Cognitive Dysfunction: Clinical Manifestations

The neurological abnormalities described above manifest clinically as characteristic patterns of cognitive dysfunction, often described by patients as “brain fog.”

1 Domains of Impairment

1.1 Processing Speed

Slowed information processing is perhaps the most consistent cognitive finding, manifesting as delayed reaction times, slower performance on timed tasks, reduced ability to keep up with rapid conversations, and difficulty with time-pressured activities.

The meta-analysis by Aoun Sebaiti et al. identifies processing speed as the most impaired domain in ME/CFS, with a large effect size of $g = -0.82$ (reading speed) (Aoun Sebaiti et al. 2022). The multi-site MCAM study confirms this using objective CogState testing across seven US clinics ($n = 426$): processing speed was significantly slower in ME/CFS (Cohen’s $d = 0.3$–$ 0.7$ depending on task complexity), while accuracy was not meaningfully different from healthy controls (Lange et al. 2024). This dissociation—impaired speed with preserved accuracy—suggests that the underlying neural circuitry remains functionally intact but operates with reduced metabolic throughput, consistent with the energy limitation model developed later in this chapter.

1.2 Attention and Concentration

Attention and concentration deficits include difficulty sustaining attention, easy distractibility, impaired divided attention (multitasking), and reduced attentional capacity under stress.

Sustained attention shows a large effect size ($g = -0.75$) in the meta-analytic evidence (Aoun Sebaiti et al. 2022). A head-to-head comparison between ME/CFS and post-COVID patients found that 83.3% of ME/CFS patients showed sustained attention impairment versus 56.2% in post-COVID—a statistically significant difference suggesting that ME/CFS may produce more severe attentional deficits than Long COVID at comparable illness assessment points (Néstor Azcue et al. 2022).

1.3 Memory

Memory impairments encompass working memory deficits (holding information “online”), impaired short-term memory encoding, word-finding difficulties, and variable long-term memory retrieval.

Quantitative evidence shows moderate effect sizes across memory domains: visuo-spatial immediate memory $g = -0.55$, episodic verbal memory (storage and retrieval) $g = -0.55$ to $-0.67$, and visual memory recovery similarly impaired (Aoun Sebaiti et al. 2022). Importantly, cognitive dysfunction in ME/CFS is independent of comorbid mood disorders and is not explained by poor effort or motivation—a finding replicated across the meta-analytic literature and consistent with the MCAM multi-site results (Lange et al. 2024) (Aoun Sebaiti et al. 2022).

Hypothesis: Memory Triage Consequence

Certainty: 0.55.

Memory encoding is substantially more energy-expensive than memory retrieval, predicting that ME/CFS patients should show disproportionate encoding deficits relative to retrieval impairment—a pattern consistent with CNS energy triage.

Differential energy costs of memory operations. Hippocampal memory encoding requires long-term potentiation (LTP), involving NMDA receptor activation, calcium-dependent signaling cascades, new protein synthesis, and structural synaptic remodeling (Kandel, Dudai, and Mayford 2014). These processes are metabolically demanding: encoding a new memory trace requires de novo gene expression, dendritic spine growth, and synaptic protein trafficking. Retrieval, by contrast, reactivates existing synaptic patterns through pattern completion in CA3 networks—a process that uses established circuits without requiring new protein synthesis or structural modification (Dudai, Karni, and Born 2015).

Quantitative estimates suggest that LTP-associated protein synthesis increases local energy consumption by 30–50% above baseline in hippocampal neurons, whereas pattern completion during retrieval operates within normal metabolic parameters. Working memory maintenance in prefrontal cortex similarly requires sustained neuronal firing against inhibitory currents, creating continuous metabolic demand proportional to the number of items held in mind (Constantinidis et al. 2018).

Predicted pattern in ME/CFS. If CNS energy is limited, the brain should sacrifice high-cost encoding operations before low-cost retrieval operations—a “memory triage.” This predicts:

Encoding $>$ retrieval impairment: Patients should show greater difficulty forming new memories than accessing old ones. Standardized testing should reveal disproportionate deficits on encoding-dependent tasks (learning new word lists, forming new associations) relative to recognition or cued recall of previously encoded material
Working memory $>$ long-term retrieval: Sustained prefrontal firing for working memory maintenance is metabolically costly; retrieving consolidated long-term memories from distributed cortical stores is less so
Encoding degrades with exertion: During PEM, when CNS energy deficits intensify, new memory formation should decline more steeply than the ability to recall previously consolidated information
Context-dependent encoding failure: Encoding in metabolically demanding contexts (noisy environments, multitasking, social interaction) should fail preferentially, as these conditions compete for the limited energy budget

Supporting evidence. The meta-analysis by Sebaiti et al. (Aoun Sebaiti et al. 2022) documents memory impairment in ME/CFS with moderate effect sizes ($g = -0.55$ to $-0.67$), but existing studies have not systematically separated encoding from retrieval. Clinical observation consistently reports that ME/CFS patients struggle more with forming new memories (“I can’t take in new information”) than with accessing established knowledge (“I remember things from before I got sick”). Patients frequently describe intact recognition (“I know I’ve seen this before”) with impaired free recall of recently encountered material—precisely the pattern predicted by encoding-selective energy limitation.

