Computational Phenomenology of Temporal Experience in Autism: Quantifying the Emotional and Narrative Characteristics of Lived Unpredictability

Disturbances in temporality, such as desynchronization with the social environment and its unpredictability, are considered core features of autism with a deep impact on relationships. However, limitations regarding research on this issue include: 1) the dominance of deficit-based medical models of autism, 2) sample size in qualitative research, and 3) the lack of phenomenological anchoring in computational research. To bridge the gap between phenomenological and computational approaches and overcome sample-size limitations, our research integrated three methodologies. Study A: structured phenomenological interviews with autistic individuals using the Transdiagnostic Assessment of Temporal Experience. Study B: computational analysis of an autobiographical corpus of autistic narratives built for this purpose. Study C: a replication of a computational study using narrative flow measures to assess the perceived phenomenological authenticity of autistic autobiographies. Interviews revealed that the most significant differences between the autistic and control groups concerned unpredictability of experience. Computational results mirrored these findings: the temporal lexicon in autistic narratives was significantly more negatively valenced - particularly the "Immediacy & Suddenness" category. Outlier analysis identified terms associated with perceived discontinuity (unpredictably, precipitously, and abruptly) as highly negative. The computational analysis of narrative flow found that the autistic narratives contained within the corpus quantifiably resemble autobiographical stories more than imaginary ones. Overall, the temporal challenges experienced by autistic individuals were shown to primarily concern lived unpredictability and stem from the contents of lived experience, and not from autistic narrative construction.

Patterns vs. Patients: Evaluating LLMs against Mental Health Professionals on Personality Disorder Diagnosis through First-Person Narratives

Growing reliance on LLMs for psychiatric self-assessment raises questions about their ability to interpret qualitative patient narratives. We present the first direct comparison between state-of-the-art LLMs and mental health professionals in diagnosing Borderline (BPD) and Narcissistic (NPD) Personality Disorders utilizing Polish-language first-person autobiographical accounts. We show that the top-performing Gemini Pro models surpassed human professionals in overall diagnostic accuracy by 21.91 percentage points (65.48% vs. 43.57%). While both models and human experts excelled at identifying BPD (F1 = 83.4 & F1 = 80.0, respectively), models severely underdiagnosed NPD (F1 = 6.7 vs. 50.0), showing a reluctance toward the value-laden term "narcissism." Qualitatively, models provided confident, elaborate justifications focused on patterns and formal categories, while human experts remained concise and cautious, emphasizing the patient's sense of self and temporal experience. Our findings demonstrate that while LLMs are highly competent at interpreting complex first-person clinical data, they remain subject to critical reliability and bias issues.