Cited by 695Historical and Modern Theater StudiesDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 50 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Domains of cognition and their assessment

Open access
Harvey, Philip D.·2019·Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience

Abstract

Cognitive performance is typically conceptualized in terms of domains of functioning. These domains are hierarchical in nature, with the bottom referring to more basic sensory and perceptual processes and the top referring to elements of executive functioning and cognitive control. Domains are not independent of each other and executive functioning exerts control over the utilization of more basic processes. Assessments are typically targeted at subdomains of each ability area and careful combination of tasks can reveal patterns of performance consistent with a variety of different neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions. This review covers the general structures of domains, the patterns of impairments across domains seen in common neuropsychiatric conditions, and use of assessment strategies to differentiate, to the extent possible, between different types of conditions manifesting cognitive impairment. .

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review describes cognitive performance as organized into hierarchical domains, from basic sensation/perception to executive functioning and cognitive control, and reviews how assessments target subdomains to reveal patterns across neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions. It emphasizes that domains are intercorrelated, executive functioning supervises simpler processes, and processing speed is often the most impaired and functionally relevant domain in conditions such as schizophrenia.

Key findings

  • Cognitive domains are hierarchical and not independent: basic sensory/perceptual operations are least complex, while executive functioning/reasoning and problem solving are most complex and coordinate multiple lower-level abilities.
  • Assessment patterns can differentiate conditions: in cortical dementia and amnestic conditions, encoding, delayed recall, cued recall, and delayed recognition are all impaired; in frontostriatal conditions, encoding and delayed recall are impaired but delayed recognition and cued recall are typically spared. Similar patterns are reported in schizophrenia spectrum conditions.
  • Attention profiles differ by condition: psychotic populations commonly show increased CPT errors of omission and reduced d′ without increased errors of commission, whereas ADHD is associated with increased errors of commission and greater B; schizophrenia spectrum individuals fail to develop the normal bias to respond to nontargets when target frequency is high.
  • Processing speed is particularly important: coding-task performance is the most significant impairment in schizophrenia and the cognitive domain most strongly correlated with everyday functioning, and it tends to be the strongest predictor of overall cognitive performance. The paper also gives task examples such as digit span forward about 6 digits versus backward about 5 digits, HVLT with 12 items and 3 learning trials, CVLT with 16 items and 5 trials, and RAVLT with 15 unorganized items and 5 trials.

Methods

  • Narrative review of cognitive domains and their assessment, organized by general ability area and commenting on top-down versus bottom-up structure and regional brain functioning.
  • No primary data, systematic sample, or quantitative synthesis are reported; the paper synthesizes cited neuropsychological tests, clinical populations, and prior literature.
  • Main analysis is conceptual: it reviews performance-based assessments and then observational/self-reported functioning, with focus on humans.

Limitations

  • The paper states that fully addressing assessment of memory-disordered populations is beyond its scope, and it notes inconsistencies in the clinical/research literature about whether some processes belong in broader domains such as executive functioning or simpler domains such as processing speed.
  • The paper also states that some cognitive abilities may not be clearly separable into one domain or another.
  • Evident from the text: this is a narrative review without a systematic search, meta-analysis, or empirical sample, and the paper itself notes that larger factor-analytic studies often find a single global ability factor, raising questions about the separability of conventional cognitive domains.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31887/dcns.2019.21.3/pharvey

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Table 1. Domains of cognitive functioning: presented as a bottom-up conceptualization.
Table 1. Domains of cognitive functioning: presented as a bottom-up conceptualization.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 1. Global-local stimulus.
Figure 1. Global-local stimulus.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

44 Not checked yet · 37 No basis given · 26 Own interpretation

Verify all 50 references — free account

Show all 35 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 53
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 32
72 of 72
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Cognitive performance is typically conceptualized in terms of domains of functioning.

    “Cognitive performance is typically conceptualized in terms of domains of functioning.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The nature of most cognitive domains is generally agreed upon.

    “Although the nature of most of these domains is generally agreed upon”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    An intact frontal cortex is critical for performance of executive functions.

    “An intact frontal cortex is certainly critical for performance of executive functions”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Processing speed tends to be the strongest predictor of overall cognitive performance on cognitive assessment batteries, loading most highly on single factor solutions of cognitive ability.

    “Another critical feature of processing speed is that it tends to be the strongest predictor of overall cognitive performance, on cognitive assessment batteries, loading most highly on single factor solutions of cognitive ability.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Populations with challenges in processing speed include major depression, severe mental illnesses, Parkinson’s disease, and both cortical and frontostriatal degenerative conditions.

    “Populations with challenges in processing speed include major depression, severe mental illnesses, Parkinson’s disease, and both cortical and frontostriatal degenerative conditions.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Language abilities can be impaired in neuropsychiatric conditions but are much more commonly impaired in conditions involving brain damage, stroke, or degenerative dementia.

    “Language abilities can be impaired in neuropsychiatric conditions but are much more commonly impaired in conditions involving brain damage, stroke, or degenerative dementia.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The rapid forgetting of adequately learned information, specifically defined as lack of perseveration of recognition and cued recall, is a robust finding in populations who have medial temporal lobe brain dysfunction.

    “Most importantly, the rapid forgetting of adequately learned information, specifically defined as lack of perseveration of recognition and cued recall, is a robust finding in populations who have medial temporal lobe brain dysfunction.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Brain imaging allows for the differentiation of impairments in different brain regions.

    “Also, brain imaging allows for the differentiation of impairments in different brain regions.”
8 of 8

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. LezakMDHowiesonDBBiglerEDTranelD2012 New York, NY Oxford University Press
  2. Babcock HA, 1930, Arch Psychol, 117, 105
  3. DamasioHDamasioAR1989 New York, NY Oxford University Press
  4. CoslettHBGottfriedJASensory agnosias2011 Boca Raton, F CRC Press/Taylor & Francis
  5. Warrington E, 1991, The Visual and Object and Space Perception Battery
  6. ReitanRMWolfsonD1983 Tuscon, AZ Neuropsychology Press
  7. StraussEShermanEMSSpreenO2006 New York, NY Oxford University Press
  8. Corwin JL, 1993, Clin Neuropsychologist, 12, 47
  9. Ball K, 1993, J Am Optom Assoc, 64, 71
  10. Connors C.K, 1985, Psychopharmacol Bull, 21, 891
  11. Wechsler D, 1997, .
  12. Dickinson D, 2008, Psychiatry, 64, 823
  13. Harvey PD, 2016, Neuropsychology, 30, 28, 10.1037/neu0000245 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 695

Metadata

Authors
Harvey, P. D.
Affiliations
University of Miami (US)
Corresponding author
Harvey, Philip D.
Venue
Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience
Published
2019-09-30
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
227-237
ISSN
  • 1294-8322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1958-5969
OpenAlex
W2991049508
Cited by
695
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 112 · 2025: 154 · 2024: 142 · 2023: 128 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 12
FWCI
6.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Sanofi
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
  • Sunovion
  • Otsuka America
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
cognitive domain, executive function, cognitive control, neuropsychiatric disorders, cognitive impairment, neuropsychological assessment, differential diagnosis
MeSH terms
Attention, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Memory, Motor Skills, Neuropsychological Tests, Executive Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review