Treatment implications. If encoding is selectively impaired by energy limitation, compensatory strategies should emphasize: (1) reducing encoding load through external memory aids (notes, recordings, photographs) rather than relying on internal encoding; (2) scheduling new learning during peak energy windows; (3) using spaced repetition to distribute encoding costs across multiple low-demand sessions; (4) leveraging recognition over recall (multiple-choice formats, visual cues) when possible.

Limitations. This hypothesis has certainty 0.55. The differential energy cost of encoding versus retrieval is well established in neuroscience, but the specific prediction of disproportionate encoding impairment in ME/CFS awaits formal testing with paradigms designed to isolate encoding from retrieval. Existing neuropsychological batteries typically conflate encoding and retrieval in composite “memory” scores. Confounds include attention deficits (which impair encoding indirectly), medication effects, and sleep disruption (which impairs memory consolidation independently of encoding).

1.4 Executive Function

Executive function deficits present as planning and organization difficulties, impaired cognitive flexibility, reduced problem-solving ability, and difficulty with complex decision-making.

Meta-analytic evidence indicates a smaller effect size for executive function ($g = -0.42$) compared to processing speed and attention (Aoun Sebaiti et al. 2022), while instrumental functions (language, praxis) appear consistently preserved. This pattern—moderate executive dysfunction with severe processing speed impairment—is discussed further in the CNS energy triage model (Section Brain-Centric Model: CNS Primacy Not Demonstrated). Notably, the MCAM study found that complex tasks requiring both executive function and learning efficiency showed larger effect sizes ($d = 0.6$–$ 0.7$) than simple tasks (Lange et al. 2024), suggesting that standardized neuropsychological measures may underestimate the real-world executive burden when tasks are novel and unstructured.

2 Quantifying Cognitive Impairment: Population-Scale Evidence

While cognitive dysfunction in ME/CFS has been documented for decades, recent large-scale studies provide the most precise quantification to date, and parallel findings from post-COVID research offer convergent evidence.

2.1 ME/CFS Meta-Analytic Evidence

The systematic review by Aoun Sebaiti et al. (Aoun Sebaiti et al. 2022) synthesized 764 studies (1988–2019) using PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. The meta-analytic effect sizes reveal a characteristic cognitive signature:

Reading speed: $g = -0.82$ ($p = 0.0001$)—the largest impairment
Sustained attention: $g = -0.75$
Visuo-spatial immediate memory: $g = -0.55$ ($p = 0.007$)
Episodic verbal memory: $g = -0.55$ to $-0.67$
Executive function: $g = -0.42$
Instrumental functions: preserved

This profile—severe processing speed and attentional deficits, moderate memory impairment, relatively spared executive function on standardized tests, and intact instrumental function—is distinct from depression, anxiety, and neurodegenerative disease patterns, supporting ME/CFS cognitive dysfunction as a specific neurological entity rather than a nonspecific consequence of fatigue or mood disturbance.

2.2 Multi-Site Objective Assessment

The MCAM cognitive substudy (Lange et al. 2024), the largest US multi-site objective cognitive assessment in ME/CFS ($n = 426$ across seven specialty clinics, 2013–2019), confirmed the meta-analytic findings using the CogState Brief Screening Battery. The key finding was the speed–accuracy dissociation: information processing speed was significantly slower in ME/CFS at most timepoints (Cohen’s $d = 0.3$–$ 0.5$ for simple tasks, $d = 0.6$–$ 0.7$ for complex tasks), while performance accuracy did not differ meaningfully between groups. This dissociation has diagnostic implications: speed-based cognitive measures are more sensitive than accuracy-based measures for detecting ME/CFS cognitive dysfunction.

A notable finding was that a single intense exercise session did not produce additional cognitive deficits beyond those attributable to the clinical visit itself (Lange et al. 2024). This somewhat counterintuitive result may reflect the fact that the cognitive assessment visit was itself sufficiently taxing to bring patients to their cognitive floor, making exercise-induced additional deterioration difficult to detect.

2.3 Post-COVID Cognitive Decline: Convergent Evidence

The COVID-19 pandemic has generated large-scale cognitive data that both parallels and illuminates ME/CFS findings:

Population-scale IQ-equivalent losses. Hampshire et al. (Hampshire et al. 2024) assessed 112,964 participants from the UK REACT study—the largest community-based study of post-COVID cognition. Cognitive deficits, expressed as IQ-scale equivalents, showed a graded dose–response relationship with illness severity:

Mild, resolved COVID (symptoms 4–12 weeks): $~3$ IQ points ($~-0.2$ SD)
Persistent symptoms / Long COVID ($>=$ 12 weeks): $~6$ IQ points ($~-0.4$ SD)
ICU admission: $~9$ IQ points ($~-0.6$ SD)
Reinfection: additional $~2$ IQ points per episode

Memory, reasoning, and executive function were the most sensitive domains. Earlier variants (original and Alpha) produced larger deficits than Omicron-era infections, and vaccination was associated with a small cognitive advantage. The Long COVID figure ($\sim$ 6 IQ points) is directly relevant to ME/CFS: many Long COVID patients meeting post-exertional malaise criteria satisfy ME/CFS diagnostic criteria (Komaroff and Lipkin 2023), and likely fall at the more severe end of this distribution.

