Neurotypical-optimised system logic creates distance from neurodivergent cognitive patterns
A February 2026 paper from researcher Izaias Cavalcanti introduces cognitive distance as framework explaining why information systems systematically exclude neurodivergent users. Cognitive distance measures the felt gap between a system’s internal logic and a user’s mental model — how far the system’s way of thinking is from how the user thinks.
This differs fundamentally from cognitive load, which measures momentary effort. Systems can demand low effort whilst maintaining high distance. A calm interface with minimal buttons can still be incomprehensible if its underlying logic doesn’t match user cognitive patterns. The problem isn’t how hard the system works users — it’s how foreign the system’s logic feels.
For neurodivergent users, this distance isn’t accidental. Most information systems embed neurotypical cognitive patterns as default logic. They assume sustained working memory across multiple screens, implicit understanding of social conventions determining interface behaviour, linear processing from abstract instructions to concrete actions, and ability to infer system states from minimal feedback.
ADHD brains processing information through associative networks rather than linear sequences encounter systems demanding step-by-step navigation through hierarchical menus. Autistic brains requiring explicit rules and consistent patterns encounter systems where unstated social norms determine what happens next. Dyslexic users needing visual-spatial reasoning encounter text-heavy interfaces assuming phonological processing.
The distance emerges in the mismatch. Systems don’t just require effort — they require thinking in ways misaligned with neurodivergent cognitive architecture. This creates what the paper terms cognitive distance: accumulated confusion, repeated failures to form stable understanding, reliance on memorisation rather than comprehension.
Unlike cognitive load which fluctuates during tasks, cognitive distance accumulates over time. Each interaction reinforcing that the system thinks differently than the user thinks. Each update breaking fragile workarounds users developed to compensate. Each new feature assuming cognitive patterns the user doesn’t have.
ADHD and autistic cognitive patterns encounter structural distance in standard interfaces
The paper argues cognitive distance explains why technically “accessible” systems still exclude neurodivergent users. Standard accessibility guidelines focus on perceptual barriers — screen reader compatibility, keyboard navigation, colour contrast. These remain essential but don’t address cognitive accessibility for neurodivergent patterns.
ADHD users face systematic distance in systems requiring sustained working memory. Multi-step workflows where Step 3 depends on remembering information from Step 1 create structural barriers for brains that don’t naturally maintain linear information chains. The system isn’t overloading ADHD working memory — it’s demanding neurotypical working memory architecture ADHD brains don’t have.
Systems hiding critical information in nested menus assume users will remember menu structures across sessions. ADHD users who struggle with object permanence when information disappears from view must re-learn navigation patterns repeatedly. Not because they lack capacity but because the system’s logic — information organised hierarchically, accessed through memorised paths — doesn’t match associative, interest-driven ADHD navigation.
Autistic users encounter different structural distance. Systems relying on implicit social conventions to signal state changes create barriers for brains requiring explicit rules. When interface behaviour changes based on unstated assumptions about “obvious” next steps, autistic users face systems where the logic remains permanently opaque. Not because they can’t learn rules but because the system never articulates its rules, assuming neurotypical social inference.
Systems using ambiguous language assuming users will infer correct meaning from context create distance for autistic literal processing. When “save” might mean save-and-close or save-and-continue depending on unspecified context, the system demands cognitive translation autistic brains don’t automatically perform. The distance isn’t in understanding words — it’s in the gap between precise autistic interpretation and imprecise neurotypical communication the system assumes.
Feedback systems present particular barriers. Neurotypical-optimised interfaces provide minimal feedback assuming users infer system states from subtle cues. Autistic users requiring explicit confirmation whether actions succeeded face systems where “nothing happened” could mean success, failure, or processing. The cognitive distance emerges when systems expect users to know what silence means rather than stating outcomes explicitly.
The paper emphasises these aren’t capacity deficits requiring user remediation. They’re structural misalignments between system logic and neurodivergent cognitive patterns. When systems work perfectly for neurotypical users whilst excluding neurodivergent users, that reveals systems optimised for one cognitive pattern at exclusion of others.
This explains why neurodivergent users report exhaustion using systems that don’t technically overload them. The fatigue comes not from effort but from constant cognitive translation — converting the system’s neurotypical logic into neurodivergent processing patterns moment by moment, indefinitely, without systems ever meeting users halfway.
Institutional systems embed neurotypical assumptions as compounding accessibility debt
The paper introduces accessibility debt as phenomenon where systems accumulate unresolved cognitive distance that increases future remediation costs and user harm. For neurodivergent users, this debt compounds as institutional systems layer neurotypical assumptions into every design decision.
