Skip to main content

Science

A workplace map of how you work.

neuriprint helps people and organizations see strengths, working style, and what drains or sharpens someone at work. It is built for professional life: clearer conversations, safer recognition, and shared language. The individual owns their neuriprint.

What neuriprint measures

neuriprint maps four workplace realities:

  • Strengths: where attention, pattern, and energy tend to show up at work
  • Working style: how someone prefers to think, communicate, and deliver
  • What drains: conditions and demands that cost more than they return
  • What sharpens: conditions that unlock clearer, more reliable performance

Many professionals have neurodivergent traits they've never recognised. They've spent years working around what drains them without knowing why. neuriprint makes those patterns visible in the language of work, so people understand how their mind works, stop blaming themselves, and act with confidence: asking for what helps and using their strengths on purpose. What someone does with that insight, including exploring it with a professional, is always their choice.

The point is to make intelligence visible in the language of work, so managers and individuals can act without guessing, and without forcing clinical disclosure.

That gap between intelligence present and the ability to recognise and apply it safely is what we call the Neuroinclusivity Gap. neuriprint is the recognition layer that starts to close it.

Sixteen current assessments

Begin with 1st Assessment, then explore fifteen follow-on assessments to deepen your understanding of how you work.

Your neuriprint starts in minutes and builds over time. Each step adds depth to your understanding of how you work.

The assessments span five families.

Family 1 · 1 assessment

Foundation

  1. 1st Assessment: builds the foundation for your neuriprint.

Later assessments deepen that picture while your 1st Assessment stays part of every result.

Family 2 · 5 assessments

Attention, social and processing patterns

Explore how everyday demands and environments shape your work.

  1. Attention and focus patterns: sustaining attention and switching between tasks.
  2. Social and sensory patterns: communication preferences and responses to your surroundings.
  3. Reading and language patterns: working with written information.
  4. Coordination and sequencing patterns: organizing actions and practical tasks.
  5. Number-processing patterns: working with numbers and quantities.
Family 3 · 7 assessments

Personality and work style

  1. Personality patterns: preferences in how you approach people, ideas, and work.
  2. Work-style preferences: a custom work-style inventory.
  3. Motivation and relationships: what draws your interest and how you relate to others.
  4. Learning preferences: the ways you prefer to take in information.
  5. Communication style: how you prefer to exchange information.
  6. Productivity patterns: the conditions and rhythms that help you work.
  7. Memory preferences: the strategies you prefer for remembering information.
Family 4 · 2 assessments

Performance tasks

  1. Response control: a short task exploring attention and how you respond or pause.
  2. Sustained attention: a short sustained-attention task.
Family 5 · 1 assessment

Eye tracking (optional, on desktop)

  1. Visual search: explores how you look through information on screen.

Visual search is included in the sixteen assessments. Taking it is optional and requires a desktop.

Eye tracking is optional and has only a small influence on some traits. Those traits can influence the Index indirectly; eye tracking does not contribute to it directly.

How the mix scores together

1st Assessment lays the foundation. Later assessments deepen the map, bringing your answers and task experiences together while your 1st Assessment stays part of every result.

neuriprint brings together your answers, task timings and calculated results to describe workplace strengths and working style.

The Strengths Index (−5…+5)

neuriprint’s Strengths Index brings together 20 workplace-strength metrics on a −5 to +5 scale, with evidence confidence and practical interpretation for each result.

Low confidence means foundation or limited supporting evidence; medium means growing evidence; high means stronger evidence coverage. These labels describe evidence depth, not ability or certainty that a result is correct.

Negative values indicate lower expression of a particular pattern on this internal scale, not lower ability or worth. The scale is not a ranking against other people. Read each result alongside your working conditions, experience and the confidence shown with it.

  • Proprietary
  • Evidence-informed
STRENGTHS INDEX · WORKPLACE SCALE−50+5+2
The Index offers a shared workplace language for strengths, not a diagnostic score.

Evidence and scoring

neuriprint draws on established, peer-reviewed questionnaires with published validation evidence, alongside proprietary assessments built on well-researched designs. neuriprint scores them in its own way for workplace use.

neuriprint combines assessment responses through a proprietary scoring model to describe workplace strengths and working style. The scoring model is refined as the evidence grows.

Published research informs the source questionnaires and task designs; neuriprint applies its own workplace scoring model. Evidence for those sources is separate from validation of neuriprint’s scoring.

Learning, motivation and work-style questionnaires give people language to reflect on their preferences and discuss what helps them at work.

Ongoing research

We are running ongoing research in real workplace settings to validate neuriprint's scoring. That means collecting consented, anonymised data and testing how well results hold up over time and how closely they match what people and teams experience at work. We'll publish a summary of results every quarter, including what has held up and what we have changed.

First results: .

Clear boundaries

Diagnosis stays separate from the print.

neuriprint isneuriprint is not
A workplace strengths and working-style mapA diagnostic tool
Owned by the individualA medical device
Consent-led when sharedFor hiring, promotion, pay, performance, task allocation or termination
Useful for neuroinclusive conversationClinical treatment advice

With your permission, Task Intelligence can adapt how work is presented using the insight you choose to share. People decide who does the work.

