Today's cs.HC research cluster reveals a field grappling with the gap between what AI systems can do and what humans should do with them. The dominant theme across these papers is not capability measurement but behavioral consequence: how AI mediation reshapes human judgment, cognition, creativity, and trust in contexts ranging from clinical decision-making to web design to goal-setting. Methodologically, the field has shifted toward interactive evaluation, measuring not model outputs in isolation but human-AI interaction traces, decision trajectories, and cognitive load over time, and toward human-centered auditing frameworks that operationalize real-world usage conditions rather than laboratory constraints. A secondary but persistent pattern addresses the structural tension between amplification and delegation: papers distinguish between systems that enhance human reasoning while preserving expertise versus those that outsource cognition entirely, with several proposing metrics to detect cognitive drift, over-reliance, and loss of interpretative control. The research also surfaces recurring design challenges specific to mediated interaction: gaze-based interfaces reveal modality-specific failure modes; conversational health AI's triage accuracy depends more on interaction format than model capability; and AI-assisted writing shifts writers into reactive, suggestion-led engagement that users do not perceive as influencing their opinions. Across domains, clinical, educational, creative, navigational, the papers converge on the need for what might be called interaction-aware evaluation: testing systems not as standalone artifacts but as components embedded in workflows where human attention, trust calibration, and long-term competence matter as much as immediate task performance.
Cole Brennan
Showing of papers
Large language models (LLMs) based AI systems increasingly mediate what billions of people see, choose and buy. This creates an urgent need to quantify the systemic risks of LLM-driven market intermediation, including its implications for market fairness, competition, and the diversity of information exposure. This paper introduces ChoiceEval, a reproducible framework for auditing preferences for brands and cultures in large language models (LLMs) under realistic usage conditions. ChoiceEval addresses two core technical challenges: (i) generating realistic, persona-diverse evaluation queries and (ii) converting free-form outputs into comparable choice sets and quantitative preference metrics. For a given topic (e.g. running shoes, hotel chains, travel destinations), the framework segments users into psychographic profiles (e.g., budget-conscious, wellness-focused, convenience), and then derives diverse prompts that reflect real-world advice-seeking and decision-making behaviour. LLM responses are converted into normalised top-k choice sets. Preference and geographic bias are then quantified using comparable metrics across topics and personas. Thus, ChoiceEval provides a scalable audit pipeline for researchers, platforms, and regulators, linking model behaviour to real-world economic outcomes. Applied to Gemini, GPT, and DeepSeek across 10 topics spanning commerce and culture and more than 2,000 questions, ChoiceEval reveals consistent preferences: U.S.-developed models Gemini and GPT show marked favouritism toward American entities, while China-developed DeepSeek exhibits more balanced yet still detectable geographic preferences. These patterns persist across user personas, suggesting systematic rather than incidental effects.
Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in human decision-making, where it can either enhance human reasoning or induce excessive cognitive dependence. This paper introduces a conceptual and mathematical framework for distinguishing cognitive amplification, in which AI improves hybrid human-AI performance while preserving human expertise, from cognitive delegation, in which reasoning is progressively outsourced to AI systems. To characterize these regimes, we define a set of operational metrics: the Cognitive Amplification Index (CAI*), the Dependency Ratio (D), the Human Reliance Index (HRI), and the Human Cognitive Drift Rate (HCDR). Together, these quantities provide a low-dimensional metric space for evaluating not only whether human-AI systems achieve genuine synergistic performance, but also whether such performance is cognitively sustainable for the human component over time. The framework highlights a central design tension in human-AI systems: maximizing short-term hybrid capability does not necessarily preserve long-term human cognitive competence. We therefore argue that human-AI systems should be designed under a cognitive sustainability constraint, such that gains in hybrid performance do not come at the cost of degradation in human expertise.
