Human Factors & UX for Neuro/Psych Apps
Comfortable, comprehensible, and hard to misuse.
Use this for
-
Consent, onboarding, or tasks feel confusing or fatiguing.
-
Clinicians/patients misinterpret flows; errors show up in logs.
-
You need 62366-style usability evidence for review.
-
You want bias-aware microcopy and decisions users can trust.
What you walk away with
-
HF/UX plan — users, contexts, critical tasks, hazards, success criteria.
-
Formative studies — think-aloud/remote/in-situ sessions with quick iteration cycles.
-
Summative test — pass/fail on critical tasks, residual-risk rationale.
-
Copy deck — consent, instructions, warnings, bias nudges, multilingual options.
-
Cognitive load readout — attention/effort metrics and redesigns that stick.
-
Evidence pack — protocols, findings, figures/tables, submission-ready text blocks.
Patterns we reach for
-
Critical-path first — design around the few steps that can hurt outcomes.
-
Plain-language defaults — reading grade targets with comprehension checks.
-
Guardrails over warnings — prevent errors.
-
Bias-aware UX — defaults, examples, and “why this” prompts in context.
-
Accessibility early — contrast, keyboard, motion, captions baked in.
Quality gates
-
Critical-task success: ≥ 90% (with mitigations for the rest).
-
Comprehension: check-questions ≥ 90% correct at target reading grade.
-
Load/effort: task time and NASA-TLX within budget; no red-zone peaks.
-
Error handling: clear escapes/undo; no dead-ends; audit trail intact.
-
Traceability: hazard ↔ task ↔ control ↔ evidence in one table.
Rapid · 2–3 weeks
Formative sprint
- Map critical tasks, run think-alouds, fix, re-test.
- Copy deck (v1) for consent/instructions; accessibility notes.
Build · 4–6 weeks
Summative-ready [ack
- HF/UX plan, moderator guides, fixtures/stimuli.
- Summative protocol and success criteria, pilot run, report template.
Summative (By Arrangement)
Pass/fail & residual risk
- Execute summative test, analyze errors, finalize report & traceability.
Example runs
ePRO consent + onboarding with comprehension checks and bilingual copy.
Clinician workflow for rating/annotation: error traps, confirmations, audit trail.
At-home tasks: timing windows, reminders, and fatigue-safe patterns.
AI explanation surfaces: uncertainty display, refusal logic, and handoff.
Boundaries
-
Evidence wins.
-
If a step can be misused, it often will— we design the guardrails.
-
Rapid cycles until critical tasks pass, then seal it.
-
Make the right way the easy way.
Turn ideas into results that travel.
Book a 15-minute consultation or request the HF/UX sample pack.
FAQ
Do you test with both clinicians and patients?
Yes—separate protocols, different risks and language.
Remote or in-person?
Both. We match context (clinic, home, noisy world) to the risk of the task.
Will this satisfy medical-device expectations?
We align artifacts to human-factors/usability files reviewers expect (e.g., IEC 62366-1 style).
Can you rewrite our consent flow?
Yes—evidence-based microcopy with comprehension checks and multilingual options.
How do you measure cognitive load?
Task-time distributions, error taxonomy, NASA-TLX (or equivalent), and where relevant, lightweight attention/load probes.
Need Some Help?
Feel free to contact us for any inquiry or book a free consultation.
