How explainable AI affects human performance: A systematic review of the behavioural consequences of saliency maps

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16042v2
• Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 04:25:12 GMT
• Title: How explainable AI affects human performance: A systematic review of the behavioural consequences of saliency maps
• Abstract summary: Saliency maps can explain how deep neural networks classify images. But are they actually useful for humans? The present systematic review of 68 user studies found that while saliency maps can enhance human performance, null effects or even costs are quite common.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Saliency maps can explain how deep neural networks classify images. But are they actually useful for humans? The present systematic review of 68 user studies found that while saliency maps can enhance human performance, null effects or even costs are quite common. To investigate what modulates these effects, the empirical outcomes were organised along several factors related to the human tasks, AI performance, XAI methods, images to be classified, human participants and comparison conditions. In image-focused tasks, benefits were less common than in AI-focused tasks, but the effects depended on the specific cognitive requirements. Moreover, benefits were usually restricted to incorrect AI predictions in AI-focused tasks but to correct ones in image-focused tasks. XAI-related factors had surprisingly little impact. The evidence was limited for image- and human-related factors and the effects were highly dependent on the comparison conditions. These findings may support the design of future user studies.

Related papers

• The New Social Image: How AI Competency and AI Proactivity Influence Self- and Peer-Perceptions in the Workplace [16.901844667611787]
  Human-AI collaboration is considered the most promising way to incorporate AI in the workplace.<n>This study explores how humans perceive themselves (self-perception) and how they are perceived by their coworkers (peer perception) in terms of work ownership and job meaningfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T14:47:48Z)
• Interoceptive Divergence in Aesthetic Evaluation and Implications for Human-AI Alignment [2.905751301655124]
  This study investigates how humans and AI systems converge or diverge in aesthetic experiences.<n>While humans and AI exhibited broadly similar patterns in the correlations between beauty ratings and emotions, notable divergences emerged in both the distribution of emotional responses and the relationship between beauty ratings and bodily sensations.<n>Findings suggest that state-of-the-art LLMs, trained on large-scale textual data, can approximate average human tendencies in aesthetic evaluation to a certain extent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T10:20:46Z)
• Explainable AI as a Double-Edged Sword in Dermatology: The Impact on Clinicians versus The Public [46.86429592892395]
  explainable AI (XAI) addresses this by providing AI decision-making insight.<n>We present results from two large-scale experiments combining a fairness-based diagnosis AI model and different XAI explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T00:06:06Z)
• Engaging with AI: How Interface Design Shapes Human-AI Collaboration in High-Stakes Decision-Making [8.948482790298645]
  We examine how various decision-support mechanisms impact user engagement, trust, and human-AI collaborative task performance. Our findings reveal that mechanisms like AI confidence levels, text explanations, and performance visualizations enhanced human-AI collaborative task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-28T02:03:00Z)
• Let people fail! Exploring the influence of explainable virtual and robotic agents in learning-by-doing tasks [45.23431596135002]
  This study compares the effects of classic vs. partner-aware explanations on human behavior and performance during a learning-by-doing task. Results indicated that partner-aware explanations influenced participants differently based on the type of artificial agents involved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T13:22:04Z)
• Raising the Stakes: Performance Pressure Improves AI-Assisted Decision Making [57.53469908423318]
  We show the effects of performance pressure on AI advice reliance when laypeople complete a common AI-assisted task. We find that when the stakes are high, people use AI advice more appropriately than when stakes are lower, regardless of the presence of an AI explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• Don't be Fooled: The Misinformation Effect of Explanations in Human-AI Collaboration [11.824688232910193]
  We run a study 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. This effect causes humans to infer flawed reasoning strategies, hindering task execution and demonstrating impaired procedural knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T14:34:20Z)
• Confident Teacher, Confident Student? A Novel User Study Design for Investigating the Didactic Potential of Explanations and their Impact on Uncertainty [1.0855602842179624]
  We investigate the impact of explanations on human performance on a challenging visual task using Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) We find that users become more accurate in their annotations and demonstrate less uncertainty with AI assistance. We also find negative effects of explanations: users tend to replicate the model's predictions more often when shown explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-10T12:59:50Z)
• Exploring the Naturalness of AI-Generated Images [59.04528584651131]
  We take the first step to benchmark and assess the visual naturalness of AI-generated images. We propose the Joint Objective Image Naturalness evaluaTor (JOINT), to automatically predict the naturalness of AGIs that aligns human ratings. We demonstrate that JOINT significantly outperforms baselines for providing more subjectively consistent results on naturalness assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-09T06:08:09Z)
• Seeing is not always believing: Benchmarking Human and Model Perception of AI-Generated Images [66.20578637253831]
  There is a growing concern that the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technology may produce fake photos. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate agents for distinguishing state-of-the-art AI-generated visual content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-25T17:51:59Z)
• Improving Human-AI Collaboration With Descriptions of AI Behavior [14.904401331154062]
  People work with AI systems to improve their decision making, but often under- or over-rely on AI predictions and perform worse than they would have unassisted. To help people appropriately rely on AI aids, we propose showing them behavior descriptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-06T00:33:08Z)
• I am Only Happy When There is Light: The Impact of Environmental Changes on Affective Facial Expressions Recognition [65.69256728493015]
  We study the impact of different image conditions on the recognition of arousal from human facial expressions. Our results show how the interpretation of human affective states can differ greatly in either the positive or negative direction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-28T16:28:26Z)
• Advancing Human-AI Complementarity: The Impact of User Expertise and Algorithmic Tuning on Joint Decision Making [10.890854857970488]
  Many factors can impact success of Human-AI teams, including a user's domain expertise, mental models of an AI system, trust in recommendations, and more. Our study examined user performance in a non-trivial blood vessel labeling task where participants indicated whether a given blood vessel was flowing or stalled. Our results show that while recommendations from an AI-Assistant can aid user decision making, factors such as users' baseline performance relative to the AI and complementary tuning of AI error types significantly impact overall team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-16T21:39:58Z)
• The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.