Baseline your brain in under ten minutes, then watch how it moves — across sleep, medication, caffeine, seasons, years. You, compared to you. No population averages, no leaderboard.
A -gram is a written trace. A cardiogram of the heart. An encephalogram of the brain. Cognogram is one of the mind at work.
Eight short, well-worn tests take a reading of how your brain is doing today — across processing speed, sustained attention, impulse control, working memory and executive flexibility — and turn it into a number you can watch over time. The only benchmark that matters is your own last lap.
One baseline. Then every lap after it.
Eight tests, arranged into the five domains they measure. Not a theory of the mind — just an honest map of what these particular tasks can see.
Most tests rank you against a population. Cognogram compares you to your own baseline — statistically powerful, and honest about what it can claim.
The full battery is under ten minutes; a single check-in is sixty seconds. Run it rested before a med change, or groggy on four hours of sleep — it picks up the difference either way.
Every lap is saved and dated. Watch a trajectory build — then hand your clinician a clean report, not a hunch.
Where a result is uncertain, it says so and prints the range. Where two distributions overlap, it draws the overlap. Every method and limitation is published in full.
Most brain-training apps wrap an invented task in a game. We did the reverse — took paradigms that already exist in the published literature and changed only the scoring. No account needed to play.
Not how fast you are — how consistent. The target band tightens every time you land inside it.
A light stays on, then goes out. Hold for exactly as long as it was lit. No counting.
Hit every green. Never hit a red. Red shows up a quarter of the time — which is what makes it hard.
Once there is a baseline to compare against, the same eight tests can be pointed at specific, falsifiable questions. Each of these states plainly what it can and cannot conclude.
Run a vigilance task repeatedly across one session while a model tracks how much caffeine is actually in your bloodstream, minute by minute.
On-medication runs against your own clean off-medication runs, matched for time of day. An effect size instead of an impression.
A validated screener alongside attention measured at two timescales and under two levels of arousal — because how your attention moves says more than where it sits.
Two matched short nights — one without creatine, one with. The comparison is the change from your own evening baseline on each.
Most self-tracking tools ship a measurement, imply it means something, and never say what it could not have detected. Here is the arithmetic in the other direction. Every question is a ratio: the size of an effect over the size of your own noise. The numerator gets all the attention; the denominator decides whether any of it is knowable.
Those counts are for one person. Sixty paired sessions is an impossible ask alone and an entirely ordinary study across thirty people doing two nights each.
The individual question is hard. The population question is easy. Conflating the two is the standard error in this whole category — consumer tools claim population findings from an individual's data, and researchers dismiss self-tracking because the individual case is weak. Both are looking at the wrong axis.
Sleep loss is the clear winner here, and it isn't close: two to four times larger than anything else on the list. If Cognogram is good at one thing, it is telling you what a bad night costs you.
Every question above is limited by one thing: how many people run a consistent protocol and keep running it. A single session contributes almost nothing. Ten matched sessions from one person contributes a usable noise estimate — the denominator this entire page is currently forced to assume.
If you take creatine, drink coffee, take a stimulant, or simply sleep badly and want to know what it costs you: the most useful thing you can do is establish a baseline and be boring about it. Same time of day, same device, repeatedly. That is unglamorous, and it is the entire input this needs.
Research preview. Not a medical device, not a diagnostic instrument. Data stays on your device unless you choose otherwise; contribution to any aggregate is opt-in, off by default, and no collection has begun — that requires ethical review and a published governance policy first.