AI development for healthcare aims to enhance medical decision-making through risk evaluation. Scholars have focused on improving the accuracy of Breast Cancer AI Risk Assessment Tools (BC-AIRAT), yet these tools remain underutilized in clinical practices. This provides an opportunity to explore how these tools are used and how they may support risk communications. We conducted a three-phase study, with clinicians and patients, in the context of the United States healthcare system, including formative interviews that surface the challenges of BC-AIRAT practices, design probe re-purposing BC-AIRAT as supporting risk communications, and design probe-driven interviews with diverse stakeholders. Our findings surface the gap and opportunity for designing AI-mediated risk communication tool, highlighting the participants’ reflections on AI for managing risk assessment workflows, mediating fragmented breast health guidelines, and delivering information to patients for proactive decision making. We conclude with design implications for using AI as a mediator in breast cancer risk communication.

Across various applications, humans increasingly use black-box artificial intelligence (AI) systems without insight into these systems’ reasoning. To counter this opacity, explainable AI (XAI) methods promise enhanced transparency and interpretability. While recent studies have explored how XAI affects human–AI collaboration, few have examined the potential pitfalls caused by incorrect explanations. The implications for humans can be far-reaching but have not been explored extensively. To investigate this, we conducted a study (n = 160) on AI-assisted decision-making in which humans were supported by XAI. Our findings reveal a misinformation effect when incorrect explanations accompany correct AI advice with implications post-collaboration. This effect causes humans to infer flawed reasoning strategies, hindering task execution and demonstrating impaired procedural knowledge. Additionally, incorrect explanations compromise human–AI team performance during collaboration. With our work, we contribute to HCI by providing empirical evidence for the negative consequences of incorrect explanations on humans post-collaboration and outlining guidelines for designers of AI.

With the increasing use of AI, recent research in human–computer interaction explores Explainable AI (XAI) to make AI advice more interpretable. While research addresses the effects of incorrect AI advice on AI-assisted decision-making, the impact of incorrect explanations is neglected so far. Additionally, recent work shows that not only different explanation modalities impact decision-makers, but also human factors play a critical role. To analyze relevant phenomena influencing AI-assisted decision-making, this work explores the impacting factors by conceptualizing theories of appropriate reliance and taking the first steps toward empirical evidence. We show that humans’ reliance on AI and the human–AI team performance are impacted by imperfect XAI in a study with 136 participants. Additionally, we find that cognitive styles affect decision-making in different explanation modalities. Hence, we shed light on diverse factors that impact human–AI collaboration and provide guidelines for designers to tailor such human–AI collaboration systems to individuals’ needs.

Email continues to serve as a central medium for managing collaborations. While unstructured email messaging is lightweight and conducive to coordination, it is easy to overlook commitments and requests for collaborations that are embedded in the text of free-flowing communications. Twenty-one years ago, Bellotti et al. proposed TaskMaster with the goal of redesigning the email interface to have explicit task management capabilities. Recently, AI-based task recognition and reminder services have been introduced in major email systems as one approach to managing asynchronous collaborations. While these services have been provided to millions of people around the world, there is little understanding of how people interact with and benefit from them. We explore knowledge workers' experiences with Microsoft's Viva Daily Briefing Email to better understand how AI-powered reminders can support asynchronous collaborations. Through semi-structured interviews and surveys, we shed light on how AI-powered reminders are incorporated into workflows to support asynchronous collaborations. We identify what knowledge workers prefer AI-powered reminders to remind them about and how they would like to interact with these reminders. Using mixed methods and a self-assessment methodology, we investigate the relationship between information workers' work styles and the perceived value of the Viva Daily Briefing Email to identify users who are more likely to benefit from AI-powered reminders for asynchronous collaborations. We conclude by discussing the experiences and futures of AI-powered reminders for collaborative tasks and asynchronous collaborations.