Objective cognitive slowing. Zhao et al. (Zhao et al. 2024) provided task-based confirmation in a multicenter study (UK and Germany, $n = 270$). Post-COVID patients showed reaction times approximately 3 standard deviations slower than healthy controls on simple reaction time tasks, with 53.5% exceeding 2 SD below normal. Fatigue and depression comorbidities did not fully account for the slowing—paralleling the independence of cognitive dysfunction from mood disorders in ME/CFS (Aoun Sebaiti et al. 2022).

Neuroimaging substrate. Douaud et al. (Douaud et al. 2022) provided the structural neuroimaging correlate using UK Biobank longitudinal data ($n = 785$, before-and-after design). Even after predominantly mild COVID (96% non-hospitalized), infected individuals showed greater grey matter thickness reduction in the orbitofrontal cortex and parahippocampal gyrus (0.2–2% tissue loss in olfactory-related regions) and greater cognitive decline on complex tasks compared to matched controls. These structural changes in regions critical for memory encoding and executive function may underpin the cognitive deficits observed in both Long COVID and post-infectious ME/CFS.

ME/CFS vs. Long COVID: direct comparison. Azcue et al. (Néstor Azcue et al. 2022) conducted the most informative head-to-head comparison ($n = 42$ ME/CFS, $n = 73$ post-COVID). Both conditions shared a core pattern of reduced attention and slower processing, but ME/CFS patients showed significantly worse sustained attention (83.3% vs. 56.2% impaired) and visuospatial ability than post-COVID patients. The authors concluded that the conditions share overlapping pathology with different precipitating triggers—consistent with the post-infectious syndrome cluster model discussed in Section Speculative Cross-Disease Connections.

Speculation: Muscarinic GPCR Autoantibodies as Cognitive Modulators

Certainty: 0.35. Azcue et al. (2026) found that M1, M3, and M4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor autoantibody titers positively correlated with verbal and working memory performance in ME/CFS patients ($n=59$) (N. Azcue et al. 2026). The direction—higher autoantibody titers associated with better cognitive performance—is unexpected and requires explanation. Three mutually compatible interpretations exist: (1) muscarinic AAbs may act as partial agonists, weakly stimulating receptors that would otherwise be insufficiently activated by diminished acetylcholine tone; (2) the correlation may reflect compensatory upregulation: patients with more severe cognitive impairment upregulate ACh receptors, and autoantibody production tracks receptor density rather than driving dysfunction; (3) the observed ELISA signal may capture non-pathogenic, low-affinity antibodies that correlate with intact cognitive function rather than causing it.

Falsifiable predictions: (a) Functional receptor assays (calcium flux, impedance) should demonstrate whether muscarinic AAbs from ME/CFS sera have agonistic, antagonistic, or null effects on receptor signaling. (b) If muscarinic AAbs are compensatory partial agonists, their depletion via immunoadsorption should transiently worsen verbal/working memory (a testable prediction with existing immunoadsorption trial data). (c) Muscarinic AAb titers should be inversely correlated with CSF acetylcholine metabolites (HVA/MHPG) if the compensatory hypothesis is correct.

Limitations: Single study, $n=59$, not yet replicated. The positive direction is counterintuitive given the prevailing view that autoantibodies are generally pathogenic. CellTrend ELISA specificity concerns (see ch07 Autoimmunity in ME/CFS) apply. The finding may reflect assay artifacts rather than true receptor biology. Without functional validation, this remains a statistical observation only. Certainty 0.35 — cross-disease indirect evidence from Sjögren’s syndrome (muscarinic M3 AAbs as diagnostic biomarkers) provides mechanistic precedent for muscarinic receptor autoantibodies in chronic illness, but the correlation direction in ME/CFS is opposite to the expected pathological pattern.

Limitation: Post-COVID Cognitive Data: Applicability to ME/CFS

The Hampshire et al. IQ-equivalent figures (Hampshire et al. 2024) apply to the general post-COVID population, not specifically to patients meeting ME/CFS criteria. The subset of Long COVID patients with post-exertional malaise likely has more severe cognitive impairment than the group average. Additionally, the IQ-equivalent expression converts composite cognitive scores to a familiar scale but does not represent direct IQ testing; the figures should be interpreted as population-level effect sizes rather than individual-level predictions. The Douaud et al. neuroimaging findings (Douaud et al. 2022) predate Omicron and may not fully represent current variant effects.

4 Fluctuation and Post-Exertional Cognitive Malaise

A characteristic feature distinguishing ME/CFS cognitive dysfunction from other conditions is its marked fluctuation, including hour-to-hour and day-to-day variability, worsening with physical, cognitive, or emotional exertion, delayed deterioration (cognitive “payback”), and improvement with rest that rarely returns to premorbid baseline.