Whatever someone chooses to share, neuriprint adds what actually helps at work. It gives individuals, and the managers they choose to share with, a consent-led, work-specific picture of strengths, drains and the conditions that sharpen performance, so conversations about workplace adjustments and support are better informed and easier to record. neuriprint informs conversations about how people work best; decisions stay with people.

neuriprint doesn't replace disclosure, occupational health or Access to Work, and support should never depend on completing it.

You don't need a diagnosis to have workplace needs, and employers don't need one to act. Where the Equality Act 2010 duty to make reasonable adjustments applies, it doesn't depend on a formal diagnosis. Waiting lists can run for years, and some people never seek one. neuriprint helps close that gap: a consent-led, work-specific picture of what drains and sharpens someone, so adjustment conversations can start now, not after a diagnosis.

In the US, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations for qualified people with disabilities, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. You can start the conversation in plain language. If the disability or need for accommodation is not obvious, an employer may request reasonable documentation.

neuriprint does not prove disability or fulfil an employer's legal duty. It helps inform conversations about workplace adjustments and support.

The individual decides what to share. Read our Privacy Notice for details about who controls the data, the legal bases for processing, retention, withdrawal and your rights.

Trusted Intelligence means you control who sees your neuriprint and what you share. The people you choose to share with can use that insight to discuss what helps you at work.

Research references

Selected research on measurement, cognition and assessment methods.

neuriprint's work-style, motivation and learning inventories are its own; the research below discusses the frameworks they are compared with.

How we approach measurement
  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
Number-processing patterns
  • Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature, 455(7213), 665–668. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07246
Personality patterns
  • John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). Guilford Press. Author’s publication record (no DOI)
  • Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.729
Work-style preferences

These questionnaires support reflection, not prediction of performance.

Motivation and relationships

These questionnaires support reflection, not prediction of performance.

  • Newgent, R. A., Parr, P. H., Newman, I., & Wiggins, K. K. (2004). The Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator: Estimates of reliability and validity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36(4), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2004.11909744
  • Hook, J. N., Hall, T. W., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Conner, M. (2021). The Enneagram: A systematic review of the literature and directions for future research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 865–883. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23097
Learning preferences

These questionnaires support reflection, not prediction of performance.

  • Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11(1), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.1992.tb00213.x
  • Leite, W. L., Svinicki, M., & Shi, Y. (2010). Attempted validation of the scores of the VARK: Learning styles inventory with multitrait–multimethod confirmatory factor analysis models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(2), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409344507
  • Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
  • Husmann, P. R., & O'Loughlin, V. D. (2019). Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among undergraduate anatomy students' study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles. Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777
Communication style
  • de Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., Konings, F. E., & Schouten, B. (2013). The Communication Styles Inventory (CSI): A six-dimensional behavioral model of communication styles and its relation with personality. Communication Research, 40(4), 506–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211413571
Productivity patterns
  • Horne, J. A., & Östberg, O. (1976). A self-assessment questionnaire to determine morningness-eveningness in human circadian rhythms. International Journal of Chronobiology, 4(2), 97–110. PubMed record (no DOI)
  • Roenneberg, T., Wirz-Justice, A., & Merrow, M. (2003). Life between clocks: Daily temporal patterns of human chronotypes. Journal of Biological Rhythms, 18(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748730402239679
  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Memory preferences
  • Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080017
  • Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
  • McCabe, J. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory & Cognition, 39(3), 462–476. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0035-2
  • Troyer, A. K., & Rich, J. B. (2002). Psychometric properties of a new metamemory questionnaire for older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(1), P19–P27. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/57.1.P19
  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
Response control
  • Simmonds, D. J., Pekar, J. J., & Mostofsky, S. H. (2008). Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent. Neuropsychologia, 46(1), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.015
  • Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166–1186. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1
Sustained attention
  • Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., & Yiend, J. (1997). ‘Oops!’: Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35(6), 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00015-8
Eye tracking
  • Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5
  • Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36(12), 1827–1837. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(95)00294-4
  • Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2017). Five factors that guide attention in visual search. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(3), Article 0058. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0058
  • Wolfe, J. M. (2021). Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(4), 1060–1092. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01859-9
  • Papoutsaki, A., Sangkloy, P., Laskey, J., Daskalova, N., Huang, J., & Hays, J. (2016). WebGazer: Scalable webcam eye tracking using user interactions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-16) (pp. 3839–3845). Conference record (no DOI)
  • Semmelmann, K., & Weigelt, S. (2018). Online webcam-based eye tracking in cognitive science: A first look. Behavior Research Methods, 50(2), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0913-7
  • Orquin, J. L., & Holmqvist, K. (2018). Threats to the validity of eye-movement research in psychology. Behavior Research Methods, 50(4), 1645–1656. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0998-z
  • Van der Cruyssen, I., Ben-Shakhar, G., Pertzov, Y., Guy, N., Cabooter, Q., Gunschera, L. J., & Verschuere, B. (2024). The validation of online webcam-based eye-tracking: The replication of the cascade effect, the novelty preference, and the visual world paradigm. Behavior Research Methods, 56(5), 4836–4849. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02221-2
  • Kaduk, T., Goeke, C., Finger, H., & König, P. (2024). Webcam eye tracking close to laboratory standards: Comparing a new webcam-based system and the EyeLink 1000. Behavior Research Methods, 56(5), 5002–5022. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02237-8

See neuriprint in context, or practise neuroinclusion on real work.

Arrange LiveLabsRead the science blog
neuralpage

neuralpage options

This page uses a fixed layout.