ReviewCognitive research: principles and implications2024
Does using artificial intelligence assistance accelerate skill decay and hinder skill development without performers' awareness?
Review in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human-AI interaction and collaboration in radiology: from conceptual frameworks to responsible implementation.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Review
- SSS Framework: A Think-First, AI-Second Model for AI-Assisted Writing.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Strengths and Potential Pitfalls of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatric Education and Practice.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026Article
- GenAI and clinical decision making in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and computer-aided diagnosis in diagnostic decisions: 5 questions for medical informatics and human-computer interface research.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Review
- Recalibrating academic expertise in the age of generative AI.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Situating governance and regulatory concerns for generative artificial intelligence and large language models in medical education.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Multicentre prospective risk analysis of a fully automated radiotherapy workflow.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- The extended hollowed mind: why foundational knowledge is indispensable in the age of AI.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- ChatGPT-4.0 and Medical Students: A Recognition-Gated Comparative Evaluation on Image-Based Medical Examinations.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence in the workplace is becoming increasingly common. These tools are sometimes used to aid users in performing their task, for example, when an artificial intelligence tool assists a radiologist in their search for abnormalities in radiographic images. The use of artificial intelligence brings a wealth of benefits, such as increasing the efficiency and efficacy of performance. However, little research has been conducted to determine how the use of artificial intelligence assistants might affect the user's cognitive skills. In this theoretical perspective, we discuss how artificial intelligence assistants might accelerate skill decay among experts and hinder skill acquisition among learners. Further, we discuss how AI assistants might also prevent experts and learners from recognizing these deleterious effects. We then discuss the types of questions: use-inspired basic cognitive researchers, applied researchers, and computer science researchers should seek to answer. We conclude that multidisciplinary research from use-inspired basic cognitive research, domain-specific applied research, and technical research (e.g., human factors research, computer science research) is needed to (a) understand these potential consequences, (b) design artificial intelligence systems to mitigate these impacts, and (c) develop training and use protocols to prevent negative impacts on users' cognitive skills. Only by answering these questions from multidisciplinary perspectives can we harness the benefits of artificial intelligence in the workplace while preventing negative impacts on users' cognitive skills.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.