5 CNS Energy Crisis as Primary Event

The selective energy dysfunction hypothesis (Section Selective Energy Dysfunction Hypothesis) proposes that neurological symptoms in ME/CFS reflect primary CNS energy failure rather than downstream effects of systemic dysfunction. Several observations support this framing:

CNS-specific findings: Neuroinflammation (45–199% elevation in key regions (Nakatomi et al. 2014)), catecholamine deficiency in CSF, and regional hypometabolism are documented in the CNS specifically (Zhu et al. 2025), not as reflections of peripheral dysfunction
Preserved autonomous processes: Hair growth, nail growth, and basal cardiac automaticity—processes that operate locally without CNS coordination—remain intact even in severe ME/CFS, arguing against global metabolic failure
Demand-response failure: The pattern of preserved baseline function with impaired challenge response (91–100% show abnormal CBF reduction during orthostatic challenge (Novak et al. 2022)) is consistent with a CNS coordination bottleneck rather than peripheral end-organ dysfunction
Cognitive triage hierarchy: The observation that complex cognition and executive function (“brain fog”) are affected before motor coordination or sensory processing suggests an energy triage system that sacrifices “luxury” cognitive functions first
Astrocyte vulnerability: The brain’s unique metabolic architecture—with neurons depending on astrocytes for lactate via the ANLS (Section Brainstem Glial Senescence as a Self-Reinforcing Autonomic Trap)—may create CNS-specific vulnerability not present in peripheral tissues with direct glucose access (Pellerin and Magistretti 1994) (Magistretti and Allaman 2018) (Xu et al. 2026)

This perspective has treatment implications: interventions that bypass CNS coordination (e.g., direct-acting autonomic agents like midodrine) or that specifically target CNS metabolism may be more effective than peripheral mitochondrial support alone.

Limitation: Brain-Centric Model: CNS Primacy Not Demonstrated

Multiple sections of this chapter frame CNS dysfunction as the “primary bottleneck” or “upstream driver” of ME/CFS symptoms. This causal hierarchy has not been established:

No longitudinal study has demonstrated that neurological abnormalities precede peripheral immune, metabolic, or autonomic dysfunction in ME/CFS onset.
Alternative causal orderings are equally plausible: primary immune dysfunction driving secondary neuroinflammation, or primary metabolic failure producing secondary CNS changes.
The “demand-response failure” pattern (preserved baseline with impaired challenge response) is also predicted by peripheral models (e.g., mitochondrial dysfunction limiting peak capacity).
Pharmacological bypass evidence (midodrine efficacy) supports autonomic involvement but does not establish CNS primacy—peripheral autonomic failure would produce identical responses.
The cascade model, kindling hypothesis, and energy triage model are internally consistent but rest on untested causal assumptions; internal consistency is not evidence of causal direction.

6 CNS Energy Triage: A Hierarchical Model of Brain Fog

Speculation: CNS Energy Triage Hypothesis

Certainty: 0.35. The brain may operate a hardwired energy prioritization system during metabolic scarcity, explaining why ME/CFS cognitive dysfunction follows a characteristic pattern rather than producing uniform degradation across all domains.

Neuroscience of brain energy prioritization. The human brain comprises approximately 2% of body mass yet consumes 20–25% of resting metabolic energy, with goal-directed cognition requiring only an additional $\sim$ 5% above resting homeostatic costs (Jamadar et al. 2025). This tight energy budget means that even modest metabolic deficits—such as those produced by impaired astrocyte-neuron lactate shuttling (Section Brainstem Glial Senescence as a Self-Reinforcing Autonomic Trap)—could disproportionately affect the most energy-intensive neural processes.

Not all brain regions have equal metabolic demands. The prefrontal and frontoparietal association cortices, which support executive function, cognitive flexibility, and novel problem-solving, exhibit the highest relative metabolic cost—defined as energy utilization exceeding baseline activity levels (Jamadar et al. 2025). In contrast, brainstem nuclei governing vital functions (respiration, cardiovascular regulation, arousal) and primary sensory cortices operate with lower relative metabolic overhead, relying on phylogenetically older, more energy-efficient circuits.

Evidence from metabolic disruption models.

Cross-disease convergence. An independently developed brain energy disorder framework for autism spectrum disorder proposes an identical energy-saving adaptation: prefrontal and association cortices — with the highest relative metabolic cost — are sacrificed first under energy constraint, while phylogenetically older circuits are preserved (Blagojevic-Stokic et al. 2026). This convergence across diagnostic boundaries suggests that hierarchical cognitive shutdown may be a general property of CNS energy scarcity rather than a disease-specific phenomenon (Section Brain Energy Metabolism: Cross-Disease Convergent Framework).

Two natural experiments demonstrate hierarchical cognitive shutdown under energy scarcity:

Hypoglycemia: Acute reduction in brain glucose supply impairs complex higher-order cognitive processes at higher glucose thresholds and to a greater extent than lower-level functions. Executive functions show large effect sizes ($d > 0.8$) during hypoglycemia (Graveling, Deary, and Frier 2013), consistent with the prefrontal cortex’s elevated metabolic sensitivity.
Anesthesia: General anesthetics produce a hierarchical disconnection pattern in which prefrontal and association cortices are affected first, while primary sensory processing and thalamocortical connectivity remain preserved. Mashour characterizes this as preferential failure of “rich club” network hubs with greater metabolic demands (Mashour 2024)—an “airport in a snowstorm” analogy where the most connected, most metabolically expensive nodes fail first.

