Advertisement

Pupillary response: cognitive effort for breast cancer survivors

  • Jamie S. Myers
  • Melike Kahya
  • Melissa Mitchell
  • Junqiang Dai
  • Jianghua He
  • Sanghee Moon
  • Kevin Hamilton
  • Mary Valla
  • Anne O’Dea
  • Jennifer Klemp
  • Monica Kurylo
  • Abiodun Akinwuntan
  • Hannes Devos
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this cross-sectional comparative pilot study was to evaluate cognitive effort, indexed by pupillary response (PR), for breast cancer survivors (BCS) with complaints of cognitive dysfunction following chemotherapy.

Study Aims

Compare the cognitive effort employed by BCS to healthy controls (HC) during neuropsychological tests (NPT) for memory, sustained attention, verbal fluency, visuospatial ability, processing speed and executive function; and Investigate the relationship between PR-indexed cognitive effort and participants’ self-report of cognitive function.

Methods

Self-report of cognitive function was collected from 23 BCS and 23 HC. PR was measured during NPT. Independent two-sample t tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare group scores. Between-group effect size (Cohen’s d) was calculated for each outcome. Correlation between mean self-report scores and PR values, as well as 95% confidence intervals, was calculated.

Results

No group differences were demonstrated for NPT performance. BCS reported more issues with cognitive function than HC (p < .0001). A group effect for BCS was seen with PR-indexed cognitive effort for components of most NPT (p < .05). PR was correlated with most self-report measures of cognitive function (r = 0.33–0.45).

Conclusions

PR sensitivity to cognitive effort across a variety of NPT and correlation with self-report of cognitive function was demonstrated. The portability, affordability, and “real-time” aspects of PR are attractive for potential use in the clinic setting to assess cognitive function. A larger study is needed to confirm these results. Prospective investigation of PR in BCS is needed to demonstrate sensitivity to cognitive function changes over time.

Keywords

Breast cancer Cognitive dysfunction Cognitive neuroscience Pupillary response 

Notes

Funding information

The study was funded by the University of Kansas Medical Center Frontiers Pilot & Collaborative Studies Award.

Compliance with ethical standards

Approval from the University of Kansas Human Subjects Committee was obtained, and all procedures were performed in accordance with institutional ethical standards and the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial relationships to disclose. The first author and Primary Investigator for the study have full control of all primary data. However, data sharing agreement execution would be necessary if the journal requests data review.

