NeuroScape

Designing NeuroScape from the ground up

Role UX Researcher + Designer
Timeline May 2023 – Aug 2024
Methods Field Study · Interviews · Usability Testing
Tools Figma · Notion · Otter.ai
NeuroScape hi-fi screen
1000+
Clinic patients observed
80%
Patients repeating the same exercise 3+ times/month
85%
User preference for NeuroScape over existing methods
Increase in therapy engagement

00 — Overview

A pattern of demotivation I couldn't ignore

During my summer psychology internship, I observed a recurring pattern: patients attended therapy once or twice a week, working through the same exercises, while their families waited 3–4 hours at the clinic. The result was predictable — frustration, stagnant progress, and disengagement.

This cycle reinforced itself. Less frequent sessions meant less variety. Less variety meant less motivation. Less motivation meant slower recovery. I designed NeuroScape to break it.

Long wait times
Effort barrier
Infrequent sessions
Access barrier
Repetitive exercises
Frustration
Demotivation
Impact
Stagnant recovery
Outcome

What NeuroScape provides

  1. Personalized exercises tailored to each patient's condition — so no two sessions feel the same.
  2. Progress tracking with visual dashboards — so patients and caregivers can see growth over time.
  3. At-home access — therapy continues between clinic visits, not just during them.
  4. Caregiver support tools — family members stay informed and involved in the recovery journey.

01 — Research

Three-phase research to understand the real problem

I started with secondary research to understand the field, moved into a month-long field study, and then conducted semi-structured interviews — collaborating with 3 professors to refine the interview schedule and ensure unbiased, non-leading questions.

Secondary research — what the literature confirmed

A literature review on rehabilitation issues confirmed the problem was systemic, not individual. Three statistics stood out:

55%

of studies in a meta-analysis favored online rehab over in-person care.

70%

of patients show greater improvement with 2–3 weekly sessions vs. once a week.

60%

better word retrieval performance in remote therapy participants vs. control.

Field study — observing 10 patients over a month

I observed 10 patients multiple times per week to gather firsthand insights into their rehabilitation patterns. The data was striking.

Field study table displaying patient engagement data: session dates, waiting times, frequency, exercise repetition, and engagement levels.
Field study data — session frequency, wait times, exercise repetition, and engagement levels across 10 patients over one month
Key finding
80% of patients repeated the same exercise 3+ times in a month, with 60% attending only weekly sessions.
Hypothesis
Lower visit frequency + repetitive exercises = stagnant recovery journey?

Interviews — 6 qualitative sessions

I conducted semi-structured interviews with 4 patients (stroke, mild TBI, and Alzheimer's) and 2 caregivers — exploring pain points, preferences, and feedback on existing tools.

Mind map of recurring themes and participant statements from cognitive rehabilitation interviews.
Thematic analysis mind map — visualizing recurring patterns across all 6 interviews
"We live very far away, and coming here twice a week gets expensive."
"If I'm being honest, I feel he is doing the same task again and again. I want to see improvement."
"We understand this is a life-long thing now. But coming here every week is getting tough."

02 — Insights

4 themes that shaped the entire design

After transcription and thematic analysis, four recurring themes emerged — each pointing directly to a design decision.

  1. Access barriers. Financial constraints and therapist availability limited how often patients could attend sessions.
  2. Return on investment. Patients felt stagnant — they wanted to see measurable progress, not just show up and repeat.
  3. Long-term therapy integration. Recovery is a life-long process. Patients needed a way to integrate rehab into daily routines.
  4. Caregiver support. Caregivers were deeply involved but had no tools to track or support progress from home.

Competitive analysis — what's missing

Evaluating HeadApp, Lumosity, and CogniFit across 5 dimensions revealed a consistent gap: none offered both personalization and progress tracking for neurological patients specifically.

FeatureHeadAppLumosityCogniFitNeuroScape
Ease of analysis
Progress tracking
Price$19.99/mo$11.99/mo$19.99/moFree (research)
PersonalizationCognitive profileNot user-specificNot user-specificCondition-specific
Target audienceBrain injuriesGeneralGeneralRehab patients & caregivers

03 — Design

From sketches to structure

Using the Crazy 8s method, I rapidly explored diverse concepts — mood boards guided the aesthetic direction. Low-fidelity prototypes kept focus on content and flow before committing to any visual direction.

Low-fidelity prototypes for NeuroScape: onboarding screens, homepage, memory task, and memory test flows.
Low-fidelity prototypes — onboarding flow, homepage, memory task, and memory test

04 — Testing

Two rounds of testing, three significant changes

I ran moderated usability testing with 4 participants (3 patients + 1 caregiver) using mid-fidelity prototypes and a think-aloud protocol across 5 tasks. Their feedback drove targeted revisions before the high-fidelity pass.

What testing revealed — and what changed

Change 1 — Back button + voice input
Before Onboarding before: less visible back button, no voice input.
Back button not visible. No voice input option.
After Onboarding after: visible back button, voice input added.
Back button made more intuitive. Voice input added for users with fine motor complications.
Change 2 — Difficulty bars + progress indicator
Before Before: confusing difficulty bars, small progress indicator.
"Difficulty" bars confusing · Progress indicator too small · Bottom nav invisible.
After After: difficulty bars removed, larger progress indicator.
Difficulty bars removed · Progress indicator enlarged · Icons per domain for recognition.
Change 3 — Word display + timer distraction
Before Before: words looked like buttons, distracting timer.
Words looked like buttons · Timer too distracting.
After After: boundaries removed, timer reduced.
Boundaries removed — looks like a list · Timer size reduced.

Round 1 usability testing insights

Five tasks tested across 4 participants using the think-aloud protocol. Testing images below show annotated insights per screen.

User testing insight 1
User testing insight 2
User testing insight 3
User testing insight 4
User testing insight 5

05 — Solution

The complete NeuroScape flow

The final high-fidelity design focused on a seamless, intuitive journey for both patients and caregivers — simplifying complex rehab tasks into manageable, engaging steps that fit into daily life.

06 — Reflection

What this project taught me

  1. Research your field deeply. Having in-depth knowledge of cognitive rehabilitation let me frame interview questions that resonated with users. The field context shaped every design decision.
  2. Resist the pull toward polish. It required conscious effort to stay low-fidelity early — embracing roughness to explore broader ideas before committing to any direction.
  3. Ideate in many dimensions. Crazy 8s, mood boards, and mind mapping in combination produced richer outcomes than any single method alone.

NeuroScape — UX Research + Interaction Design  ·  2023–2024