arXiv:2501.16627cs.HCcs.AI2025-01被引 14

通过界面设计提升人机协作,改善高风险决策中的信任与表现。

Engaging with AI: How Interface Design Shapes Human-AI Collaboration in High-Stakes Decision-Making

  • 引入认知强制机制与解释形式,影响用户对AI建议的参与度。
  • 可视化与置信度提示显著提升协作任务表现,增强信任感。
  • 过度增加认知负担的机制反而降低效率,需平衡设计复杂度。

随着人工智能在决策中的依赖度上升,确保人类用户在医疗等高风险领域合理平衡对AI的信赖与自身判断至关重要。然而,已有研究表明,人机协同团队的表现常劣于纯AI系统,主要原因是自动化偏见——人类倾向于盲目采纳错误的AI建议。现有系统多采用文本解释(XAI)帮助理解,但因人类决策常依赖直觉思维(System 1),易忽略或浅层处理解释内容。本研究提出使用认知强制函数(CFFs)促进用户深度参与。在108名参与者参与的糖尿病管理决策实验中,评估了六种支持机制:两类解释(文本、视觉)与四种CFFs。结果表明,AI置信度、文本解释与绩效可视化能有效提升任务表现并增强信任;而人工反馈与AI提问虽引发深层思考,却因增加认知负荷导致性能下降,削弱信任。简单视觉解释对信任无显著影响,凸显设计中需在认知干预强度与可用性间取得平衡。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

As reliance on AI systems for decision-making grows, it becomes critical to ensure that human users can appropriately balance trust in AI suggestions with their own judgment, especially in high-stakes domains like healthcare. However, human + AI teams have been shown to perform worse than AI alone, with evidence indicating automation bias as the reason for poorer performance, particularly because humans tend to follow AI's recommendations even when they are incorrect. In many existing human + AI systems, decision-making support is typically provided in the form of text explanations (XAI) to help users understand the AI's reasoning. Since human decision-making often relies on System 1 thinking, users may ignore or insufficiently engage with the explanations, leading to poor decision-making. Previous research suggests that there is a need for new approaches that encourage users to engage with the explanations and one proposed method is the use of cognitive forcing functions (CFFs). In this work, we examine how various decision-support mechanisms impact user engagement, trust, and human-AI collaborative task performance in a diabetes management decision-making scenario. In a controlled experiment with 108 participants, we evaluated the effects of six decision-support mechanisms split into two categories of explanations (text, visual) and four CFFs. Our findings reveal that mechanisms like AI confidence levels, text explanations, and performance visualizations enhanced human-AI collaborative task performance, and improved trust when AI reasoning clues were provided. Mechanisms like human feedback and AI-driven questions encouraged deeper reflection but often reduced task performance by increasing cognitive effort, which in turn affected trust. Simple mechanisms like visual explanations had little effect on trust, highlighting the importance of striking a balance in CFF and XAI design.

人机协作界面设计决策支持认知负荷

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。