TherAIssist: Assisting Art Therapy Homework and Client-Practitioner Collaboration through Human-AI Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Art therapy homework is essential for fostering clients' reflection on daily experiences between sessions. However, current practices present challenges: clients often lack guidance for completing tasks that combine art-making and verbal expression, while therapists find it difficult to track and tailor homework. How HCI systems might support art therapy homework remains underexplored. To address this, we present TherAlssist, comprising a chent-facing application leveraging human-Al co-creative art-making and conversational agents to facilitate homework, and a therapist-facing application enabling customization of homework agents and Al-compiled homework history. A 30-day field study with 24 clients and 5 therapists showed how TherAlssist supported clients' homework and reflection in their everyday settings. Results also revealed how therapists infused their practice principles and personal touch into the agents to offer tailored homework, and how Al-compiled homework history became a meaningful resource for in-session interactions. Implications for designing human-Al systems to facilitate asynchronous client-practitioner collaboration are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".