arXiv subjects

Andreas Riener

Publications and source records attributed to Andreas Riener.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Stuck on Suggestions: Automation Bias, the Anchoring Effect, and the Factors That Shape Them in Computational Pathology

Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven decision support systems can improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in computational pathology. However, collaboration between human experts and AI may introduce cognitive biases such as automation and anchoring bias, where users adopt system predictions blindly or are disproportionately influenced by AI advice, even when inaccurate. These effects may be amplified under time pressure, common in routine pathology, or shaped by individual user characteristics. We conducted an online experiment in which pathology experts (n = 28) estimated tumor cell percentages: once independently and once with AI support. A subset of estimations in each condition was performed under time strain. Overall, AI assistance improved diagnostic performance but introduced a 7% automation bias rate, defined as accepted negative consultations where previously correct independent judgments were overturned by incorrect AI advice. While time pressure did not increase the frequency of automation bias, it appeared to intensify its severity, reflected in stronger performance declines associated with increased AI reliance under cognitive load. A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) simulating weighted averaging showed a statistically significant positive coefficient for AI advice, indicating moderate anchoring on system output. This effect increased under time pressure, suggesting anchoring bias becomes more pronounced when cognitive resources are limited. A second LMM assessing automation reliance, a proxy for automation and anchoring bias, showed that professional experience and self-efficacy were associated with lower dependence on AI, whereas higher confidence during AI-assisted decisions was tied to increased AI reliance. These findings highlight the dual nature of AI integration in clinical workflows: improving performance while introducing risks of bias-driven diagnostic errors.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Automation Bias in AI-Assisted Medical Decision-Making under Time Pressure in Computational Pathology

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems (CDSS) promise to enhance diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in computational pathology. However, human-AI collaboration might introduce automation bias, where users uncritically follow automated cues. This bias may worsen when time pressure strains practitioners' cognitive resources. We quantified automation bias by measuring the adoption of negative system consultations and examined the role of time pressure in a web-based experiment, where trained pathology experts (n=28) estimated tumor cell percentages. Our results indicate that while AI integration led to a statistically significant increase in overall performance, it also resulted in a 7% automation bias rate, where initially correct evaluations were overturned by erroneous AI advice. Conversely, time pressure did not exacerbate automation bias occurrence, but appeared to increase its severity, evidenced by heightened reliance on the system's negative consultations and subsequent performance decline. These findings highlight potential risks of AI use in healthcare.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

When Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" -- Examining Confirmation Bias and the Role of Time Pressure During Human-AI Collaboration in Computational Pathology

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision support systems hold promise for enhancing diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in computational pathology. However, human-AI collaboration can introduce and amplify cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias caused by false confirmation when erroneous human opinions are reinforced by inaccurate AI output. This bias may worsen when time pressure, ubiquitously present in routine pathology, strains practitioners' cognitive resources. We quantified confirmation bias triggered by AI-induced false confirmation and examined the role of time constraints in a web-based experiment, where trained pathology experts (n=28) estimated tumor cell percentages. Our results suggest that AI integration may fuel confirmation bias, evidenced by a statistically significant positive linear-mixed-effects model coefficient linking AI recommendations mirroring flawed human judgment and alignment with system advice. Conversely, time pressure appeared to weaken this relationship. These findings highlight potential risks of AI use in healthcare and aim to support the safe integration of clinical decision support systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Designing for Passengers' Information Needs on Fellow Travelers: A Comparison of Day and Night Rides in Shared Automated Vehicles

Shared automated mobility-on-demand promises efficient, sustainable, and flexible transportation. Nevertheless, security concerns, resilience, and their mutual influence - especially at night - will likely be the most critical barriers to public adoption since passengers have to share rides with strangers without a human driver on board. As related work points out that information about fellow travelers might mitigate passengers' concerns, we designed two user interface variants to investigate the role of this information in an exploratory within-subjects user study (N = 24). Participants experienced four automated day and night rides with varying personal information about co-passengers in a simulated environment. The results of the mixed-method study indicate that having information about other passengers (e.g., photo, gender, and name) positively affects user experience at night. In contrast, it is less necessary during the day. Considering participants' simultaneously raised privacy demands poses a substantial challenge for resilient system design.

cs.HC↗