Detecting Feigned Pain Using an Eye-Tracker Integrated Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS).

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain Practice Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1111/papr.70074
Yoram Braw, Itay Goor-Aryeh, Motti Ratmansky
{"title":"Detecting Feigned Pain Using an Eye-Tracker Integrated Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS).","authors":"Yoram Braw, Itay Goor-Aryeh, Motti Ratmansky","doi":"10.1111/papr.70074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) is routinely used to assess pain severity. A recently developed NPRS integrated the pain scale with an eye tracker (NPRS<sub>ETI</sub>). As part of this study, we explored the NPRS<sub>ETI</sub>'s utility to detect feigned pain, an ongoing challenge facing clinicians. To achieve this aim, chronic pain outpatients were randomly assigned to a simulation (i.e., requested to exaggerate their pain; n = 34) or a control condition (i.e., requested to genuinely report their pain severity; n = 35). They then rated their pain using the NPRS<sub>ETI</sub>. Eye movement analyses indicated that simulators spent more time gazing at the higher NPRS<sub>ETI</sub> pain ratings before providing their pain ratings and less time at the leftward (\"No pain\") anchor afterward. The discrimination capacities of these measures, however, were poor. In contrast, pain ratings using the NPRS<sub>ETI</sub> showed excellent discriminative capacity, with a pain rating of 10 associated with 94.3% specificity and 26.5% sensitivity. Overall, the study's findings further indicate the feasibility of incorporating an eye tracker to evaluate the severity of pain. Though the findings at present do not support the utility of NPRS<sub>ETI</sub>-based eye movement measures as validity indicators, pain ratings showed promise as a simple screen of feigned pain. The preliminary nature of the findings, however, calls for further research. Such research may aid in further developing effective indicators of feigned pain and hopefully clarify cognitive processes (e.g., experienced cognitive load) involved in pain deception. PERSPECTIVE: The NPRS<sub>ETI</sub> enables pain ratings by patients with severe motor and speech impairments. While eye movements were not adequate in detecting feigned pain, participants' pain ratings showed initial promise. As this is a preliminary study, further research is recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"25 7","pages":"e70074"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12379137/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.70074","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) is routinely used to assess pain severity. A recently developed NPRS integrated the pain scale with an eye tracker (NPRSETI). As part of this study, we explored the NPRSETI's utility to detect feigned pain, an ongoing challenge facing clinicians. To achieve this aim, chronic pain outpatients were randomly assigned to a simulation (i.e., requested to exaggerate their pain; n = 34) or a control condition (i.e., requested to genuinely report their pain severity; n = 35). They then rated their pain using the NPRSETI. Eye movement analyses indicated that simulators spent more time gazing at the higher NPRSETI pain ratings before providing their pain ratings and less time at the leftward ("No pain") anchor afterward. The discrimination capacities of these measures, however, were poor. In contrast, pain ratings using the NPRSETI showed excellent discriminative capacity, with a pain rating of 10 associated with 94.3% specificity and 26.5% sensitivity. Overall, the study's findings further indicate the feasibility of incorporating an eye tracker to evaluate the severity of pain. Though the findings at present do not support the utility of NPRSETI-based eye movement measures as validity indicators, pain ratings showed promise as a simple screen of feigned pain. The preliminary nature of the findings, however, calls for further research. Such research may aid in further developing effective indicators of feigned pain and hopefully clarify cognitive processes (e.g., experienced cognitive load) involved in pain deception. PERSPECTIVE: The NPRSETI enables pain ratings by patients with severe motor and speech impairments. While eye movements were not adequate in detecting feigned pain, participants' pain ratings showed initial promise. As this is a preliminary study, further research is recommended.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

基于眼动仪综合数值疼痛评定量表(NPRS)的假痛检测。
数值疼痛评定量表(NPRS)通常用于评估疼痛的严重程度。最近开发的NPRS集成了疼痛量表和眼动仪(NPRSETI)。作为这项研究的一部分,我们探索了NPRSETI在检测假性疼痛方面的应用,这是临床医生面临的一个持续挑战。为了达到这一目的,慢性疼痛门诊患者被随机分配到模拟(即,要求夸大他们的疼痛,n = 34)或控制条件(即,要求真实报告他们的疼痛严重程度,n = 35)。然后,他们使用NPRSETI来评估自己的疼痛程度。眼动分析表明,在提供疼痛等级之前,模拟者花更多的时间盯着NPRSETI疼痛等级较高的锚点,而在提供疼痛等级之后,花更少的时间盯着左侧锚点(“无疼痛”)。但是,这些措施的辨别能力很差。相比之下,使用NPRSETI的疼痛评分显示出出色的判别能力,疼痛评分为10分,特异性为94.3%,敏感性为26.5%。总的来说,这项研究的发现进一步表明了使用眼动仪来评估疼痛严重程度的可行性。尽管目前的研究结果并不支持基于nprseti的眼动测量作为有效性指标的效用,但疼痛评分作为一种简单的假装疼痛筛查显示出了希望。然而,这些发现的初步性质需要进一步的研究。这样的研究可能有助于进一步开发假痛的有效指标,并有希望澄清与疼痛欺骗有关的认知过程(例如,经验认知负荷)。观点:NPRSETI使严重运动和语言障碍患者的疼痛评分。虽然眼球运动不足以检测假装的疼痛,但参与者的疼痛评级显示出初步的希望。由于这是一项初步研究,建议进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Practice
Pain Practice ANESTHESIOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信