References

  1. 1.
    Asher A, Myers JS (2015) The effect of cancer treatment on cognitive function. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 13(7):441–450PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Myers JS (2012) Chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment: the breast cancer experience. Oncol Nurs Forum 39:E31–E40.  https://doi.org/10.1188/12.OONF.E31-E40 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boykoff N, Moleni M, Subramanian SK (2009) Confronting chemobrain: an in-depth look at survivors' reports of impact on work, social networks, and health care response. J Cancer Surviv 3:223–232CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Munir F, Burrows J, Yarker J, Kalawsky K, Bains M (2010) Women’s perceptions of chemotherapy-induced cognitive side effects on work ability: a focus group study. J Clin Nurs 19:1362–1370.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03006.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Von Ah D, Storey S, Crouch A, Johns SA, Dodson J, Dutkevitch S (2016) Relationship of self-reported attentional fatigue to perceived work ability in breast Cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs 40:464–470.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ncc.0000000000000444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alibhai SM, Breunis H, Timilshina N, Johnston C, Tomlinson G, Tannock I, Krahn M, Fleshner NE, Warde P, Canning SD, Klotz L, Naglie G (2010) Impact of androgen-deprivation therapy on physical function and quality of life in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:5038–5045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McGinty HL, Phillips KM, Jim HS, Cessna MA, Asvat Y, Cases MG, Small BJ, Jacobsen PB (2014) Cognitive functioning in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer 22:2271–2280CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wefel J, Vardy J, Ahles TA, Schagen SB (2011) International cognition and cancer task force recommendations to harmonise studies of cognitive function in patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol 12:703–708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bernstein LJ, McCreath GA, Nyhof-Young J, Dissanayake D, Rich JB (2018) A brief psychoeducational intervention improves memory contentment in breast cancer survivors with cognitive concerns: results of a single-arm prospective study. Support Care Cancer 26:2851–2859.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4135-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jim HS, Phillips KM, Chait S, Faul LA, Popa MA, Lee YH, Hussin MG, Jacobsen PB, Small BJ (2012) Meta-analysis of cognitive functioning in breast cancer survivors previously treated with standard-dose chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 30:3578–3587CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wefel JS, Schagen SB (2012) Chemotherapy-related cognitive dysfunction. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 12(3):267–275.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-012-0264-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koppelmans V, Breteler MM, Boogerd W, Seynaeve C, Schagen SB (2013) Late effects of adjuvant chemotherapy for adult onset non-CNS cancer; cognitive impairment, brain structure and risk of dementia. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 88:87–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hermelink K, Kuchenhoff H, Untch M, Bauerfeind I, Lux MP, Buhner M, Manitz J, Fensterer V, Munzel K (2010) Two different sides of ‘chemobrain’: determinants and nondeterminants of self-perceived cognitive dysfunction in a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. Psychooncology 19:1321–1328.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1695 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kesler SR, Tanaka H, Koovakkattu D (2010) Cognitive reserve and brain volumes in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Brain Imaging Behav 4(3–4):256–269.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-010-9104-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Richards M, Sacker A (2003) Lifetime antecedents of cognitive reserve. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 25(5):614–624.  https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.25.5.614.14581 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kahneman D (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice Hall, EnglewoodGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferguson RJ, McDonald BC, Saykin AJ, Ahles TA (2007) Brain structure and function differences in monozygotic twins: possible effects of breast cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 25:3866–3870CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McDonald BC, Conroy SK, Ahles TA, West JD, Saykin AJ (2012) Alterations in brain activation during working memory processing associated with breast cancer and treatment: a prospective functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Clin Oncol 30(20):2500–2508.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.38.5674 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beatty J (1982) Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol Bull 91(2):276–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eckstein MK, Guerra-Carrillo B, Miller Singley AT, Bunge SA (2017) Beyond eye gaze: what else can eyetracking reveal about cognition and cognitive development? Dev Cogn Neurosci 25:69–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.11.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marshall SP (2007) Identifying cognitive state from eye metrics. Aviat Space Environ Med 78(5 Suppl):B165–B175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murphy PR, O'Connell RG, O'Sullivan M, Robertson IH, Balsters JH (2014) Pupil diameter covaries with BOLD activity in human locus coeruleus. Hum Brain Mapp 35(8):4140–4154.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22466 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang CA, McInnis H, Brien DC, Pari G, Munoz DP (2016) Disruption of pupil size modulation correlates with voluntary motor preparation deficits in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia 80:176–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.11.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ranchet M, Morgan JC, Akinwuntan AE, Devos H (2017) Cognitive workload in aging and neurodegenerative conditions: a systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 80:516–537.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.07.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ranchet M, Morgan JC, Akinwuntan AE, Devos H (2017) Pupillary response to cognitive workload during saccadic tasks in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 327:162–166.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2017.03.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Granholm EL, Panizzon MS, Elman JA, Jak AJ, Hauger RL, Bondi MW, Lyons MJ, Franz CE, Kremen WS (2017) Pupillary responses as a biomarker of early risk for Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis 56(4):1419–1428.  https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-161078 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnson-Kozlow M, Rock CL, Gilpin EA, Hollenbach KA, Pierce JP (2007) Validation of the WHI brief physical activity questionnaire among women diagnosed with breast cancer. Am J Health Behav 31:193–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Myers JS, Wick J, Klemp JR (2015) Potential factors associated with perceived cognitive impairment in breast cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer 23:3219–3228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2708-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lai J, Butt Z, Wagner L, Sweet J, Beaumont JL, Vardy J, Jacobsen PB, Jacobs SR, Shapiro CL, Cella D (2009) Evaluating the dimensionality of perceived cognitive function. J Pain Symptom Manag 37:982–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lai J, Wagner L, Jacobsen PB, Cella D (2014) Self-reported cognitive concerns and abilities: two sides of one coin? Psychooncology 23:1133–1141.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3522 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luo L, Luk G, Bialystok E (2010) Effect of language proficiency and executive control on verbal fluency performance in bilinguals. Cognition 114:29–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Strauss E, Sherman EM, Spreen O (2006) A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saykin A, Wishart HA, Rabin LA, Santulli RB, Flashman LA, West JD, McHugh TL, Mamourian AC (2006) Older adults with cognitive complaints show brain atrophy similar to that of amnestic MCI. Neurology 67:834–842CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Poynter WD (2017) Pupil-size asymmetry is a physiologic trait related to gender, attentional function, and personality. Laterality 22(6):654–670.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650x.2016.1268147 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Evans S, Dowell NG, Tabet N, King SL, Hutton SB, Rusted JM (2017) Disrupted neural activity patterns to novelty and effort in young adult APOE-e4 carriers performing a subsequent memory task. Brain Behav 7(2):e00612.  https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.612 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Massar SAA, Lim J, Sasmita K, Chee MWL (2018) Sleep deprivation increases the costs of attentional effort: performance, preference and pupil size. Neuropsychologia.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.03.032
  37. 37.
    Reddy LF, Reavis EA, Wynn JK, Green MF (2018) Pupillary responses to a cognitive effort task in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2018.03.005
  38. 38.
    Hershman R, Henik A, Cohen N (2018) A novel blink detection method based on pupillometry noise. Behav Res Methods 50(1):107–114.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-1008-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jamie S. Myers
    • 1
  • Melike Kahya
    • 2
  • Melissa Mitchell
    • 3
  • Junqiang Dai
    • 4
  • Jianghua He
    • 4
  • Sanghee Moon
    • 2
  • Kevin Hamilton
    • 2
  • Mary Valla
    • 5
  • Anne O’Dea
    • 6
  • Jennifer Klemp
    • 7
  • Monica Kurylo
    • 8
  • Abiodun Akinwuntan
    • 2
  • Hannes Devos
    • 2
  1. 1.Office of Grants and ResearchUniversity of Kansas School of NursingKansas CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation ScienceUniversity of Kansas School of Health ProfessionsKansas CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterKansas CityUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterKansas CityUSA
  5. 5.North Kansas City HospitalNorth Kansas CityUSA
  6. 6.Department of Medical OncologyUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterKansas CityUSA
  7. 7.University of Kansas Cancer CenterWestwoodUSA
  8. 8.Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral SciencesUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterKansas CityUSA

Personalised recommendations