# Further clarification of cognitive processes of prospective memory in schizophrenia by comparing eye-tracking and ecologically-valid measurements

## TL;DR

This study compares eye-tracking and real-life tests to understand how people with schizophrenia struggle with prospective memory.

## Contribution

The study shows eye-tracking is more sensitive than ecologically-valid tests for detecting cue monitoring deficits in schizophrenia.

## Key findings

- SSDs patients had fewer fixations on distractors and lower PM accuracy than healthy controls.
- PM accuracy was negatively linked to symptom severity and positively linked to working memory and attention.
- Visual learning and symptom severity predicted fixation counts on distractors in SSDs patients.

## Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare ecologically-valid measure (the Cambridge Prospective Memory Test, CAMPROMPT) and laboratory measure (eye-tracking paradigm) in assessing prospective memory (PM) in individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs). In addition, eye-tracking indices are used to examine the relationship between PM and other cognitive domains in SSDs patients. Initially, the study sample was formed by 32 SSDs patients and 32 healthy control subjects (HCs) who were matched in sociodemographic profile and the performance on CAMPROMPT. An eye-tracking paradigm was employed to examine the differences in PM accuracy and key cognitive processes (e.g., cue monitoring) between the two groups. Additional 31 patients were then recruited to investigate the relationship between PM cue monitoring, other cognitive functions, and the severity of clinical symptoms within the SSDs group. The monitoring of PM cue was reflected in total fixation time and total fixation counts for distractor words. Cognitive functions were assessed using the Chinese version of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) was applied to assess psychopathology. SSDs patients exhibited fewer total fixation counts for distractor words and lower PM accuracy compared to HCs, even though they were priori matched on CAMPROMPT. Correlation analysis within the SSDs group (63 cases) indicated a negative correlation between PM accuracy and PANSS total score, and a positive correlation with working memory and attention/vigilance. Regression analysis within the SSDs group revealed that higher visual learning and lower PANSS total scores independently predicted more total fixation counts on distractor words. Impairment in cue monitoring is a critical factor in the PM deficits in SSDs. The eye-tracking laboratory paradigm has advantages over the ecologically-valid measurement in identifying the failure of cue detection, making it a more sensitive tool for PM deficits in patients with SSDs.