about physiological and psychological processes related to cognitive load, familiarity, and deception and is outside of conscious control. Patrick, Rapport, Kanser, Hanks, and Bashem (2021) established proof of concept for the utility of pupillometry with PVTs applied to the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). This study replicated and extended this work by evaluating the incremental utility of pupillary-derived indices on the Warrington Recognition Memory Test for Words (RMT).Participants and Methods:Participants included 214 adults in three groups: adults with bona fide TBI (TBI; n = 51) healthy comparisons instructed to perform their best (HC; n = 72), and healthy adults instructed and incentivized to simulate cognitive impairment due to TBI (SIM; n = 91). Moreover, this study examined pupillary pattern differences among successful (i.e., failed < 1 PVT and performed impaired on cognitive tests) and unsuccessful (i.e., failed > 2 PVTs or did not score impaired on a cognitive test) SIM, including SIM who did and did not fail the RMT. The RMT was administered in the context of a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Indices included two pure pupil dilation (PD) indices: a simple measure of baseline arousal (PD-Baseline) and a nuanced measure of dynamic engagement (PD-Range). A pupillo-behavioral index was also evaluated: Dilation-response inconsistency (DRI) captured the frequency with which examinees displayed a pupillary familiarity response to the correct answer but selected the unfamiliar stimulus (incorrect answer).Results:The results generally replicated Patrick et al. (2021), as all three indices were useful in discriminating between groups and provided incremental utility to traditional accuracy scores. PD-Baseline appeared sensitive to oculomotor dysfunction due to TBI (i.e., increasing accurate identification of that group); adults with TBI displayed significantly lower chronic arousal as compared to the two groups of healthy adults (SIM, HC). In fact, the TBI group showed significantly lower PD-Baseline than both unsuccessful simulators who were detected as feigners and successful simulators who passed PVTs but effectively feigned TBI on other tests. Dynamic engagement (PD-Range) yielded a hierarchical structure such that SIM were more dynamically engaged than TBI followed by HC. As predicted, simulators engaged in DRI significantly more frequently than other groups. Moreover, DRI added unique information to RMT accuracy in classifying unsuccessful simulators from all other groups. Each of these three pupillary indices showed large effect sizes, and logistic regressions indicated that each contributed unique variance in predicting group membership on one or more of the paired contrasts (i.e., SIM-TBI, SIM-HC, HC-TBI).Conclusions:Taken together, the findings support continued research on the application of pupillometry to performance validity assessment: Pupillometry provided unique information in enhancing classification accuracy beyond traditional PVT accuracy scores. Overall, the findings highlight the promise of biometric indices in multimethod assessments of performance validity.