Psychotherapeutic supervision is crucial for the quality of the development of professionals and the promotion of well-being and therapeutic effectiveness of trainees. Emerging computational technologies can offer new potentials to supervision practice. The aim of this paper is to test the current capabilities of the GPT-4 linguistic model to support the work of psychotherapists, providing secondary and complementary feedback to supervision. This paper represents the initial phase (phase 0) useful for laying the foundations and adequately calibrating the methodology of a future more extensive work which will consist of further and more detailed training of GPT-4on the tasks required. The availability of this possibility, for a trainee or a therapist, would mean significant support for self-monitoring and increasing this competence, an incentive and support for awareness of the need to resort to a supervision meeting. This could result in enhanced training, improved efficiency and clinical effectiveness, maintenance of well-being, prevention of burnout and improved patient outcomes.

Gestalt therapy traditionally opposes categorical diagnostic labelling due to its fundamental inconsistency with phenomenological and process-oriented ontology. However, this epistemological rigour can limit integration with structured evidence-based interventions for complex personality organisations such as Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). This paper proposes a hybrid theoretical model that integrates the clinical epistemology of Gestalt therapy with Linehan's biosocial theory of Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) and schema-focused interventions, while preserving the core principles of Gestalt. We present a model of theoretical integration that draws on Gestalt contact theory, the four modules of DBT (mindfulness, distress tolerance, emotional regulation, interpersonal effectiveness) and the experiential techniques of Schema Therapy. The integration focuses on the dialectic of acceptance and change, which mirrors Gestalt's paradoxical theory of change. The proposed framework preserves the non-protocol dimension of Gestalt therapy while incorporating the pragmatic utility of DBT and Schema Therapy. Key innovations include: (1) conceptualising the “draft self” as the object and subject of therapeutic work, (2) integrating mindfulness and grounding as embodied processes within live Gestalt experiments, (3) activation techniques to explore the identity fragmentation endemic to DBP. This integration offers a coherent, embodied, and process-oriented framework for understanding and treating DBP that validates patients' lived experience, mobilises evidence-based interventions, and opens up meaningful intertheoretical dialogue.

Background/Objectives: The integration of psychotherapeutic theory with contemporary neuroscience represents one of the most productive frontiers of clinical research. The fundamental theoretical constructs of Gestalt therapy have been developed with considerable clinical depth, yet their neurobiological foundations remain largely unexplored. Confluence, one of the most debated mechanisms of contact disruption in Gestalt therapy, has recently been described as characterized by a three-dimensional conceptual structure: blurred boundaries, undifferentiation, and avoidance of contact. Methods: In this hypothesis article, we start from this structure and from neuroscientific evidence on thalamic filtering, thalamocortical synchronization, and salience attribution. Results: We propose an original theoretical framework—explicitly hypothesis-generating rather than empirically validated—for dysfunctional confluence, understood as a putative disruption of the transition from globally distributed somatosensory activation to the formation of differentiated figures in the salience network. Conclusions: The proposed correspondences are intended as heuristic mappings aimed at generating testable hypotheses and opening a productive dialogue between Gestalt theory, affective neuroscience, and clinical practice.

Although clear conceptual pillars constitute the theoretical identity core of Gestalt psychotherapy, there is significant variability among Italian Gestalt therapists in how they interpret key processes in therapeutic practice. On one hand, this diversity is a strength of Gestalt Therapy (GT), offering considerable flexibility and adaptability. On the other, it is evident that for the scientific validation of the method, it is important to identify shared theoretical nuclei from which differing interpretations originate. The specific aim of this work is to identify and describe the interpretive articulations, within the Italian Gestalt community, of a core concept in Gestalt theory and practice: "confluence." A set of contributions on the meaning of confluence—written by directors and trainers of Gestalt schools—was collected and subjected to semantic analysis. Common elements were identified, and an initial synthesis definition was formulated. Furthermore, differences in perspectives among the authors were outlined. In the view of Italian authors, the concept of confluence comprises a theoretical nucleus of three main facets: blurred boundaries, undifferentiation, and avoidance of contact. This conceptual core is enriched by further characterizing elements not shared by all contributors. In the discussion, a reinterpretation of the various perspectives is provided within the current neuroscience framework based on complex systems theory.

Background/Objectives: Gestalt therapy traditionally opposes categorical diagnostic labelling due to its fundamental inconsistency with phenomenological and process-oriented ontology. However, this epistemological rigour can limit integration with structured evidence-based interventions for complex personality organizations such as Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Despite the evidence base for DBT and Schema Therapy in treating BPD, these approaches may inadvertently minimize the lived phenomenological experience and organismic wisdom central to recovery. Meanwhile, Gestalt therapy’s anti-diagnostic stance limits its integration with structured evidence-based protocols. This paper proposes a hybrid theoretical model that addresses this gap by integrating the clinical epistemology of Gestalt therapy with Linehan’s biosocial theory of Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) and schema-focused interventions, while preserving the core principles of Gestalt. Methods: we present a model of theoretical integration that draws on Gestalt contact theory, the four modules of DBT (mindfulness, distress tolerance, emotional regulation, interpersonal effectiveness) and the experiential techniques of Schema Therapy. The integration focuses on the dialectic of acceptance and change, which mirrors Gestalt’s paradoxical theory of change. The proposed framework preserves the non-protocol dimension of Gestalt therapy while incorporating the pragmatic utility of DBT and Schema Therapy. Results: key conceptual contributions we propose include: (1) theorizing the “Draft Self” as the object and subject of therapeutic work, (2) integrating mindfulness and grounding as embodied processes within live Gestalt experiments, (3) activation techniques to explore the identity fragmentation endemic to BPD. Conclusions:his integration offers a coherent, embodied, and process-oriented framework for understanding and treating BPD that validates patients’ lived experience, mobilizes evidence-based interventions, and opens up meaningful intertheoretical dialogue.

This paper introduces SNAP (Structure, Narrative, Activation, Process, Next), a multi-dimensional clinical reflection tool designed to support psychotherapists in systematically attending to phenomenological, relational, and process-oriented dimensions during therapeutic work. SNAP integrates Gestalt therapy's phenomenological foundations with complex systems theory and the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework, com-prising 73 items organized across five dimensions: Structure, Narrative, Activation, Process, and Next. A preliminary validation study with 20 psychotherapists employed a retrospective pre-post design in which participants rated the utility of each SNAP item for clinical reflection before and after SNAP training. Results showed significantly higher perceived utility after training (T2: M = 6.69, SD = 0.54) compared to retrospective baseline (T1: M = 6.02, SD = 0.70), with mean increase of +0.67 points (Cohen's d = 0.29, p < 0.05 for 15/73 items). Greatest utility gains were observed in phenomenological dimensions: Next (d = 0.63), Activation (d = 0.51), Narrative (d = 0.45), and Process-Therapist (d = 0.43). Structural bio-psycho-social dimensions showed minimal gains (d = -0.02 to 0.15), sug-gesting these were already well-integrated in therapists' clinical thinking. Findings suggest SNAP enhances reflective capacity by systematically directing attention to phenomenological dimensions that are valued but inconsistently attended to. Further psychometric validation with larger samples is warranted.