Furthermore, prolonged cognitive work causes glutamate accumulation specifically in the lateral prefrontal cortex, making further executive function activation progressively more metabolically costly (Wiehler et al. 2022). This suggests a built-in mechanism by which the brain curtails its most expensive operations when metabolic capacity is strained.

Application to ME/CFS. We speculate that ME/CFS produces a chronic version of this triage state. If total available CNS energy is reduced—whether through astrocyte dysfunction, reduced cerebral blood flow, or neuroinflammation—the brain may engage the same prioritization hierarchy that normally activates only during acute metabolic crises. The proposed triage order, from most to least protected, would be:

Brainstem vital functions (preserved even in severe ME/CFS)
Basic sensory processing (usually intact)
Language comprehension (impaired only in severe cases)
Motor coordination (degraded in moderate-severe disease)
Memory consolidation (commonly affected)
Executive function and cognitive flexibility (affected early, often prominently)

This maps to the formal energy triage hypothesis developed in Section Selective Energy Dysfunction Hypothesis (specifically Hypothesis CNS Energy Triage), but here we emphasize the clinical neuroscience basis rather than the mathematical framework.

An important caveat from meta-analytic evidence. The largest meta-analysis of cognitive impairment in ME/CFS (33 studies, $n = 1{,}086$) reveals that the observed pattern is more nuanced than a simple “executive function fails first” model (Aoun Sebaiti et al. 2022). Processing speed shows the largest impairment ($g = -0.82$), followed by sustained attention ($g = -0.75$), then memory domains ($g = -0.55$ to $-0.67$), with executive function showing a smaller effect ($g = 0.42$) and instrumental functions preserved. This is important: processing speed is more impaired than executive function on standard neuropsychological measures.

This apparent discrepancy may be reconciled by recognizing that processing speed is a global measure of neural efficiency degraded by any reduction in brain energy delivery, not a specific cognitive tier. It reflects the overall metabolic throughput of cortical circuits rather than a discrete cognitive function. Additionally, standardized tests of executive function (e.g., Trail Making Test Part B) involve relatively routinized operations that may not capture the full metabolic cost of genuinely novel, unstructured problem-solving. The energy triage model predicts that novel, complex, integrative cognitive operations fail first—not necessarily the specific neuropsychological domain labeled “executive function” in test batteries.

Testable predictions. If the CNS energy triage model is correct, the following should hold:

Novel tasks are impaired more than practiced routines at matched difficulty
Working memory (high-energy encoding) fails before recognition memory (lower-energy pattern completion), as formalized in Hypothesis Hierarchical Memory Impairment from Energy Triage
Cognitive hierarchy of impairment maps to regional metabolic demand on FDG-PET
Severity progression follows the triage order: mild ME/CFS shows primarily executive/speed deficits; severe ME/CFS additionally shows language and motor involvement
Interventions that bypass energy-expensive processing (routinization, external cognitive scaffolding) should preferentially improve function

Treatment implications. If the brain operates in chronic triage mode, the therapeutic strategy shifts from “try harder” to “reduce the load”: (1) routinize daily activities to shift them from energy-expensive prefrontal control to energy-efficient basal ganglia automaticity; (2) use external cognitive scaffolding (lists, alarms, decision templates) to offload executive demands; (3) schedule cognitively demanding tasks during peak energy windows when triage thresholds are temporarily relaxed; (4) explore metabolic interventions (ketone supplementation, cerebral blood flow optimization) that may expand the total energy budget and raise triage thresholds across all tiers.

Limitations. This hypothesis faces several challenges: (1) the meta-analytic evidence does not cleanly support executive function as the most impaired domain (Aoun Sebaiti et al. 2022); (2) the triage hierarchy has not been directly tested in ME/CFS with tasks specifically designed to probe each tier; (3) alternative explanations for the cognitive pattern exist, including neuroinflammation-mediated cytokine effects on specific circuits (Bansal et al. 2025), tryptophan pathway diversion, and autonomic-mediated cerebral hypoperfusion; (4) the model may oversimplify what is likely a multi-mechanism process. The triage framework should be understood as one contributing mechanism among several, not a complete explanation for ME/CFS cognitive dysfunction.

References

Aoun Sebaiti, Mehdi, Mathieu Hainselin, Yannick Gounden, Carmen Adella Sirbu, Slobodan Sekulic, Lorenzo Lorusso, Luis Nacul, and François Jérôme Authier. 2022. “Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Impairment in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS).” Scientific Reports 12 (1): 2157. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04764-w.

Azcue, Néstor, Juan Carlos Gómez-Esteban, Miriam Acera, Beatriz Tijero, Teresa Fernández, Miren Ayo-Mentxabaleta, Marta M de Pancorbo, Jesús Cortés, and Ager Muñoz-Lopetegi. 2022. “Brain Fog of Post-COVID-19 Condition and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Same Medical Disorder?” Journal of Translational Medicine 20: 569. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-022-03764-2.

