Cognitive Security: The study and practice of protecting the human mind and other Cognitive Assets from cognitive threats

  1. Torvald Fossåen Ask
  2. Stefan Sütterlin
  3. Lea Müller
  4. Ricardo Lugo
  5. Dominic Saari
  6. Hilkka Grahn
  7. Matthew Canham
  8. Daniel Hermansen
  9. Benjamin J. Knox

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Technological and scientific advances in neuroscience, information technology, and artificial intelligence have expanded how human and machine cognition can be targeted, manipulated, and weaponized. These developments have heightened the need for a coherent framework of Cognitive Security. Following review of current definitions, conceptualizations, and applications of Cognitive Security across military, academic, and organizational sectors, we propose a unifying definition of Cognitive Security as ‘the state of having trusted boundaries protecting cognitive assets against all forms of unauthorized influence or access’. Cognitive assets are defined broadly, encompassing individual cognitive processes, artificial intelligence systems, organizational decision-making structures, and neurobiological substrates. Drawing on this definition, we identify four interdependent cognitive resilience factors essential to maintaining Cognitive Security: (1) cognitive agility, the ability to adaptively manage biases, information processing, pursued goals, and decision processes; (2) machine psychology, safeguarding cognition-like functions in AI and ML systems; (3) neurosecurity, protecting human and non-human neural systems from biological or technological intrusion; and (4) systems engineering, the design of organizational and societal structures that foster resilience. We argue that effective Cognitive Security requires a holistic, multi-level approach that integrates these factors to defend against cognitive warfare, cyber-enabled influence operations, and emerging threats in human–machine ecosystems. By consolidating fragmented perspectives into a domain- and species-agnostic framework, this paper advances Cognitive Security as a distinct discipline and provides a foundation for research, policy, and practice aimed at strengthening resilience to ensure cognitive safety and superiority.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/20915884.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Somewhat appropriate
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat supported it seems "Machine Psychology" is exaggerated. it usually happens just because of expertise of authors. the article is trying to be well comprehensive but the claims should be more humble.
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Somewhat appropriate and clear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Neither clearly nor unclearly the authors demonstrate very high structural clarity in discussing but interpretation is often overconfident and their articulation of next steps is disappointingly vague.
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Somewhat likely considering the: lack of systematic review in chapter 2 approximately no practical evidence to use of their model shortage of weighing the aspect of final model yes it promote the knowledge
    Would it benefit from language editing? No it needs a little polish it is colored norwegian just for a little
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, it's of high quality
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, after minor changes

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

  2. Version published to 10.31234/osf.io/2ftqc_v2 on OSF Preprints
  3. Version published to 10.31234/osf.io/2ftqc_v1 on OSF Preprints