AI-based tools that mediate, enhance or generate parts of video communication may interfere with how people evaluate trustworthiness and credibility. In two preregistered online experiments (N = 2,000), we examined whether AI-mediated video retouching, background replacement and avatars affect interpersonal trust, people's ability to detect lies and confidence in their judgments. Participants watched short videos of speakers making truthful or deceptive statements across three conditions with varying levels of AI mediation. We observed that perceived trust and confidence in judgments declined in AI-mediated videos, particularly in settings in which some participants used avatars while others did not. However, participants' actual judgment accuracy remained unchanged, and they were no more inclined to suspect those using AI tools of lying. Our findings provide evidence against concerns that AI mediation undermines people's ability to distinguish truth from lies, and against cue-based accounts of lie detection more generally. They highlight the importance of trustworthy AI mediation tools in contexts where not only truth, but also trust and confidence matter.
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are deployed as collaborators in human decision-making. Yet, evaluation practices focus primarily on model accuracy rather than whether human-AI teams are prepared to collaborate safely and effectively. Empirical evidence shows that many failures arise from miscalibrated reliance, including overuse when AI is wrong and underuse when it is helpful. This paper proposes a measurement framework for evaluating human-AI decision-making centered on team readiness. We introduce a four part taxonomy of evaluation metrics spanning outcomes, reliance behavior, safety signals, and learning over time, and connect these metrics to the Understand-Control-Improve (U-C-I) lifecycle of human-AI onboarding and collaboration. By operationalizing evaluation through interaction traces rather than model properties or self-reported trust, our framework enables deployment-relevant assessment of calibration, error recovery, and governance. We aim to support more comparable benchmarks and cumulative research on human-AI readiness, advancing safer and more accountable human-AI collaboration.
Helping people identify and pursue personally meaningful career goals at scale remains a key challenge in applied psychology. Career coaching can improve goal quality and attainment, but its cost and limited availability restrict access. Large language model (LLM)-based chatbots offer a scalable alternative, yet the psychological mechanisms by which they might support goal pursuit remain untested. Here we report a preregistered three-arm randomised controlled trial (N = 517) comparing an AI career coach ("Leon," powered by Claude Sonnet), a matched structured written questionnaire covering closely matched reflective topics, and a no-support control on goal progress at a two-week follow-up. The AI chatbot produced significantly higher goal progress than the control (d = 0.33, p = .016). Compared with the written-reflection condition, the AI did not significantly improve overall goal progress, but it increased perceived social accountability. In the preregistered mediation model, perceived accountability mediated the AI-over-questionnaire effect on goal progress (indirect effect = 0.15, 95% CI [0.04, 0.31]), whereas self-concordance did not. These findings suggest that AI-assisted goal setting can improve short-term goal progress, and that its clearest added value over structured self-reflection lies in increasing felt accountability.
Explainable AI (XAI) interfaces seek to make large language models more transparent, yet explanation alone does not produce understanding. Explaining a system's behavior is not the same as being able to engage with it, to probe and interpret its operations through direct manipulation. This distinction matters for scientific disciplines in particular: scientists who increasingly rely on LLMs for reading, citing, and producing literature reviews have little means of directly engaging with how these models process and transform the texts they generate. In this ongoing design research project, I argue for a shift from explainability to interpretative engagement. This shift moves away from accounts of system behavior to instead enable users to manipulate a model's intermediate representations. Drawing on textual scholarship, computational poetics, and the history of reading and writing technologies, including practices such as marginalia, glosses, indices, and annotation systems, I propose interpretative interfaces as interactive environments in which non-expert users can intervene in the representational space of a language model. More specifically, such interfaces will allow users to select a token and follow its trajectory through the model's intermediate layers. This way, they can observe how its semantic position shifts as context is processed, and possibly annotate the transformations they find useful or meaningful. The same way readers can create their own maps within a book through annotations and bookmarks, interpretative interfaces will allow users to inscribe their reading of a model's internal representations. The goal of this project is to reframe AI interpretability as an interaction design project rather than a purely technical one, and to open a path toward AI-mediated reading that supports interpretative engagement and critical stewardship of scientific knowledge.
