{"title":"基于眼动仪综合数值疼痛评定量表(NPRS)的假痛检测。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Detecting Feigned Pain Using an Eye-Tracker Integrated Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS).
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.
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.