ArticleHuman factors2025
Beyond Binary Decisions: Evaluating the Effects of AI Error Type on Trust and Performance in AI-Assisted Tasks.
Article in Human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of a Safety User Interface Bundle on Verification Intentions in Generative AI Chat Use Among Older Chinese Adults: Randomized Vignette Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Effects of AI Assistance Timing on Pharmacists' Trust in Automated Pill Recognition Technology: Within-Participants Experimental Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Generative Artificial Intelligence Systems in Solving Clinical Pharmacy Problems: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
ObjectiveWe investigated how various error patterns from an AI aid in the nonbinary decision scenario influence human operators' trust in the AI system and their task performance.BackgroundExisting research on trust in automation/autonomy predominantly uses the signal detection theory (SDT) to model autonomy performance. The SDT classifies the world into binary states and hence oversimplifies the interaction observed in real-world scenarios. Allowing multi-class classification of the world reveals intriguing error patterns previously unexplored in prior literature.MethodThirty-five participants completed 60 trials of a simulated mental rotation task assisted by an AI with 70-80% reliability. Participants' trust in and dependence on the AI system and their performance were measured. By combining participants' initial performance and the AI aid's performance, five distinct patterns emerged. Mixed-effects models were built to examine the effects of different patterns on trust adjustment, performance, and reaction time.ResultsVarying error patterns from AI impacted performance, reaction times, and trust. Some AI errors provided false reassurance, misleading operators into believing their incorrect decisions were correct, worsening performance and trust. Paradoxically, some AI errors prompted safety checks and verifications, which, despite causing a moderate decrease in trust, ultimately enhanced overall performance.ConclusionThe findings demonstrate that the types of errors made by an AI system significantly affect human trust and performance, emphasizing the need to model the complicated human-AI interaction in real life.ApplicationThese insights can guide the development of AI systems that classify the state of the world into multiple classes, enabling the operators to make more informed and accurate decisions based on feedback.
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.