Azcue, N., A. Prada, R. Del Pino, M. Acera, T. Fernández-Valle, N. Ayo-Mentxakatorre, T. Pérez-Concha, et al. 2026. “Involvement of Autoantibodies Against G Protein-Coupled Receptors in Post-COVID Condition and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.” Scientific Reports 16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-49131-9.

Balconi, Michela, Adriana Bortolotti, and Ludovico Gonzaga. 2011. “Emotional Face Recognition, EMG Response, and Medial Prefrontal Activity in Empathic Behaviour.” Neuroscience Research 71 (3): 251–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2011.07.1833.

Balconi, Michela, and Ylenia Canavesio. 2013. “High-Frequency rTMS Improves Facial Mimicry and Detection Responses in an Empathic Emotional Task.” Neuroscience 236: 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.01.035.

Bansal, Amolak S., Katie A. Seton, Floyd C. Engelbrecht, et al. 2025. “Cognitive Dysfunction in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome—Aetiology and Potential Treatments.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 26 (5): 1896. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26051896.

Baumeister, Roy F, Ellen Bratslavsky, Mark Muraven, and Dianne M Tice. 1998. “Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (5): 1252–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252.

Ben Simon, Eti, Raphael Vallat, Aubrey Rossi, and Matthew P Walker. 2022. “Sleep Loss Leads to the Withdrawal of Human Helping Across Individuals, Groups, and Large-Scale Societies.” PLoS Biology 20 (8): e3001733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001733.

Blagojevic-Stokic, Natasa, Paul Whiteley, Ben Marlow, and Jane Wills. 2026. “Autism as a Brain Energy Disorder: How Impairments in Brain Glucose Metabolism Give Rise to Autism Symptoms.” Brain Network Disorders, June. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bnd.2026.04.002.

Choshen-Hillel, Shoham, Inbar Sadras, Tom Gordon-Hecker, Shir Genzer, David Rekhtman, Eugene M Caruso, Katherine L Clevers, et al. 2022. “Physicians Prescribe Fewer Analgesics During Night Shifts Than Day Shifts.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (27): e2200047119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200047119.

Constantinidis, Christos, Shintaro Funahashi, Daeyeol Lee, John D. Murray, Xue-Lian Qi, Min Wang, and Amy F. T. Arnsten. 2018. “Persistent Spiking Activity Underlies Working Memory.” Journal of Neuroscience 38 (32): 7020–28. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2486-17.2018.

Douaud, Gwenaëlle, Soojin Lee, Fidel Alfaro-Almagro, Christoph Arthofer, Chaoyue Wang, Paul McCarthy, Frederik Lange, et al. 2022. “SARS-CoV-2 Is Associated with Changes in Brain Structure in UK Biobank.” Nature 604 (7907): 697–707. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04569-5.

Dudai, Yadin, Avi Karni, and Jan Born. 2015. “The Consolidation and Transformation of Memory.” Neuron 88 (1): 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.004.

Easterbrook, James A. 1959. “The Effect of Emotion on Cue Utilization and the Organization of Behavior.” Psychological Review 66 (3): 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047707.

Foster, Stephen J., Desiree R. Jones, Amy E. Pinkham, and Noah J. Sasson. 2025. “Facial Affect Differences in Autistic and Non-Autistic Adults Across Contexts and Their Relationship to First-Impression Formation.” Autism in Adulthood 7 (5): 581–93. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0199.

Gailliot, Matthew T, Roy F Baumeister, C Nathan DeWall, Jon K Maner, E Ashby Plant, Dianne M Tice, Lauren E Brewer, and Brandon J Schmeichel. 2007. “Self-Control Relies on Glucose as a Limited Energy Source: Willpower Is More Than a Metaphor.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (2): 325–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.325.

Grant, Sarah, Sam Norton, and Rosa A. Hoekstra. 2026. “A Cross-Neurotype Analysis of Camouflaging and Illness Perceptions in People with Central Sensitivity Syndromes.” Autism in Adulthood 8 (4): 646–63. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2024.0186.

Graveling, Alison J., Ian J. Deary, and Brian M. Frier. 2013. “Acute Hypoglycemia Impairs Executive Cognitive Function in Adults with and Without Type 1 Diabetes.” Diabetes Care 36 (10): 3240–46. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-0194.

Greenhouse-Tucknott, A., J. B. Butterworth, J. G. Wrightson, N. J. Smeeton, H. D. Critchley, J. Dekerle, and N. A. Harrison. 2022. “Toward the Unity of Pathological and Exertional Fatigue: A Predictive Processing Model.” Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 22 (2): 215–28. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-021-00958-x.

Guadagni, Veronica, Ford Burles, Michele Ferrara, and Giuseppe Iaria. 2014. “The Effects of Sleep Deprivation on Emotional Empathy.” Journal of Sleep Research 23 (6): 657–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12192.

Hampshire, Adam, Adriana Azor, Christina Atchison, William Trender, Peter J Hellyer, Valentina Giunchiglia, Masud Husain, et al. 2024. “Cognition and Memory After Covid-19 in a Large Community Sample.” New England Journal of Medicine 390 (9): 806–18. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2311330.

