Skip to main content
The Analysis page displays performance across four cognitive domains and a baseline quality indicator. Each domain reflects how a test taker performed relative to the general driving population. Cognitive Performance Overview A performance level of 1 in a cognitive domain indicates the test taker scored in the lowest 1% of the related driving population, while a performance level of 99 indicates the highest 1%. A score of 50 represents typical performance. Performance levels are calculated relative to first-time test takers, so scores may improve with practice. Not all cognitive domains contribute equally to overall risk and individual domain scores should not be used on their own to determine or override a test taker’s safety status. Safety decisions are best informed by the test taker’s overall standing, which weighs all domains together. If test takers are testing as part of a daily testing project, they will naturally improve their performance over time due to the effects of practice. Because of this, day-to-day changes in a test taker’s scores are more meaningful for detecting acute risk than comparing back to their first test. This is already accounted for in the test taker’s overall safety status, which is why it is the single recommended metric for gauging safety-sensitive risk rather than individual cognitive domain scores at a point in time.

​
Reaction Time

Reaction Time measures the speed of response to stimuli, captured during Tasks 1 and 2 of the test. Faster and more consistent reaction times correspond to higher performance levels 1. High Reaction Time performance indicates quick, consistent responses.

​
Attention

Attention measures visual scanning speed and sustained focus, captured during Tasks 3 and 4 of the test. These tasks require the test taker to locate and connect numbered targets in sequence, measuring how quickly and accurately they can scan the display and maintain focus 2. High Attention performance indicates the test taker maintained consistent focus and efficient visual scanning.

​
Executive Function

Executive Function measures higher-order cognitive planning, flexibility, and working memory, captured during Tasks 5 and 6 of the test. These tasks require the test taker to connect targets in an alternating sequence (for example, switching between numbers and letters), testing their ability to switch between rules, hold information in working memory, and plan ahead 3. High Executive Function performance indicates strong cognitive flexibility, working memory, and planning ability.

​
Control

Control measures the ability to regulate physical responses during testing, captured across all six tasks of the test. It reflects how precisely the test taker interacts with the device, where smooth, deliberate movements correspond to higher performance levels than erratic or imprecise ones 4. High Control performance suggests the test taker was physically steady and deliberate.

​
Baseline Quality

Baseline Quality indicates how reliable the cognitive performance measurements are based on the number of prior tests for this individual. More tests provide a stronger baseline for comparison, making the results more meaningful. Baseline Quality is designed for daily testing environments where test takers complete tests on a regular basis. There are three calibration stages:
StageTests CompletedWhat It Means
CalibratingFewer than 10The system is still collecting data. Performance levels may shift as more tests are completed. Encourage the test taker to continue testing to establish an acceptable baseline.
Acceptable10 to 29Enough data exists for meaningful comparisons. Performance measurements are reasonably stable, though additional tests will continue to improve reliability.
Excellent30 or moreA robust baseline has been established. The test taker has completed enough tests for reliable performance measurements, suitable for confident decision-making.
The baseline count includes all tests completed by a test taker across any project in your workspace.

​
References

1. Sheppard, L. D., & Vernon, P. A. (2008). Intelligence and speed of information-processing: A review of 50 years of research. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(3), 535-551. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.015 2. Sanchez-Cubillo, I., Perianez, J. A., Adrover-Roig, D., Rodriguez-Sanchez, J. M., Rios-Lago, M., & Tirapu, J. (2009). Construct validity of the Trail Making Test: Role of task-switching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and visuomotor abilities. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15(3), 438-450. doi:10.1017/S1355617709090626 3. Arbuthnott, K., & Frank, J. (2000). Trail Making Test, Part B as a measure of executive control: Validation using a set-switching paradigm. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22(4), 518-528. doi:10.1076/1380-3395(200008)22:4;1-0;FT518 4. Memedi, M., Sadikov, A., Groznik, V., Zabkar, J., Mozina, M., Bergquist, F., Johansson, A., Haubenberger, D., & Nyholm, D. (2015). Automatic spiral analysis for objective assessment of motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease. Sensors, 15(9), 23727-23744. doi:10.3390/s150923727