Here, we present a protocol to study the relationship between the eye movement parameters and cognitive functions in non-demented Parkinson's disease patients. The experiment used an eye tracker to measure the saccadic amplitude and fixation duration in a visual search task. The correlation with performance in multi-domain cognitive tasks was subsequently measured.
Cognitive impairment is a common phenomenon in Parkinson’s disease that has implications on the prognosis. A simple, noninvasive and objective proxy measurement of cognitive function in Parkinson’s disease will be helpful in detecting early cognitive decline. As a physiological metric, eye movement parameter is not confounded by the subject's attributes and intelligence and can function as a proxy marker if it correlates with cognitive functions. To this end, this study explored the relationship between the eye movement parameters and performance in cognitive tests in multiple domains. In the experiment, a visual search task with eye tracking was set up, where subjects were asked to look for a number embedded in an array of alphabets scattered randomly on a computer screen. The differentiation between the number and the alphabet is an overlearned task such that the confounding effect of cognitive ability on the eye movement parameters is minimized. The average saccadic amplitude and fixation duration were captured and calculated during the visual search task. The cognitive assessment battery covered domains of frontal-executive functions, attention, verbal and visual memory. It was found that prolonged fixation duration was associated with poorer performance in verbal fluency, visual and verbal memory, allowing further exploration on the use of eye movement parameters as proxy markers for cognitive function in Parkinson’s disease patients. The experimental paradigm has been found to be highly tolerable in our group of Parkinson's disease patients and could be applied transdiagnostically to other disease entities for similar research questions.
Parkinson’s disease is classically a motor disorder; yet, the disease is also associated with cognitive deficits, and progression into dementia is common1. The pathophysiology of cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease is not well understood. It is thought to be related to alpha-synuclein deposition in the cortical area based on Braak's staging2. It was also proposed that a dual syndrome of degeneration of the dopaminergic and the cholinergic system leads to different cognitive deficits with prognostic implication3. More research is needed to further elucidate the exact mechanisms involved in cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease. On the clinical aspect, the presence of cognitive impairment has a significant impact on prognosis4,5. Assessment of cognitive function in clinical practice is, therefore, essential. However, a lengthy cognitive assessment is limited by patients’ mental and motor conditions. Therefore, a noninvasive and simple measurement that can reflect the disease's burden on cognitive function is needed.
The eye movement abnormalities are widely described detectable signs of Parkinson's disease from its early stages6, yet the pathophysiology is even less well-characterized than that of cognitive impairment. The generation of eye movement is through a transformation of the visual sensory input, subserved by an intertwined cortical and subcortical network, into signals to the oculomotor nuclei in the brainstem for effect7. Involvement of Parkinson's disease pathologies in these networks may lead to observable eye movement abnormalities. There is, perhaps overlapping of neuroanatomical structures that govern the control of eye movement and cognitive function. Furthermore, there have been studies examining the relationship between saccadic eye movement and cognitive function in other neurodegenerative disorders8. On such grounds, it is worthwhile to explore the use of eye movement parameters as a proxy marker of cognitive functions in Parkinson's disease. One cross-sectional study9 showed that reduced saccadic amplitude and longer fixation duration was associated with the severity of global cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease. However, there is a lack of data on the correlation between eye movement parameters and specific cognitive domains. The significance and need of measurement of specific cognitive domains, rather than a general cognitive state, is that individual cognitive domain informs differential prognostic information in Parkinson's disease3 and they are subserved by different neural networks. The aim of this study is to explore the specific relationship between eye movement metrics and different cognitive functions. This is the first step to establish a foundation on which the development of biomarkers of cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease using eye tracking technology could be built.
The experimental paradigm presented is composed of 2 major parts: the cognitive assessment and the eye tracking task. The cognitive assessment battery encompassed a range of cognitive functions, including attention and working memory, executive function, language, verbal memory and visuospatial function. The choice of these 5 cognitive domains is based on the Movement Disorder Society Task Force Guidelines for the mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease10, and a set of locally available cognitive tests were selected to build the assessment battery. In a previous similar eye tracking study on Parkinson's disease cognition mentioned9, the author extracted the eye movement parameters while the subjects were engaged in visual cognitive tasks, where the parameters may potentially be influenced by the subject's cognitive ability. As this study aimed to assess the correlation between the eye movement parameters and different cognitive domains, the potential confounding effect of cognitive abilities on the eye parameters must be addressed. In this regards, a visual search task, adapted from another eye tracking study on Alzheimer’s disease11, was employed to capture the eye movement parameters of the subjects. During the task, subjects had to search for a single number on a computer screen among multiple alphabet distracters. This task would elicit the alternate use of saccadic eye movement and visual fixation, the abnormalities of which are described widely in Parkinson's disease. The identification and differentiation of number and alphabet is an overlearned task where the demand for cognitive functions is only minimal and would, therefore, be suitable to answer the research question of this study. A computer program was developed based on the specifications and design as stated by Rösler et al.11. in their original study to be run within the in-built software of our eye tracker. An in-house algorithm for classification and analysis of the eye tracking data was also developed for this study.
