Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40601655›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Understanding dimensions of trust in AI through quantitative cognition: Implications for human-AI collaboration.

Weizheng Jiang, Dongqin Li, Chun Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Weizheng JiangSchool of Management, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2542-5766
Dongqin LiSchool of Management, Wuhan Technology and Business University, Wuhan, China.
Chun LiuSchool of Management, Wuhan Technology and Business University, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human-AI collaborative innovation relies on effective and clearly defined role allocation, yet empirical research in this area remains limited. To address this gap, we construct a cognitive taxonomy trust in AI framework to describe and explain its interactive mechanisms in human-AI collaboration, specifically its complementary and inhibitive effects. Specifically, we examine the alignment between trust in AI and different cognitive levels, identifying key drivers that facilitate both lower-order and higher-order cognition through AI. Furthermore, by analyzing the interactive effects of multidimensional trust in AI, we explore its complementary and inhibitive influences. We collected data from finance and business administration interns using surveys and the After-Action Review method and analyzed them using the gradient descent algorithm. The findings reveal a dual effect of trust in AI on cognition: while functional and emotional trust enhance higher-order cognition, the transparency dimension of cognitive trust inhibits cognitive processes. These insights provide a theoretical foundation for understanding trust in AI in human-AI collaboration and offer practical guidance for university-industry partnerships and knowledge innovation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCognitionCooperative BehaviorTrustFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID40601655
PMCPMC12221052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.