How to Assess and Progress an Athlete’s Cognitive Training Plan

Progressing a cognitive training plan is one of the most important parts of developing long term cognitive performance. The brain adapts in the same way the body adapts. When an athlete is repeatedly exposed to the same stimulus, the load eventually becomes too familiar and no longer challenges the brain. At this point the training effect begins to decline. A well designed assessment process prevents this problem by clearly identifying what changed, what did not, and what needs to happen next. Baseline data allows you to build the next phase of the training plan with accuracy, instead of relying on guesswork or subjective impressions.

This article explains how to assess an athlete’s baseline, how to interpret the three most important metrics, how to identify strengths and weaknesses, and how to build a progressive training block using structured ratios. It provides a step by step approach to keeping cognitive training targeted, effective and dynamic throughout the entire training journey.

A baseline at the beginning and end of a training block exists for one purpose.

It tells you whether the athlete actually adapted.

Unlike physical training where improvements can sometimes be seen externally, cognitive adaptation is not visible unless measured. Two athletes can complete the same tasks with the same apparent effort, yet their cognitive data may tell very different stories. Some demands may show strong improvement, some may stall and others may even decline.

Cognitive adaptation is rarely balanced. It is normal for certain skills to progress much faster than others. For example, an athlete may improve reaction time on attention tasks while showing no improvement in tasks involving inhibition, switching or decision making. The baseline highlights these uneven patterns so you know exactly where the athlete improved and where the next block should focus. Without this information, you may risk repeating the same training structure and failing to address the areas that actually need attention.

This is the same principle used in physical training. If an athlete finishes a strength block with strong quads but weak hamstrings, the next block is adjusted to correct the imbalance. Cognitive training is identical in structure. You do not repeat the same load. You identify the weakness and target it with more exposure.

Soma provides many metrics, but three are the most reliable indicators of true cognitive adaptation.

These are:

These metrics should always be assessed as a group. No single metric is a complete reflection of performance. Reaction time can improve at the expense of accuracy. Variation can remain stable even when accuracy declines. Accuracy can look good while reaction time slows under load. When you look at all three metrics together, you get a complete picture of how well the athlete is performing under cognitive stress.

To confirm positive cognitive adaptation, all three metrics should show an improvement of at least 5 percent. A combined average of 5 percent is not enough.

Each individual metric must reach or exceed this threshold. This ensures that the athlete is not improving one skill at the expense of another. It also prevents coaches from misinterpreting partial or incomplete progress as full adaptation.

A baseline allows you to break down every task and every cognitive metric. This makes strengths and weaknesses easy to see. You will clearly see which cognitive demands improved, which demands stalled, which tasks showed the biggest adaptation, and which demands produced errors, slowdown or high variation.

These patterns show where the athlete is stable and where they are sensitive to load. They also highlight the areas that require more targeted work in the next block. This information forms the foundation of the next training phase. It removes guesswork and prevents coaches from relying on preference or assumptions. The baseline provides objective guidance so the next block can be designed with accuracy and purpose.

Progression should only occur when the athlete has clearly adapted to the current load. The key indicator of adaptation is that all three metrics improve by more than 5 percent for each task and also show an overall increase across the block.

When these criteria are met, it means the athlete is no longer being challenged by the existing training structure. If the plan remains unchanged at this point, adaptation will plateau. Increasing the load at the correct time ensures that cognitive development continues.

The next block should always be built from the baseline findings. The goal is simple:

Increase exposure to weak cognitive demands and maintain exposure to strong demands.

If a cognitive demand improved quickly, it is a strength. If a demand stalled, it is a weakness. Strengths do not need to be removed from the plan, but they do not require the same level of exposure as the athlete’s weak areas.

The most effective and proven way to structure the next block is by using training ratios.

This ratio gives twice as much exposure to the athlete’s weakest cognitive demand compared to their strengths.

Use this when adaptation is generally good but uneven. It helps correct imbalances while still allowing the athlete to progress in areas where they are performing well.

This ratio is used when the athlete has a clear performance deficit in a specific cognitive area.

This structure accelerates adaptation by creating a high volume of exposure where the athlete needs it most.

Ratios prevent the plan from becoming random or overly based on preference. They ensure that training load is placed exactly where cognitive adaptation will occur.

Weak cognitive demands are not a negative sign. They are the starting point for designing a targeted and effective training block. Improvement happens when the brain is pushed near its limit. Tasks that generate higher levels of mental fatigue usually create more adaptation, because they force the athlete to maintain performance under pressure.

Focusing on weaknesses improves:

Athletes should understand that struggling on a task is not a failure. It is a signal that the task is providing the correct stimulus for growth.

A cognitive training plan should always evolve. The process is simple and repeatable:

This cycle removes guesswork and ensures continuous development across all cognitive demands. Over time, the athlete becomes faster, more stable, more accurate and more resilient under fatigue.

This approach keeps training precise, effective and aligned with the athlete’s needs as they evolve.