This research project was approved by the Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong-New Territories East Cluster Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CREC Ref. No.: 2015.263).
1. Participants Recruitment and Baseline Assessment
2. Experimental Setup
3. The Flow of the Cognitive Assessment and the Visual Search Task
4. Visual Search Task
5. Eye Tracking Data Processing and Analysis
The full result of this study is available in the original paper published23. Parkinson’s disease subjects (n = 67) were recruited and completed the assessment. However, 5 cases failed to complete the visual search task as they wore progressive lens incompatible with the eye tracker and their data was discarded. The mean age of the subjects was 58.9 years (SD = 7.5 years) with a male to female ratio of 1.7:1. 62 healthy age-, sex-, and education-matched controls were recruited for comparison.
Cognitive and eye movement parameters
Consistent with other previous studies24, the Parkinson’s disease group showed poorer performance in multiple cognitive tasks as compared to the control group (Table 1). Using the in-house algorithm for classification of the visual search task data, fixations and saccades are identified and extracted for calculation and analysis. It was found that the disease group had a smaller mean saccadic amplitude (16.36° ± 2.36) as compared to controls (17.27° ± 2.49; p = 0.037). The mean fixation duration was not significantly different between the groups (216.58 ms ± 31.64 vs, 211.59 ms ± 24.90; p = 0.331) (Table 2).
Correlation between eye movement parameters and cognitive function
After adjusting for covariates, there were negative correlations found between the mean fixation duration and the performance in verbal recognition memory score (Recognition and Discrimination scores; F = 5.843, t = -2.417, p = 0.017 and F = 12.771, t = -3.574, p = 0.001, respectively), pattern recognition memory (F = 5.505, t = -2.346, p = 0.021) and categorical verbal fluency test in the categories of fruit (F = 5.647, t = -2.376, p = 0.009) and vegetable (F = 9.744, t = -3.122, p = 0.002). (Table 3). However, there was no significant interaction found in these correlations between the disease and control group, suggesting that the correlations are not specific to the disease group. It is speculated that as the control of visual fixation and the correlated cognitive functions commonly involve temporal and parietal regions of the brain with a predominantly cholinergic basis, pathological changes to these neuroanatomical and biochemical mechanisms may explain the findings.
Figure 1: A calibration plot of the eye tracker. The plot shows the result of the calibration. The length of each green line indicates the difference between the gaze point calculated by the eye tracker and the actual dot position. As all the green lines fall within the grey circles and there is no missing point, the quality of this calibration is acceptable. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: An example of a trial of the visual search task. Display of a non-linear array of 80 stimulus items, of which there is 1 number among 79 distracter alphabets. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: The interface to check the overall sampling percentage. In the Replay section of the computer program, the Samples Percentage, which denotes the percentage of time that the eyes are successfully located by the eye tracker during the visual search task, could be checked for each subject. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: An example of a visualized scan path from the visual search task. The scan path during this trial was visualized, with the red straight lines representing the saccadic eye movement and the red dots for visual fixations. Note that the end of each visual fixation is followed by a saccade and vice versa in a normal scan path. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 5: An example of a grossly erroneous visualized scan path. This example of a grossly erroneous scan path is taken from a subject wearing a pair of incompatible progressive lens. In contrast to the normal scan path in Figure 4, the red lines (saccade) run in zigzag and fall out of the computer screen. The fixation points are not on either the alphabets or the number. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 6: The data export interface in the computer program. This shows the interface where the subject and the kind of the eye tracking data captured can be selected for data export. In our experimental paradigm, the x and y coordinate, in pixels, of the eyes position on the screen at every time point will be used for data analysis. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 7: The interface of the Visual Search Analyzer. This shows the interface of the in-house analysis program for eye tracking data. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Control group | Parkinson's group | p-value | |