Higgins, Julianne M., Samuel R. C. Arnold, Janelle Weise, Elizabeth Pellicano, and Julian N. Trollor. 2021. “Defining Autistic Burnout Through Experts by Lived Experience: Grounded Delphi Method Investigating #AutisticBurnout.” Autism 25 (8): 2356–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211019858.

Hodge, Ellie Kiger, and Katherine Kuhl Meltzoff. 2026. “The Relationship Between Autistic Camouflaging and Mental Health: A Scoping Review.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 17 (June): 1701615. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1701615.

Ironside, Wallace. 1980. “Conservation-Withdrawal and Action-Engagement: On a Theory of Survivor Behavior.” Psychosomatic Medicine 42 (1 Suppl): 163–75.

Jamadar, Sharna D., Anna Behler, Hamish Deery, and Michael Breakspear. 2025. “The Metabolic Costs of Cognition.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 29 (6): 541–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.11.010.

Kandel, Eric R., Yadin Dudai, and Mark R. Mayford. 2014. The Molecular and Systems Biology of Memory. Cell. Vol. 157. 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.001.

Kentrou, Vasiliki, Lucy A. Livingston, Rachel Grove, Rosa A. Hoekstra, and Sander Begeer. 2024. “Perceived Misdiagnosis of Psychiatric Conditions in Autistic Adults.” eClinicalMedicine 71 (May): 102586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102586.

Komaroff, Anthony L, and W Ian Lipkin. 2023. “ME/CFS and Long COVID Share Similar Symptoms and Biological Abnormalities: Road Map to the Literature.” Frontiers in Medicine 10: 1187163. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1187163.

Kühn, Simone, Barbara C N Müller, Andries van der Leij, Ap Dijksterhuis, Marcel Brass, and Rick B van Baaren. 2011. “Neural Correlates of Emotional Synchrony.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 6 (3): 368–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq044.

Lange, Gudrun, Jin-Mann S Lin, Yang Chen, et al. 2024. “Cognitive Assessment in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): A Cognitive Substudy of the Multi-Site Clinical Assessment of ME/CFS (MCAM).” Frontiers in Neuroscience 18: 1460157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2024.1460157.

Magistretti, Pierre J., and Igor Allaman. 2018. “Lactate in the Brain: From Metabolic End-Product to Signalling Molecule.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 19 (4): 235–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2018.19.

Mashour, George A. 2024. “Anesthesia and the Neurobiology of Consciousness.” Neuron 112 (10): 1553–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2024.03.002.

Miller, Andrew H., James F. Jones, Daniel F. Drake, Hao Tian, Elizabeth R. Unger, and Giuseppe Pagnoni. 2014. “Decreased Basal Ganglia Activation in Subjects with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Association with Symptoms of Fatigue.” PLoS One 9 (5): e98156. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098156.

Morris, Gerwyn, George Anderson, Piotr Galecki, Michael Berk, and Michael Maes. 2013. “A Narrative Review on the Similarities and Dissimilarities Between Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) and Sickness Behavior.” BMC Medicine 11: 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-64.

Nakatomi, Yasuhito, Kei Mizuno, Akemi Ishii, Yasuhiro Wada, Masaaki Tanaka, Shusaku Tazawa, Kayo Onoe, et al. 2014. “Neuroinflammation in Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: An ¹¹C-(R)-PK11195 PET Study.” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 55 (6): 945–50. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.113.131045.

Novak, Peter, Maria Pilar Giannetti, Erica Weller, Mariana J. Hamilton, and Mariana Castells. 2022. “Mast Cell Disorders Are Associated with Decreased Cerebral Blood Flow and Small Fiber Neuropathy.” Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology 128 (3): 299–306.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2021.10.006.

Pellerin, Luc, and Pierre J. Magistretti. 1994. “Glutamate Uptake into Astrocytes Stimulates Aerobic Glycolysis: A Mechanism Coupling Neuronal Activity to Glucose Utilization.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 91 (22): 10625–29. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.91.22.10625.

Raymaker, Dora M., Alan R. Teo, Nicole A. Steckler, Brandy Lentz, Mirah Scharer, Austin Delos Santos, Steven K. Kapp, Morrigan Hunter, Andee Joyce, and Christina Nicolaidis. 2020. “"Having All of Your Internal Resources Exhausted Beyond Measure and Being Left with No Clean-up Crew": Defining Autistic Burnout.” Autism in Adulthood 2 (2): 132–43. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2019.0079.

Rimes, K. A., J. Ashcroft, L. Bryan, and T. Chalder. 2016. “Emotional Suppression in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Experimental Study.” Health Psychology 35 (9): 979–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000341.

Salamone, John D, and Merce Correa. 2012. “The Mysterious Motivational Functions of Mesolimbic Dopamine.” Neuron 76 (3): 470–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.021.

Sasson, Noah J., Daniel J. Faso, John Nugent, Sarah Lovell, Daniel P. Kennedy, and Ruth B. Grossman. 2017. “Neurotypical Peers Are Less Willing to Interact with Those with Autism Based on Thin Slice Judgments.” Scientific Reports 7: 40700. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40700.

