Why self-tracking tools assume cognitive norms that exclude neurodivergent users
Self-tracking tools promise self-knowledge. Track your habits, monitor your moods, log your behaviours — and insight will follow. The assumption embedded in these tools is that reflection is an individual activity, that data collection is straightforward, and that the person doing the tracking has stable routines and available mental resources to maintain the practice over time.
New research from the IT University of Copenhagen demonstrates how thoroughly these assumptions fail for neurodivergent users. When autistic and ADHD individuals attempted to track their own masking behaviours, the tools designed to support self-understanding became sources of additional stress. But when the same reflection happened collectively — shared with peers who recognised the camouflaging experience — burden transformed into validation.
The study, published at CHI 2026, engaged six neurodivergent participants in two phases: first an externalisation workshop where they created visual representations of masking experiences, then personalised self-tracking over one to two weeks. The researchers — themselves neurodivergent — approached the work from lived experience, noting that self-tracking “is often presented as something people can ‘just do,’ but this framing does not align with our own experiences.”
The core problem is that personal informatics systems presume capacities that neurodivergent individuals struggle to sustain. These include: formalising ambiguous experiences into discrete categories, maintaining stable routines over time, generalising across contexts, and having sufficient mental resources available when tracking is required. When participants attempted to track masking — an inherently ambiguous, context-dependent behaviour — these presumptions collided with how their cognition actually works.
One participant captured the impossibility of generalisation when asked about “social interactions”: “What social interactions? Is it with my partner or is it with my teacher? Am I in class? Is it that I’m going to get on the bus? Is it that I bump into someone?” The tracking tools demanded answers to questions that couldn’t be answered without specifying context — and the context was always different.
The three emotional dimensions that shape neurodivergent engagement with personal data
The researchers identified three distinct emotional dimensions that shaped participants’ experiences with self-tracking, proposed as a working model for understanding these challenges.
Emotional weight describes the immediate stress that arises during the act of tracking. Participants feared misunderstanding questions, choosing the “wrong” option, or appearing inauthentic in their responses. This weight was amplified by vague terminology, lack of contextual scaffolding, and — counterintuitively — internal consistency checks. Questionnaires often include repeated or rephrased items to validate responses. For neurotypical respondents, research suggests these checks cause less attentive processing. For the neurodivergent participants in this study, the opposite occurred: noticing repeated questions triggered overthinking, prompted them to second-guess their responses, and ultimately undermined their confidence in both their answers and themselves.
Emotional self-reflection describes the discomfort provoked by the insights that self-tracking surfaces. One participant struggled with scoring highly on the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire because it forced recognition of an autistic identity he wished to distance himself from. The reflection was valuable — but also painful in ways that individual tracking provides no support for navigating.
Emotional burden describes the pressure that accumulates around maintaining tracking over time. This extends beyond the act of tracking itself to include anticipating future logging, reflecting on past efforts, and the sense of obligation to continue. Participants described “relief” when they reduced their tracking expectations or removed questions from their frameworks. The burden was present from the start — not something that accumulated over time as motivation waned.
How neurodivergent peer support transforms self-tracking from burden to validation
The most striking finding was how collective reflection transformed the emotional dynamics of self-tracking. Experiences that triggered anxiety when faced alone became validating when shared with peers who recognised them.
Individually completing the CAT-Q triggered overthinking and stress. Participants worried about answering “wrong,” struggled with ambiguous phrasing, and questioned themselves when their responses to similar items differed. But in the workshop, collectively analysing the same questionnaire became one of the most valued aspects of participation.
One participant described the shift: “The first thing that happened was that everyone started saying that the test made them stressed or that they felt bad. Or that they were completely lost and didn’t even know what the questions were trying to ask. So I thought it was interesting to see. Because it feels like you have strength in numbers when everyone is sitting there with similar difficulties in life. And then you look at this thing that is meant for you. Then it feels like now we are the standard and now it is the test that is odd.”
The reframing is significant. When struggling alone with a tool designed for you, the conclusion is that something is wrong with you. When struggling collectively with a tool designed for your community, the conclusion shifts: something is wrong with the tool. The individual burden becomes collective validation. The self-doubt becomes shared critique.
Participants consistently highlighted how rarely they found themselves in contexts with other neurodivergent people reflecting on shared experiences. Four of six specifically stated that the workshop helped them “not feel alone.” The peer context didn’t just make self-tracking more bearable — it made the insights more meaningful, because they were recognised and validated rather than experienced in isolation.
What this means for neurodivergent self-reflection
The researchers propose three principles for self-tracking design in neurodivergent contexts. First, treat reflection as a sufficient goal — participants reported value simply from reflecting and discussing, even without achieving concrete behavioural outcomes. Second, embrace simple methods and short-term goals — smaller commitments reduce anticipatory pressure and accommodate fluctuating energy. Third, prioritise adaptability — external factors and internal states constantly influence what approaches are feasible, requiring flexible frameworks rather than rigid routines.
The deeper implication is that self-tracking may need to be repositioned from an individual to a collective practice. Rather than designing tools that assume solitary users with stable resources, design might centre peer support — coregulation, mutual space-holding, shared reflection, collective sense-making, accountability partnerships, etc. The same data practice that creates burden when faced alone becomes manageable, even valuable, when embedded in community.
This matters beyond self-tracking. Clinical assessments, workplace accommodations, educational support — all currently assume that neurodivergent individuals will navigate these systems individually. The research suggests that collective contexts don’t just make navigation easier. They transform the meaning of the experience itself.
Citations
Rudberg Selin, T., Unéus, D., & Knudsen, S. (2026) — “Chasing Shadows”: Understanding Personal Data Externalization and Self-Tracking for Neurodivergent Individuals