The growing integration of machine translation into social media platforms is transforming how users interact with each other across cultural and linguistic boundaries. This paper examines user reactions to the launch of Xiaohongshu's built-in translation feature in January 2025. Drawing on a dataset of 6,723 comments collected from 11 official posts promoting the translation function, this paper combines sentiment analysis with thematic analysis to investigate how users perceived and experimented with the function. Results show that reactions were generally positive, particularly for translating posts and comments, although concerns regarding functionality, accessibility, and translation accuracy were also expressed. In addition to evaluative feedback, users actively tested the function with diverse inputs, including words and phrases in English and Chinese, abbreviations in pinyin, internet slang, and other language forms such as emoji, kaomoji, coded texts, etc. The findings highlight the importance of closer collaboration among computer scientists, translation scholars, and platform designers to better understand and improve translation technologies in real world communicative context.
Extended Reality (XR) interfaces impose both ergonomic and cognitive demands, yet current systems often force a binary choice between hand-based input, which can produce fatigue, and gaze-based input, which is vulnerable to the Midas Touch problem and precision limitations. We introduce the xr-adaptive-modality-2025 platform, a web-based open-source framework for studying whether modality-specific adaptive interventions can improve XR-relevant pointing performance and reduce workload relative to static unimodal interaction. The platform combines physiologically informed gaze simulation, an ISO 9241-9 multidirectional tapping task, and two modality-specific adaptive interventions: gaze declutter and hand target-width inflation. We evaluated the system in a 2 x 2 x 2 within-subjects design manipulating Modality (Hand vs. Gaze), UI Mode (Static vs. Adaptive), and Pressure (Yes vs. No). Results from N=69 participants show that hand yielded higher throughput than gaze (5.17 vs. 4.73 bits/s), lower error (1.8% vs. 19.1%), and lower NASA-TLX workload. Crucially, error profiles differed sharply by modality: gaze errors were predominantly slips (99.2%), whereas hand errors were predominantly misses (95.7%), consistent with the Midas Touch account. Of the two adaptive interventions, only gaze declutter executed in this dataset; it modestly reduced timeouts but not slips. Hand width inflation was not evaluable due to a UI integration bug. These findings reveal modality-specific failure modes with direct implications for adaptive policy design, and establish the platform as a reproducible infrastructure for future studies.
Many software development platforms now support LLM-driven programming, or "vibe coding", a technique that allows one to specify programs in natural language and iterate from observed behavior, all without directly editing source code. While its adoption is accelerating, little is known about which skills best predict success in this workflow. We report a preregistered cross-sectional study with tertiary-level students (N = 100) who completed measures of computer-science achievement, domain-general cognitive skills, written-communication proficiency, and a vibe-coding assessment. Tasks were curated via an eight-expert consensus process and executed in a purpose-built, vibe-coding environment that mirrors commercial tools while enabling controlled evaluation. We find that both writing skill and CS achievement are significant predictors of vibe-coding performance, and that CS achievement remains a significant predictor after controlling for domain-general cognitive skills. The results may inform tool and curriculum design, including when to emphasize prompt-writing versus CS fundamentals to support future software creators.
Large language models (LLMs) are entering clinician workflows, yet evaluations rarely measure how clinician reasoning shapes model behavior during clinical interactions. We combined 61 New England Journal of Medicine Case Records with 92 real-world clinician-AI interactions to evaluate 21 reasoning LLM variants across 8 frontier models on differential diagnosis generation and next step recommendations under three conditions: reasoning alone, after expert clinician context, and after adversarial clinician context. LLM-clinician concordance increased substantially after clinician exposure, with simulations sharing >=3 differential diagnosis items rising from 65.8% to 93.5% and >=3 next step recommendations from 20.3% to 53.8%. Expert context significantly improved correct final diagnosis inclusion across all 21 models (mean +20.4 percentage points), reflecting both reasoning improvement and passive content echoing, while adversarial context caused significant diagnostic degradation in 14 models (mean -5.4 percentage points). Multi-turn disagreement probes revealed distinct model phenotypes ranging from highly conformist to dogmatic, with adversarial arguments remaining a persistent vulnerability even for otherwise resilient models. Inference-time scaling reduced harmful echoing of clinician-introduced recommendations across WHO-defined harm severity tiers (relative reductions: 62.7% mild, 57.9% moderate, 76.3% severe, 83.5% death-tier). In GPT-4o experiments, explicit clinician uncertainty signals improved diagnostic performance after adversarial context (final diagnosis inclusion 27% to 42%) and reduced alignment with incorrect arguments by 21%. These findings establish a foundation for evaluating clinician-AI collaboration, introducing interactive metrics and mitigation strategies essential for safety and robustness.
