skip to main content
10.1145/3581641.3584087acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

AlphaDAPR: An AI-based Explainable Expert Support System for Art Therapy

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 March 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Sketch-based drawing assessments in art therapy are widely used to understand individuals’ cognitive and psychological states, such as cognitive impairment or mental disorders. Along with self-report measures based on a questionnaire, psychological drawing assessments can augment information about an individual psychological state. However, the interpretation of the drawing assessments requires much time and effort, especially in a large-scale group such as schools or companies, and depends on the experience of the art therapists. To address this issue, we propose an AI-based expert support system, AlphaDAPR, to support art therapists and psychologists in conducting a large-scale automatic drawing assessment. Our survey results with 64 art therapists showed that 64.06% of the participants indicated a willingness to use the proposed system. The results of structural equation modeling highlighted the importance of explainable AI embedded in the interface design to affect perceived usefulness, trust, satisfaction, and intention to use eventually. The interview results revealed that most of the art therapists show high levels of intention to use the proposed system while expressing some concerns about AI’s possible limitations and threats as well. Discussion and implications are provided, stressing the importance of clear communication about the collaborative role of AI and users.

References

  1. Ashraf Abdul, Jo Vermeulen, Danding Wang, Brian Y Lim, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2018. Trends and trajectories for explainable, accountable and intelligible systems: An hci research agenda. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Adobe Inc.2022. Adobe Illustrator CC 2022. https://adobe.com/products/illustratorGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lewis Aiken. 1999. Personality assessment: Methods & practices (3rd ed. rev.). (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Brian Allen and Chriscelyn Tussey. 2012. Can projective drawings detect if a child experienced sexual or physical abuse? A systematic review of the controlled research. Trauma, violence, & abuse 13, 2 (2012), 97–111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Yasmeen Alufaisan, Laura R Marusich, Jonathan Z Bakdash, Yan Zhou, and Murat Kantarcioglu. 2021. Does explainable artificial intelligence improve human decision-making?. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35. 6618–6626.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Galit Amir and Rachel Lev-Wiesel. 2007. Dissociation as depicted in the traumatic event drawings of child sexual abuse survivors: A preliminary study. The arts in psychotherapy 34, 2 (2007), 114–123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Pui Kwan Au. 2020. An application of FEATS scoring system in Draw-A Person-in-the-Rain (DAPR): Distinguishing depression, anxiety, and stress by projective drawing. Ph. D. Dissertation. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Shue Yan University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Matthias Baldauf, Peter Fröehlich, and Rainer Endl. 2020. Trust me, I’ma doctor–user perceptions of AI-driven apps for mobile health diagnosis. In 19th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. 167–178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Enrico Bunde. 2021. AI-Assisted and explainable hate speech detection for social media moderators–A design science approach. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Suellen M Carney. 1992. Draw a person in the rain: A comparison of levels of stress and depression among adolescents. Pace University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. CELSYS, Inc.2022. CLIP STUDIO PAINT v1.5. https://www.clipstudio.net/enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Shuqing Chen, Daniel Stromer, Harb Alnasser Alabdalrahim, Stefan Schwab, Markus Weih, and Andreas Maier. 2020. Automatic dementia screening and scoring by applying deep learning on clock-drawing tests. Scientific Reports 10, 1 (2020), 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Hwa-Yeon Chung. 2020. Characteristic of Response to ‘Draw A Person in the Rain’ (DAPR) Based on the Level of Job Stress of female workers.Master’s thesis. Seoul Women’s University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Fred D Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly (1989), 319–340.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Mathias Eitz, James Hays, and Marc Alexa. 2012. How do humans sketch objects?ACM Transactions on graphics (TOG) 31, 4 (2012), 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Glenn Jocher et. al.2022. ultralytics/yolov5: v6.1 - YOLOv5n ’Small’ models, Roboflow integration, TensorFlow export, OpenCV DNN support. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5563715Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Mr C Fairhurst, T Linnell, Stephanie Glenat, RM Guest, Laurent Heutte, and Thierry Paquet. 2008. Developing a generic approach to online automated analysis of writing and drawing tests in clinical patient profiling. Behavior Research Methods 40, 1 (2008), 290–303.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Adam Graves, Leslie Jones, and Frances F Kaplan. 2013. Draw-a-Person-in-the-Rain: Does geographic location matter?Art Therapy 30, 3 (2013), 107–113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Simeng Gu, Yige Liu, Fei Liang, Rou Feng, Yawen Li, Guorui Liu, Mengdan Gao, Wei Liu, Fushun Wang, and Jason H Huang. 2020. Screening depressive disorders with tree-drawing test. Frontiers in psychology 11 (2020), 1446.