ArticleDelaware journal of public health2026
Beyond Cognitive Load: AI-Based Estimation of Cognitive Effort Using Brain Signals During Digital Tasks.
Article in Delaware journal of public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cognitive effort, defined as the relationship between cognitive load and task performance, offers insight into how individuals efficiently allocate mental resources during cognitively demanding activities. This metric is crucial in high-stakes public health and clinical training, where unmanaged cognitive overload has been linked to medical errors and workforce burnout. This study aims to examine whether cognitive effort varies systematically across task segments and whether it can be estimated at the individual level using brain signal data and machine learning. Method: Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) data were collected from 16 participants during a structured digital cognitive task comprising four sequential segments separated by short and long rest intervals. Cognitive effort was defined through relative neural efficiency and relative neural involvement, which combined measures of prefrontal hemodynamic activity with task performance. The analysis followed a two-stage approach. First, a segment-level group analysis assessed whether cognitive effort differed significantly across predefined task segments, thereby confirming that the task structure produced meaningful changes in cognitive demand. Second, participant-independent machine learning models predicted task performance from brain signal features. These predicted performance scores were then combined with neural measures to estimate cognitive effort at the individual level. Results: First, statistical analysis showed significant differences in cognitive effort across the four task segments. This confirms that even small changes in the assessment structure impact on the collective cognitive efficiency of the trainees. Then, we used machine learning on fNIRS data to predict individual performance scores. We found that the effort calculated from these predicted scores was nearly identical to that calculated from the actual scores. This result suggests that our effort metric is strongly based on brain signals. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate the feasibility of estimating cognitive effort from brain signals using artificial intelligence at both group and individual levels. Public Health Implications: Estimation of cognitive effort from digital task data may support scalable monitoring of cognitive workload and mental fatigue in technology-mediated environments, which complements subjective assessment methods used in public and digital health research.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.