Towards a latent space cartography of subjective experience in mental health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The way that individuals subjectively experience the world greatly influences their own mental well-being. However, it remains a considerable challenge to precisely characterize the breadth and depth of such experiences. One persistent problem is the lack of objective tools for directly quantifying and comparing narrative reports of subjective experiences. Here, we develop a new approach to map and compare reports of experience using the latent space of artificial neural networks. METHODS: Using a series of 31 prompts, including 30 images and one open-ended question, we quantified how the verbal reports provided by participants (n = 210, 50% female) deviate from one another and how these variations are linked to subjective experience and mental health. RESULTS: We found that latent space embeddings of experience can accurately predict subjective judgments of valence and arousal in a series of emotional pictures. Furthermore, we show that narrative reports to ambiguous images can accurately predict transdiagnostic factors of mental health. While distortions in the latent space of artificial neural networks are notoriously difficult to interpret, we propose a new approach to synthesize visual stimuli with generative artificial intelligence that can be used to explore semantic distortions in reported experiences. CONCLUSIONS: In sum, latent space cartography could offer a promising avenue for objectively quantifying distortions of subjective experience in mental health and could ultimately help identify new therapeutic targets for clinical interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".