Global Cognitive scales | |||
MMSE | 28.53 (1.63) | 28 (1.84) | 0.09 |
MoCA | 27.10 (2.25) | 26 (2.34) | 0.009* |
Specific Cognitive tests – Frontal executive & Frontal-temporal | |||
Stocking of Cambridgea | 1.16 (0.14) | 1.24 (0.19) | 0.018* |
Stroop testb | 1.24 (1.77) | 1.36 (1.65) | 0.697 |
Verbal fluency – animalb | 0.92 (1.47) | 0.26 (1.31) | 0.01* |
Verbal fluency – fruitb | -0.71 (0.74) | -1.01 (0.79) | 0.028* |
Verbal fluency – vegetableb | -0.66 (1.04) | -1.11 (0.90) | 0.011* |
Specific Cognitive tests – Verbal Memory (Hong Kong List Learning Test) | |||
Total learningb | 0.03 (0.90) | -0.30 (0.87) | 0.037* |
10 minutes delay free recallb | -0.17 (0.90) | -0.44 (1.10) | 0.131 |
30 minutes delay free recallb | -0.19 (0.90) | -0.39 (1.04) | 0.206 |
Recognition scoreb | 0.10 (1.00) | 0.15 (0.73) | 0.722 |
Discrimination scoreb | -0.05 (1.02) | -0.13 (0.97) | 0.636 |
Specific Cognitive tests – Visual spatial memory | |||
Pattern recognition memoryc | 91.33 (9.40) | 87.77 (10.20) | 0.045* |
Specific Cognitive tests – Attention/Working memory | |||
Spatial spand | 6.15 (1.10) | 5.65 (1.17) | 0.016* |
Table 1: Comparison of cognitive scores between two groups using independent sample t-test. MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; *– p<0.05 a – mean choices to correct; b – scores transformed into z-score; c – percentage correct; d – span length. This table has been reproduced from23.
Control group | Parkinson's disease group | p-value | |
Mean fixation duration, in miliseconds (SD) [Range] | 211.59 (24.90) [165.77 – 264.63] | 216.58 (31.64) [145.43-312.68] | 0.331 |
Mean saccadic amplitude, in degrees (SD) [Range] | 17.27 (2.49) [13.34 – 22.99] | 16.36 (2.36) [11.66-23.20] | 0.037* |
Table 2: Comparison of eye tracking parameters between two groups using independent sample t-test. * – p < 0.05. This table has been modified from23.
Source | Dependent Variable | df | F | B | Beta | Std. Error | t | p-value |
Mean fixation duration | Verbal fluency – fuit | 1 | 5.647 | -0.006 | -0.227 | 0.002 | -2.376 | 0.009* |
Verbal fluency – vegetable | 1 | 9.744 | -0.009 | -0.288 | 0.003 | -3.122 | 0.002* | |
Recognition score | 1 | 5.843 | -0.007 | -0.215 | 0.003 | -2.417 | 0.017* | |
Discrimination score | 1 | 12.771 | -0.011 | -0.314 | 0.003 | -3.574 | 0.001* | |
Pattern recognition memory | 1 | 5.505 | -0.071 | -0.215 | 0.03 | -2.346 | 0.021* |
Table 3: Correlations between cognitive scores and eye-tracking parameters using General Linear Model: Significant findings only. * – p < 0.05. This table has been reproduced from23.
Supplemental File 1: Codes related to the trial image design. Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental File 2: Codes related to the actual run of the visual search task. Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental File 3: Codes related to the software (e.g., analyzer program). Please click here to download this file.
Supplemental File 4: Codes related to the ST-DBSCAN algorithm used for classifying eye movement metrics. Please click here to download this file.
The protocol presented above was designed as the first part of a longitudinal study in exploring the potential clinical utility of eye movement parameters as surrogate markers for cognitive functions in Parkinson's disease. While there are studies that examine more classical eye tracking paradigms such as self-paced saccade, reflexive saccade, and anti-saccade25,26,27, a visual search task was used in this study to measure eye movement parameters. As discussed, the design of this visual search task is of paramount importance as it must minimize the known confounding effect of a cognitive ability on the performance of the eye tracking task, as it may affect the eye movement parameters recorded. An example of which would be the effect of frontal executive functions on the saccadic latency28. The critical issue in the design would be the random scattering of the number and alphabets and varying quadrants of the number's location, making it more difficult to use cognitive strategies to enhance the performance of the task. Together with an average of roughly 650 saccades measured in 40 trials per subject, the average saccade amplitude calculated represents more of a physiological ability of the eye to generate saccade. In accordance with previous literature, it was found that the saccade amplitude is smaller in Parkinson's disease patients29,30. The choice of parameters extracted from the eye tracking task also needs to be taken care of with respect to the issue of the potential confounding effect by cognition. For example, parameters such as the speed of finding the number, error rate, and accuracy, which are a direct measurement of attention and processing speed, were not used.