As cognitive distance grows, neurodivergent users develop workarounds compensating for misaligned system logic. These workarounds remain fragile because they patch surface symptoms rather than address underlying structural distance. When systems update, workarounds break. When contexts change, memorised patterns fail. When edge cases emerge, users lacking stable mental models cannot predict system behaviour.
Over time, institutional systems become comprehensible only to neurotypical insiders who share the embedded cognitive patterns. Training documentation proliferates attempting to explain opaque logic. Support systems expand managing user confusion. Onboarding extends trying to teach neurotypical thinking patterns to neurodivergent brains. Yet the fundamental distance — the gap between how systems think and how neurodivergent users think — persists.
Each design decision prioritising internal organisational logic over cognitive diversity widens the gap. Workflows reflecting institutional hierarchies rather than task goals assume neurotypical ability to navigate bureaucratic structures. Terminology matching professional jargon rather than user language assumes neurotypical social learning of specialised vocabularies. State transitions following unstated conventions rather than explicit rules assume neurotypical inference from social context.
The compounding accelerates because systems designed for neurotypical cognition attract neurotypical designers who reinforce neurotypical patterns. Design review processes staffed by neurotypical evaluators miss distance neurodivergent users experience. Usability testing with neurotypical participants validates neurotypical-optimised logic. The system becomes increasingly optimised for one cognitive pattern whilst distance from other patterns grows.
Institutional contexts worsen this through power asymmetries. Neurodivergent users cannot opt out of employment systems, healthcare portals, government services, or educational platforms. They must use systems creating cognitive distance or lose access to essential services. The systems face no pressure to reduce distance because users cannot exit.
The paper frames this as ethical failure, not merely technical problem. When institutions build systems comprehensible only to neurotypical cognition whilst forcing neurodivergent users to navigate them, that constitutes structural ableism embedded in information architecture. The cost isn’t distributed equally — neurodivergent users bear disproportionate burden of cognitive translation, exhaustion, error, and exclusion.
Accessibility debt compounds silently because metrics measure task completion not understanding. Neurodivergent users may complete tasks through memorisation and effort whilst never developing stable mental models. Systems appear functional whilst creating permanent cognitive distance. Eventually this debt manifests as user abandonment, error accumulation, or mental health deterioration — but by then distance has compounded beyond simple remediation.
Designing for cognitive diversity requires exposing system logic to diverse mental models
Reducing neurodivergent exclusion requires a fundamentally different design approach. Not adding accessibility features to neurotypical-optimised systems but building systems accounting for cognitive diversity from its foundation. This means exposing system logic to support multiple mental models simultaneously rather than embedding single cognitive pattern as default.
For ADHD users, this means making system states visible rather than requiring working memory. Information needed for decisions should appear when decisions are made, not require recall from previous screens. Navigation should support associative exploration and interest-driven pathways, not just hierarchical drilling. Workflows should allow non-linear completion and easy re-entry without losing context.
For autistic users, this means articulating rules explicitly rather than assuming social inference. State changes should be confirmed verbally not just visually. Ambiguous terminology should be eliminated or explained. Conventions should be documented not assumed. Feedback should state outcomes precisely — “saved successfully” not silence, “processing” not frozen interface, “failed because X” not generic error.
The paper argues evaluation methods must evolve beyond measuring task completion. Assessing cognitive distance requires observing whether users develop stable mental models, whether they can predict system behaviour in novel situations, whether understanding transfers across contexts. Traditional usability testing with neurotypical participants won’t reveal distance neurodivergent users experience.
This connects to broader institutional priorities. Systems comprehensible only to neurotypical cognition reveal organisations optimising for neuronormative assumptions rather than actual user diversity. When system logic remains opaque to half of potential users, that signals fundamental misalignment between stated accessibility commitments and actual design practices.
Reducing cognitive distance for neurodivergent users often improves systems for everyone. Explicit rules benefit users under stress or time pressure. Visible states support older adults and second-language users. Non-linear navigation helps users with varying expertise levels. Precise feedback prevents errors across populations.
But the paper emphasises primary goal isn’t universal design through averaged optimisation. It’s supporting cognitive diversity by designing systems that accommodate multiple thinking patterns rather than requiring users to adopt single neurotypical pattern. Not making systems easier for neurodivergent users to understand neurotypical logic — making system logic itself accessible to neurodivergent cognition.
This requires recognising cognitive distance as structural property emerging from system-user mismatch, not user deficit requiring remediation. Neurodivergent exclusion results from systems optimised for neurotypical patterns at architectural level. Reducing that exclusion demands rebuilding systems to support cognitive diversity, not training neurodivergent users to think neurotypically.