Scholing, Janna M et al. 2025. “Greater Fatigue Is More Strongly Associated with Reduced Reward Sensitivity Than with Increased Effort Sensitivity: Evidence from a Post-COVID-19 Cohort.” Brain, Behavior, and Immunity - Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbih.2025.101001.

Siessmeier, Thomas, Waldemar A Nix, Jochen Hardt, Mathias Schreckenberger, Ulrich T Egle, and Peter Bartenstein. 2003. “Observer Independent Analysis of Cerebral Glucose Metabolism in Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 74 (7): 922–28.

Tamm, Sandra, Johanna Schwarz, Hanna Thuné, Göran Kecklund, Predrag Petrovic, Torbjörn Åkerstedt, Håkan Fischer, Mats Lekander, and Gustav Nilsonne. 2020. “A Combined fMRI and EMG Study of Emotional Contagion Following Partial Sleep Deprivation in Young and Older Humans.” Scientific Reports 10: 17944. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74489-9.

Treadway, Michael T, Joshua W Buckholtz, Robin L Cowan, Neil D Woodward, Rui Li, M Salah Ansari, Ronald M Baldwin, Ariel N Schwartzman, Ronald M Kessler, and David H Zald. 2012. “Dopaminergic Mechanisms of Individual Differences in Human Effort-Based Decision-Making.” Journal of Neuroscience 32 (18): 6170–76. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6459-11.2012.

Vollmer-Conna, Ute, Cassandra Fazou, Barbara Cameron, Herong Li, Christine Brennan, Laurie Luck, Tracey Davenport, Denis Wakefield, Ian Hickie, and Andrew Lloyd. 2004. “Production of Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines Correlates with the Symptoms of Acute Sickness Behaviour in Humans.” Psychological Medicine 34 (7): 1289–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291704001953.

Walitt, Brian, Komudi Singh, Samuel R LaMunion, Mark Hallett, Sandra Jacobson, Kong Chen, Yoshihisa Enose-Akahata, et al. 2024. “Deep Phenotyping of Post-Infectious Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.” Nature Communications 15 (1): 907. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45107-3.

Wanigasekera, Lasith C., Murray T. Maybery, Romina Palermo, Andrew J. O. Whitehouse, and Diana Weiting Tan. 2025. “First Impressions Towards Autistic People: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Autism Research 18 (5): 983–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.70019.

Wiehler, Antonius, Francesca Branzoli, Isaac Adanyeguh, Fanny Mochel, and Mathias Pessiglione. 2022. “A Neuro-Metabolic Account of Why Daylong Cognitive Work Alters the Control of Economic Decisions.” Current Biology 32 (16): 3564–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.06.074.

Williams, Grant E, Sharon Hausman-Cohen, Maryelaine Sotos, Emily Gutierrez, Carol Bilich, Francis W Mueller, and Shaun Jagshi. 2025. “The Role of GCH1 Deficiency and Tetrahydrobiopterin in Mental Health.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 26 (16): 8030. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26168030.

Xu, H. et al. 2026. “Neurovascular and Synaptic Milieu of Brain-Resident Cells in Cognitive Dysfunction of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.” Journal of Translational Medicine 24 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-026-08156-4.

Zhao, Sijia, Erin M Martin, Philipp A Reuken, Axel Scholcz, Andrea Ganse-Dumrath, Antje Srowig, Irina Utech, et al. 2024. “Long COVID Is Associated with Severe Cognitive Slowing: A Multicentre Cross-Sectional Study.” EClinicalMedicine 68: 102434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102434.

Zhu, Y., X. Li, H. Zhang, et al. 2025. “Metabolic Neuroimaging of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Long-COVID.” Immunometabolism (Cobham) 7 (4): e00068. https://doi.org/10.1097/IN9.0000000000000068.

1 Domains of Impairment

1.1 Processing Speed

1.2 Attention and Concentration

1.3 Memory

1.4 Executive Function

2 Quantifying Cognitive Impairment: Population-Scale Evidence

2.1 ME/CFS Meta-Analytic Evidence

2.2 Multi-Site Objective Assessment

2.3 Post-COVID Cognitive Decline: Convergent Evidence

3 Social and Emotional Dysfunction

3.1 Social Interaction as Metabolically Demanding Activity

3.2 Clinical Presentation: Social Interaction as Painful Exertion

3.3 Flat Affect and Energy Conservation

3.4 Interpersonal Consequences and Misattribution

3.5 The Communication Double-Bind

3.6 Relationship Conflict as Insurmountable Barrier

3.7 Environmental Control as Survival Mechanism

3.8 The Defensive Shift: When Energy Depletion Produces Criticality

3.9 Neurodivergent-Specific Psychological Consequences

3.10 Neurobiological Basis

3.11 Clinical Significance

3.12 The Pre-Diagnosis Experience

4 Fluctuation and Post-Exertional Cognitive Malaise

5 CNS Energy Crisis as Primary Event

6 CNS Energy Triage: A Hierarchical Model of Brain Fog

References