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lijie Guo, Elizabeth M Daly, Oznur Alkan, Massimiliano Mattetti, Owen Cornec, and Bart Knijnenburg. 2022. Building Trust in Interactive Machine Learning via User Contributed Interpretable Rules. In 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 537–548.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. David Ha and Douglas Eck. 2018. A Neural Representation of Sketch Drawings. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Emanuel F Hammer. 1958. The clinical application of projective drawings.Charles C Thomas.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. 2017. Mask r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. 2961–2969.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Daire Hooper, Joseph Coughlan, and Michael R Mullen. 2008. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic journal of business research methods 6, 1 (2008), pp53–60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuo-Lun Hsiao and Chia-Chen Chen. 2021. What drives continuance intention to use a food-ordering chatbot? An examination of trust and satisfaction. Library Hi Tech (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Yu-Kai Huang. 2010. The effect of airline service quality on passengers’ behavioural intentions using SERVQUAL scores: A Taiwan case study. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 8 (2010), 2330–2343.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Sie-Nae Huh. 2021. Characteristic of Response to ‘Draw A Person in the Rain’ (DAPR) Based on the Level of Job Stress of female workers.Master’s thesis. Seoul Women’s University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Hey-Kyoung Hwang. 2020. A study on characteristics of responses to DAPR(Draw-A-Person-in-the-Rain) Assessments based on the level of daily stress, self-efficacy of baby sitters.Master’s thesis. Seoul Women’s University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Chiara Ionio and Eleonora Mascheroni. 2021. Psychological well-being and graphic representations of self in child victims of violence. The Arts in Psychotherapy 72 (2021), 101740.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Hongchao Jiang, Yanci Zhang, Zhiwei Zeng, Jun Ji, Yu Wang, Ying Chi, and Chunyan Miao. 2021. Mobile-based Clock Drawing Test for Detecting Early Signs of Dementia. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35. 16048–16050.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Juliet Jue and Jung Hee Ha. 2019. The Person-in-the-Rain Drawing Test as an Assessment of Soldiers’ Army Life Adjustment and Resilience. Psychology 10, 8 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Daiki Kato and Miyako Morita. 2009. Form, content, and gender differences in Lego® block creations by Japanese adolescents. Art Therapy 26, 4 (2009), 181–186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Hong-hoe Kim, Paul Taele, Stephanie Valentine, Erin McTigue, and Tracy Hammond. 2013. KimCHI: a sketch-based developmental skill classifier to enhance pen-driven educational interfaces for children. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling. 33–42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Hyun-Ji Kim. 2012. Characteristic of Response to ‘Draw A Person in the Rain’ (DAPR) Based on the Level of Job Stress of female workers.Master’s thesis. Daejin University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Jeoungkun Kim, Soongeun Hong, Jinyoung Min, and Heeseok Lee. 2011. Antecedents of application service continuance: A synthesis of satisfaction and trust. Expert Systems with applications 38, 8 (2011), 9530–9542.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Limor Kissos, Limor Goldner, Moshe Butman, Niv Eliyahu, and Rachel Lev-Wiesel. 2020. Can artificial intelligence achieve human-level performance? A pilot study of childhood sexual abuse detection in self-figure drawings. Child Abuse & Neglect 109 (2020), 104755.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Bart P Knijnenburg, Martijn C Willemsen, Zeno Gantner, Hakan Soncu, and Chris Newell. 2012. Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User modeling and user-adapted interaction 22, 4 (2012), 441–504.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Kate Kravits, Randi McAllister-Black, Marcia Grant, and Christina Kirk. 2010. Self-care strategies for nurses: A psycho-educational intervention for stress reduction and the prevention of burnout. Applied Nursing Research 23, 3 (2010), 130–138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Christine P Krom. 2000. Hospice nurses and the palliative care environment: Indicators of stress and coping in the Draw-a-Person-in-the-Rain test. Ph. D. Dissertation. Albertus Magnus College.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Heidi S Lack. 1997. The person-in-the-rain projective drawing as a measure of children’s coping capacity: a concurrent validity study using rorschach, psychiatric, and life history variables. California School of Professional Psychology-Berkeley/Alameda. 156–174 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Eva Fishell Lichtenberg. 2014. Draw-A-Person-in-the Rain Test.In Drawings in assessment and psychotherapy: Research and application, Leonard Handler and A. D. Thomas (Eds.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group., 164–183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Yu Shiou Lin, Peter Hartwich, Annemarie Wolff, Mehrshad Golesorkhi, and Georg Northoff. 2020. The self in art therapy–brain-based assessment of the drawing process. Medical Hypotheses 138(2020), 109596.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Pin Luarn and Hsin-Hui Lin. 2005. Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking. Computers in human behavior 21, 6 (2005), 873–891.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Karen Machover. 1949. Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure: A method of personality investigation.(1949).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Natalie Mackenzie. 2013. A brief exploration of the role of dramatherapy within a multi-modal arts therapy approach to working with children aged 4–14 years impacted by trauma. Dramatherapy 35, 2 (2013), 131–139.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Maria Madsen and Shirley Gregor. 2000. Measuring human-computer trust. In 11th australasian conference on information systems, Vol. 53. Citeseer, 6–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. A Meneghetti. 2004. Ontopsychology handbook. Ontopsicologia Editrice, Roma(2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Habshah Midi, Saroje Kumar Sarkar, and Sohel Rana. 2010. Collinearity diagnostics of binary logistic regression model. Journal of interdisciplinary mathematics 13, 3 (2010), 253–267.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Seungjin Oh. 2014. Diagnostic test of art psycology.Dongmunsa, Seoul, Korea.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Cecilia Panigutti, Andrea Beretta, Fosca Giannotti, and Dino Pedreschi. 2022. Understanding the impact of explanations on advice-taking: a user study for AI-based clinical Decision Support Systems. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Sung Youl Park. 2009. An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 12, 3 (2009), 150–162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Robin Pennington, H Dixon Wilcox, and Varun Grover. 2003. The role of system trust in business-to-consumer transactions. Journal of management information systems 20, 3 (2003), 197–226.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Ochilbek Rakhmanov, Nwojo Nnanna Agwu, and Steve Adeshina. 2020. Experimentation on hand drawn sketches by children to classify Draw-a-Person test images in psychology. In The Thirty-Third International Flairs Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2015. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. " Why should i trust you?" Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 1135–1144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Woosuk Seo, Joonyoung Jun, Minki Chun, Hyeonhak Jeong, Sungmin Na, Woohyun Cho, Saeri Kim, and Hyunggu Jung. 2022. Toward an AI-assisted Assessment Tool to Support Online Art Therapy Practices: A Pilot Study. In Proceedings of 20th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (EUSSET).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Rania Shibl, Meredith Lawley, and Justin Debuse. 2013. Factors influencing decision support system acceptance. Decision Support Systems 54, 2 (2013), 953–961.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Donghee Shin. 2021. The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 146 (2021), 102551.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. 2014. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556(2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Donghua Tao. 2009. Intention to use and actual use of electronic information resources: further exploring Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 2009. American Medical Informatics Association, 629.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. JS Verinis, EF Lichtenberg, and L Henrich. 1974. The Draw-a-Person in the rain technique: Its relationship to diagnostic category and other personality indicators.Journal of Clinical Psychology(1974).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Danding Wang, Qian Yang, Ashraf Abdul, and Brian Y Lim. 2019. Designing theory-driven user-centric explainable AI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Katharina Weitz, Dominik Schiller, Ruben Schlagowski, Tobias Huber, and Elisabeth André. 2021. “Let me explain!”: exploring the potential of virtual agents in explainable AI interaction design. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces 15, 2 (2021), 87–98.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Fan Wenjuan, Jingnan Liu, Zhu Shuwan, and Panos M Pardalos. 2020. Investigating the impacting factors for the healthcare professionals to adopt artificial intelligence-based medical diagnosis support system (AIMDSS). Annals of Operations Research 294, 1-2 (2020), 567–592.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Lisa R Willis, Stephen P Joy, and Donna H Kaiser. 2010. Draw-a-Person-in-the-Rain as an assessment of stress and coping resources. The Arts in Psychotherapy 37, 3 (2010), 233–239.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Barbara H Wixom and Peter A Todd. 2005. A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information systems research 16, 1 (2005), 85–102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Minfan Zhang, Daniel Ehrmann, Mjaye Mazwi, Danny Eytan, Marzyeh Ghassemi, and Fanny Chevalier. 2022. Get To The Point! Problem-Based Curated Data Views To Augment Care For Critically Ill Patients. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. AlphaDAPR: An AI-based Explainable Expert Support System for Art Therapy

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              IUI '23: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
              March 2023
              972 pages
              ISBN:9798400701061
              DOI:10.1145/3581641

              Copyright © 2023 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 27 March 2023

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed limited

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%
            • Article Metrics

              • Downloads (Last 12 months)582
              • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)50

              Other Metrics

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader

            HTML Format

            View this article in HTML Format .

            View HTML Format