Lesson 1 · Foundations ~7 min

The Map of Cognitive Domains

"Impairment" is not one dial that turns down. It's a set of separable abilities, and each cause of impairment dims a different subset. This map is the frame every later lesson builds on.

Why this, first You're building an assessment of game-like tasks that detect impairment. Before you can judge whether a task is a good detector, you need the map of what there is to detect. Every task you pick is really a bet that a specific cognitive domain will degrade. This lesson gives you that map.

The one idea

When people say someone is "impaired," it sounds like a single global state — as if the whole brain dropped a few percent. It isn't. Cognition is made of separable domains: distinct capacities that can be knocked out independently of one another.[1] A drunk person and a sleep-deprived person are both "impaired," but their profiles differ — different domains, different amounts, different time courses. We'll call that pattern an impairment fingerprint.

This is the single most important reframe for your product: a task doesn't detect "impairment" in the abstract — it detects degradation in one specific domain. So your battery is only as good as the match between the domains your tasks probe and the domains your target impairments actually hit.

The core domains (and the task that probes each)

There are formal taxonomies — the DSM-5 lists six neurocognitive domains;[1] the NIH Toolbox and CANTAB batteries operationalize overlapping sets.[2] Here is the working subset that matters most for impairment detection:

DomainWhat it isSignature taskWhy you'd care
vigilance Sustained attention — staying responsive over time PVT (reaction time to random cues) First thing fatigue erodes; the most validated signal
divided attn Doing two things at once Dual-task / tracking + cue First thing low-dose alcohol erodes
speed Processing / psychomotor speed Digit-Symbol (DSST), choice RT Sensitive to almost everything — great screen, poor at naming the cause
working mem Holding & manipulating info for seconds n-back Hit by alcohol, cannabis, benzodiazepines
inhibition Suppressing an automatic response (executive control) Go/No-Go, Stroop Alcohol degrades it sharply → impulsive errors
time Sense of elapsed time Time-estimation Distorted distinctively by cannabis — near-signature
The leverage point Notice the right-hand column. Because different causes hit different domains, a battery of tasks can do something a single task can't: hint at what kind of impairment, not just whether someone is impaired. That's the difference between a breathalyzer (one substance) and a behavioral assessment (the effect, whatever the cause).[3] We'll unpack each fingerprint in Lesson 2.

One subtlety that trips people up

"Executive function" is not a single domain you can cover with one clever task. The field-standard model (Miyake) splits it into three separable pieces — inhibition, updating, and shifting.[4] If your assessment claims to test "executive function" with a single game, it's measuring one slice and missing two. Precision about domains protects you from over-claiming.

Check yourself

Retrieval, not recognition — try to answer before you read the options.

Sleep deprivation degrades which domain first?

Why is the PVT such a strong impairment signal?

A single task that probes only processing speed is a weak diagnostic because it...

Your single win

You can now say: impairment is degradation across separable domains; each task is a bet on one domain; and a battery's power comes from covering the domains your target impairments actually hit. Hold that frame — Lesson 2 fills in the fingerprints (alcohol vs. cannabis vs. fatigue), and Lesson 3 turns to the measurement science that decides whether your detector can be trusted.

Primary source — read this next NIH Toolbox — Cognition Assessments. A free, government-built battery that maps each task to the subdomain it targets. Browse it as a concrete, validated example of the map above turned into real tasks. (For the deeper taxonomy, see Sachdev et al. 2014 in RESOURCES.)
I'm your teacher — ask me anything. Want a domain mapped onto a specific task in your assessment? Curious whether a game you're prototyping has a ceiling problem? Bring it to the chat and we'll work it through.

References

  1. [1] Sachdev et al., Classifying Neurocognitive Disorders: The DSM-5 Approach, Nature Reviews Neurology (2014).
  2. [2] Weintraub et al., The Cognition Battery of the NIH Toolbox, JINS (2014); Cambridge Cognition, CANTAB.
  3. [3] Burns & Hiller-Sturmhöfel, Fitness-for-Duty Testing, NIAAA (1995).
  4. [4] Miyake et al., The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions, Cognitive Psychology (2000).
← Glossary Lesson 2: Impairment Fingerprints →