Next-generation cognitive assessment: Combining functional brain imaging, system perturbations and novel equipment interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional cognitive assessment is widely used in clinical and research settings, in educational institutions, and in the corporate world for personnel selection. Such approaches involve having a client, a patient, or a research participant complete a series of standardized cognitive tasks in order to challenge specific and global cognitive abilities, and then quantify performance for the desired end purpose. The latter may include a diagnostic confirmation of a disease, description of a state or ability, or matching cognitive characteristics to a particular occupational role requirement. Metrics derived from cognitive assessments are putatively informative about important features of the brain and its function. For this reason, the research sector also makes use of cognitive assessments, most frequently as a stimulus for cognitive activity from which to extract functional neuroimaging data. Such "task-related activations" form the core of the most widely used neuroimaging technologies, such as fMRI. Much of what we know about the brain has been drawn from the interleaving of cognitive assessments of various types with functional brain imaging technologies. Despite innovation in neuroimaging (i.e., quantifying the neural response), relatively little innovation has occurred on task presentation and volitional response measurement; yet these together comprise the core of cognitive performance. Moreover, even when cognitive assessment is interleaved with functional neuroimaging, this is most often undertaken in the research domain, rather than the primary applications of cognitive assessment in diagnosis and monitoring, education and personnel selection. There are new ways in which brain imaging-and even more importantly, brain modulation-technologies can be combined with automation and artificial intelligence to deliver next-generation cognitive assessment methods. In this review paper, we describe some prototypes for how this can be done and identify important areas for progress (technological and otherwise) to enable it to happen. We will argue that the future of cognitive assessment will include semi- and fully-automated assessments involving neuroimaging, standardized perturbations via neuromodulation technologies, and artificial intelligence. Furthermore, the fact that cognitive assessments take place in a social/interpersonal context-normally between the patient and clinician-makes the human-machine interface consequential, and this will also be discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".