Another critical step for this study is to ascertain the validity of the algorithm that was used in the classification of eye movement parameter. There exist numerous ways of classifying eye tracking data into saccade and fixation: velocity-based, dispersion-based algorithm and so on31. Each of these algorithms has its own pros and cons and there is no gold standard for doing so such that one has to also take into consideration the specifications of the eye tracker used and the design of eye tracking task to determine the best way of classifying the data. For this study, an in-house, density-based clustering algorithm, developed based on ST-DBSCAN22, was used. The research team has cross-validated the validity of this classification algorithm against manual classification in a pilot study before applying the algorithm to the data of this study. The computer program incorporating the algorithm would automatically splice out and classify the data within the trials, from the moment the trial starts (with the alphabets and number appearing on the screen) to the end (that the subject clicks on the mouse or 10 s has lapsed) so that no non-trial data recorded (e.g., during the display of the fixation cross) will be analyzed to contaminate the results.
The use of domain-specific cognitive tests in this study allow correlations of the eye movement parameters with individual cognitive function performance. As discussed, this has significance over using general overall cognitive measures as the neural circuitry and biochemical basis for each cognitive function are different. The contemporary knowledge on the neural mechanisms of eye movement control and individual cognitive functions allow us to make inference and interpretation of the results found. For example, the significant negative correlations of fixation duration with temporal-, parietal-, and cholinergic-based cognitive functions are of particular interest as impairment of these functions may predict the development of dementia3. Detailed discussions of the scientific basis that explain the correlations can be found in the original paper published23.
The battery of cognitive examination and the visual search task were highly tolerable to the subjects of this study. Requiring roughly 1.5 h to complete the entire battery, none of the subjects were unable to finish because of fatigue or physical discomfort. The visual search task consisted of 40 trials and took only around 5-10 min to complete. The noninvasive, simple and quick nature of the task makes it suitable as a screening tool if supported by more robust data. This paradigm could also be applied transdiagnostically in other neurocognitive disorders to answer similar research questions. One major practical limitation encountered in this protocol is the incompatibility of the eye tracker in subjects wearing certain progressive lens, as presbyopia is not an uncommon condition in the elderly. Eyelid apraxia and blepharospasm are also seen in Parkinson's disease32 and sufferers of these conditions may not be able to complete the task.
As an explorative and cross-sectional study, the design of the study does not allow us to infer any definite neuroanatomical and biochemical basis that explains the results found. The interpretations of the results were mostly based on independent knowledge on the physiologies of cognitive functions and eye movement control and, therefore, remained as postulations. The longitudinal data on how these parameters may change over time during the neurodegenerative process is unknown. Yet, it is worthwhile to have a follow-up study to investigate the predictive values of the baseline eye movement parameters on cognitive impairment development. Future studies should incorporate neuroimaging to address the neurostructural underpinnings for more solid support of any postulation, without which further development of eye tracking as a proxy marker of cognitive function will not be possible.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
The authors would like to thank Dr. Harvey Hung for his advice on the manuscript.
Computer | Intel | ||
Computerized cognitive assessment tool | CANTAB | CANTAB Research Suite | Contains Pattern Recognition Memory, Spatial Span, and Stockings of Cambridge |
Eye Movement Analyzer | Lab Viso Limited | https://github.com/lab-viso-limited/visual-search-analyzer | |
Eye tracker | Tobii | Tx300 | 23 inch computer screen with resolution of 1920×1080, Sampling rate at 300Hz |
Hong Kong List Leanrning Test | Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong | The Hong Kong List Learning Test (HKLLT) 2nd Edition | |
Stroop test | Laboratory of Neuropsychology, The University of Hong Kong | Neuropsychological Measures: Normative Data for Chinese, Second Edition (Revised) | |
Tobii Studio | Tobii | Tobii Studio version 3.2.2 | Computer programme for running the visual search task |
Visual Search Task | Lab Viso Limited | https://www.labviso.com/#products |