Explainability techniques are rapidly being developed to improve human-AI decision-making across various cooperative work settings. Consequently, previous research has evaluated how decision-makers collaborate with imperfect AI by investigating appropriate reliance and task performance with the aim of designing more human-centered computer-supported collaborative tools. Several human-centered explainable AI (XAI) techniques have been proposed in hopes of improving decision-makers' collaboration with AI; however, these techniques are grounded in findings from previous studies that primarily focus on the impact of incorrect AI advice. Few studies acknowledge the possibility of the explanations being incorrect even if the AI advice is correct. Thus, it is crucial to understand how imperfect XAI affects human-AI decision-making. In this work, we contribute a robust, mixed-methods user study with 136 participants to evaluate how incorrect explanations influence humans' decision-making behavior in a bird species identification task, taking into account their level of expertise and an explanation's level of assertiveness. Our findings reveal the influence of imperfect XAI and humans' level of expertise on their reliance on AI and human-AI team performance. We also discuss how explanations can deceive decision-makers during human-AI collaboration. Hence, we shed light on the impacts of imperfect XAI in the field of computer-supported cooperative work and provide guidelines for designers of human-AI collaboration systems.

This paper introduces an innovative methodology for producing high-quality 3D lung CT images guided by textual information. While diffusion-based generative models are increasingly used in medical imaging, current state-of-the-art approaches are limited to low-resolution outputs and underutilize radiology reports' abundant information. The radiology reports can enhance the generation process by providing additional guidance and offering fine-grained control over the synthesis of images. Nevertheless, expanding text-guided generation to high-resolution 3D images poses significant memory and anatomical detail-preserving challenges. Addressing the memory issue, we introduce a hierarchical scheme that uses a modified UNet architecture. We start by synthesizing low-resolution images conditioned on the text, serving as a foundation for subsequent generators for complete volumetric data. To ensure the anatomical plausibility of the generated samples, we provide further guidance by generating vascular, airway, and lobular segmentation masks in conjunction with the CT images. The model demonstrates the capability to use textual input and segmentation tasks to generate synthesized images. Algorithmic comparative assessments and blind evaluations conducted by 10 board-certified radiologists indicate that our approach exhibits superior performance compared to the most advanced models based on GAN and diffusion techniques, especially in accurately retaining crucial anatomical features such as fissure lines and airways. This innovation introduces novel possibilities. This study focuses on two main objectives: (1) the development of a method for creating images based on textual prompts and anatomical components, and (2) the capability to generate new images conditioning on anatomical elements. The advancements in image generation can be applied to enhance numerous downstream tasks.

Recent developments in explainable AI (XAI) aim to improve the transparency of black-box models. However, empirically evaluating the interpretability of these XAI techniques is still an open challenge. The most common evaluation method is algorithmic performance, but such an approach may not accurately represent how interpretable these techniques are to people. A less common but growing evaluation strategy is to leverage crowd-workers to provide feedback on multiple XAI techniques to compare them. However, these tasks often feel like work and may limit participation. We propose a novel, playful, human-centered method for evaluating XAI techniques: a Game With a Purpose (GWAP), Eye into AI, that allows researchers to collect human evaluations of XAI at scale. We provide an empirical study demonstrating how our GWAP supports evaluating and comparing the agreement between three popular XAI techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, and Feature Visualization) and humans, as well as evaluating and comparing the interpretability of those three XAI techniques applied to a deep learning model for image classification. The data collected from Eye into AI offers convincing evidence that GWAPs can be used to evaluate and compare XAI techniques. Eye into AI is available to the public: https://dig.cmu.edu/eyeintoai/.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being deployed in high-stakes domains, such as disaster relief and radiology, to aid practitioners during the decision-making process. Explainable AI techniques have been developed and deployed to provide users insights into why the AI made certain predictions. However, recent research suggests that these techniques may confuse or mislead users. We conducted a series of two studies to uncover strategies that humans use to explain decisions and then understand how those explanation strategies impact visual decision-making. In our first study, we elicit explanations from humans when assessing and localizing damaged buildings after natural disasters from satellite imagery and identify four core explanation strategies that humans employed. We then follow up by studying the impact of these explanation strategies by framing the explanations from Study 1 as if they were generated by AI and showing them to a different set of decision-makers performing the same task. We provide initial insights on how causal explanation strategies improve humans' accuracy and calibrate humans' reliance on AI when the AI is incorrect. However, we also find that causal explanation strategies may lead to incorrect rationalizations when AI presents a correct assessment with incorrect localization. We explore the implications of our findings for the design of human-centered explainable AI and address directions for future work.