Over-reliance on AI systems can undermine users' critical thinking and promote complacency, a risk intensified by the emergence of agentic AI systems that operate with minimal human involvement. In software engineering, agentic coding assistants are rapidly becoming embedded in everyday development workflows. Since software engineers create systems deployed across diverse and high-stakes real-world contexts, these assistants must function not merely as autonomous task performers but as Tools for Thought that actively support human reasoning and sensemaking. We conducted a formative study examining software engineers' cognitive engagement and sensemaking processes when working with an agentic coding assistant. Our findings reveal that cognitive engagement consistently declines as tasks progress, and that current agentic coding assistants' designs provide limited affordances for reflection, verification, and meaning-making. Based on these findings, e identify concrete design opportunities leveraging richer interaction modalities and cognitive-forcing mechanisms to sustain engagement and promote deeper thinking in AI-assisted programming.
Artificial agents that support human group interactions hold great promise, especially in sensitive contexts such as well-being promotion and therapeutic interventions. However, current systems struggle to mediate group interactions involving people who are not neurotypical. This limitation arises because most AI detection models (e.g., for turn-taking) are trained on data from neurotypical populations. This work takes a step toward inclusive AI by addressing the challenge of eye contact detection, a core component of non-verbal communication, with and for people with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. First, we introduce a new dataset, Multi-party Interaction with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (MIDD), capturing atypical gaze and engagement patterns. Second, we present the results of a comparative analysis with neurotypical datasets, highlighting differences in class imbalance, speaking activity, gaze distribution, and interaction dynamics. Then, we evaluate classifiers ranging from SVMs to FSFNet, showing that fine-tuning on MIDD improves performance, though notable limitations remain. Finally, we present the insights gathered through a focus group with six therapists to interpret our quantitative findings and understand the practical implications of atypical gaze and engagement patterns. Based on these results, we discuss data-driven strategies and emphasize the importance of feature choice for building more inclusive human-centered tools.
As pedestrian navigation increasingly experiments with Generative AI, and in particular Large Language Models, the nature of routing risks transforming from a verifiable geometric task into an opaque, persuasive dialogue. While conversational interfaces promise personalisation, they introduce risks of manipulation and misplaced trust. We categorise these risks using a 2x2 framework based on intent and origin, distinguishing between intentional manipulations (dark patterns) and unintended harms (explainability pitfalls). We propose seamful design strategies to mitigate these harms. We suggest that one robust way to operationalise trustworthy conversational navigation is through neuro-symbolic architecture, where verifiable pathfinding algorithms ground GenAI's persuasive capabilities, ensuring systems explain their limitations and incentives as clearly as they explain the route.
ChatGPT, with its customization features and Voice Mode, has the potential for more engaging and peresonalized ESL (English as a Second Language) education. This study examines the efficacy of customized ChatGPT conversational features in facilitating ESL speaking practices, comparing the performance of four versions of ChatGPT Voice Mode: uncustomized Standard mode, uncustomized Advanced mode, customized Standard mode, and customized Advanced mode. Customization was guided by prompt engineering principles and grounded in relevant theories, including Motivation Theory, Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT), Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), and the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Content analysis found that customized versions generally provided more balanced feedback and emotional support, contributing to a positive and motivating learning environment. However, cultural responsiveness did not show significant improvement despite targeted customization efforts. These initial findings suggest that customization could enhance ChatGPT's capacity as a more effective language tutor, with the standard model already capable of meeting the learning needs. The study underscores the importance of prompt engineering and AI literacy in maximizaing AI's potential in language learning.
Integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) into business process management tools promises to democratize Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) modeling for non-experts. While automated frameworks assess syntactic and semantic quality, they miss human factors like trust, usability, and professional alignment. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of our proposed solution, an LLM-powered BPMN copilot, with five process modeling experts using focus groups and standardized questionnaires. Our findings reveal a critical tension between acceptable perceived usability (mean CUQ score: 67.2/100) and notably lower trust (mean score: 48.8\%), with reliability rated as the most critical concern (M=1.8/5). Furthermore, we identified output-quality issues, prompting difficulties, and a need for the LLM to ask more in-depth clarifying questions about the process. We envision five use cases ranging from domain-expert support to enterprise quality assurance. We demonstrate the necessity of human-centered evaluation complementing automated benchmarking for LLM modeling agents.
Generative AI is known for its tendency to homogenize, often reproducing dominant style conventions found in training data. However, it remains unclear how these homogenizing effects extend to complex structural tasks like web design. As lay creators increasingly turn to LLMs to 'vibe-code' websites -- prompting for aesthetic and functional goals rather than writing code -- they may inadvertently narrow the diversity of their designs, and limit creative expression throughout the internet. In this paper, we interrogate the possibility of design homogenization in web vibe coding. We first characterize the vibe coding lifecycle, pinpointing stages where homogenization risks may arise. We then conduct a sociotechnical risk analysis unpacking the potential harms of web vibe coding and their interaction with design homogenization. We identify that the push for frictionless generation can exacerbate homogenization and its harms. Finally, we propose a mitigation framework centered on the idea of productive friction. Through case studies at the micro, meso, and macro levels, we show how centering productive friction can empower creators to challenge default outputs and preserve diverse expression in AI-mediated web design.
Ableist microaggressions remain pervasive in everyday interactions, yet interventions to help people recognize them are limited. We present an experiment testing how AI-mediated dialogue influences recognition of ableism. 160 participants completed a pre-test, intervention, and a post-test across four conditions: AI nudges toward bias (Bias-Directed), inclusion (Neutral-Directed), unguided dialogue (Self-Directed), and a text-only non-dialogue (Reading). Participants rated scenarios on standardness of social experience and emotional impact; those in dialogue-based conditions also provided qualitative reflections. Quantitative results showed dialogue-based conditions produced stronger recognition than Reading, though trajectories diverged: biased nudges improved differentiation of bias from neutrality but increased overall negativity. Inclusive or no nudges remained more balanced, while Reading participants showed weaker gains and even declines. Qualitative findings revealed biased nudges were often rejected, while inclusive nudges were adopted as scaffolding. We contribute a validated vignette corpus, an AI-mediated intervention platform, and design implications highlighting trade-offs conversational systems face when integrating bias-related nudges.
Responding to the surging but largely invisible use of generative AI in entrepreneurial framing, I advance Ghost Framing Theory (GFT) to explain how hybrid founder- and investor-genAI ensembles co-produce, contest, and recalibrate resonance in the rhetorical legitimation of new ventures. Building on scholarship in framing, micro-level legitimacy judgments, and sociomaterial affordances, I identify genAI rhetorical affordances (generativeness, extreme combinatorics, tone repertoire, velocity/energy and shared substratum) and theorize a recursive/iterative process model (ghost pitching, ghost screening, ghost relationship-building), configuring emergent resonance and legitimation. GFT builds new rhetorical framing theory for the age of genAI, connects research on human-AI collaboration with cultural entrepreneurship and extends affordance theory into multi-actor scenarios where affordance transitivity and visibility emerge as key considerations.
Ramaswamy et al. reported in \textit{Nature Medicine} that ChatGPT Health under-triages 51.6\% of emergencies, concluding that consumer-facing AI triage poses safety risks. However, their evaluation used an exam-style protocol -- forced A/B/C/D output, knowledge suppression, and suppression of clarifying questions -- that differs fundamentally from how consumers use health chatbots. We tested five frontier LLMs (GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3 Flash, Gemini 3.1 Pro) on a 17-scenario partial replication bank under constrained (exam-style, 1,275 trials) and naturalistic (patient-style messages, 850 trials) conditions, with targeted ablations and prompt-faithful checks using the authors' released prompts. Naturalistic interaction improved triage accuracy by 6.4 percentage points ($p = 0.015$). Diabetic ketoacidosis was correctly triaged in 100\% of trials across all models and conditions. Asthma triage improved from 48\% to 80\%. The forced A/B/C/D format was the dominant failure mechanism: three models scored 0--24\% with forced choice but 100\% with free text (all $p < 10^{-8}$), consistently recommending emergency care in their own words while the forced-choice format registered under-triage. Prompt-faithful checks on the authors' exact released prompts confirmed the scaffold produces model-dependent, case-dependent results. The headline under-triage rate is highly contingent on evaluation format and should not be interpreted as a stable estimate of deployed triage behavior. Valid evaluation of consumer health AI requires testing under conditions that reflect actual use.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to power autonomous agents for complex, multi-step tasks. However, human-agent interaction remains pointwise and reactive: users approve or correct individual actions to mitigate immediate risks, without visibility into subsequent consequences. This forces users to mentally simulate long-term effects, a cognitively demanding and often inaccurate process. Users have control over individual steps but lack the foresight to make informed decisions. We argue that effective collaboration requires foresight, not just control. We propose simulation-in-the-loop, an interaction paradigm that enables users and agents to explore simulated future trajectories before committing to decisions. Simulation transforms intervention from reactive guesswork into informed exploration, while helping users discover latent constraints and preferences along the way. This perspective paper characterizes the limitations of current paradigms, introduces a conceptual framework for simulation-based collaboration, and illustrates its potential through concrete human-agent collaboration scenarios.
Users often struggle to locate an item within an information architecture, particularly when links are ambiguous or deeply nested in hierarchies. Information scent has been used to explain why users select incorrect links, but this concept assumes that users see all available links before deciding. In practice, users frequently select a link too quickly, overlook relevant cues, and then rely on backtracking when errors occur. We extend the concept of information scent by framing navigation as a sequential decision-making problem under memory constraints. Specifically, we assume that users do not scan entire pages but instead inspect strategically, looking "just enough" to find the target given their time budget. To choose which item to inspect next, they consider both local (this page) and global (site) scent; however, both are constrained by memory. Trying to avoid wasting time, they occasionally choose the wrong links without inspecting everything on a page. Comparisons with empirical data show that our model replicates key navigation behaviors: premature selections, wrong turns, and recovery from backtracking. We conclude that trial-and-error behavior is well explained by information scent when accounting for the sequential and bounded characteristics of the navigation problem.
Amidst the emergence of powerful intelligent technologies such as LLMs and text-to-image AIs that promise to enhance creative processes, designers face the challenges of remaining empowered and creative while working with these foreign digital partners. While generative AIs offer versatile, informative, and occasionally poetic outcomes, their lack of embodied knowledge presents an even greater challenge to designers in gaining fruitful outcomes, such as in the field of Digital Craftsmanship. In this project, three designers embarked on a three-month experimental journey with an intention to co-create with Google's LLM as a potential intelligent partner to investigate how it will influence the designers' creativity. We found that a power dynamic of agencies exists between the LLM and the designer, in which the designer can easily lose their creative agency. Regaining the designer's creative agency involves introspection into their own creative process, a structural understanding of the specific emerging technology involved, and deliberate adjustments to the dynamics of the human-technology relationship. We propose paying attention to the designer's inner world and parties of agencies when engaging with emerging intelligent technologies through three aspects: the sensitivity towards a creative process as cognitive activities; the active investigation into specific technology's capability; and the adjustment towards an appropriate working relationship between the designer and the emerging technology.
Large language models (LLMs) learn statistical associations from massive training corpora and user interactions, and deployed systems can surface or infer information about individuals. Yet people lack practical ways to inspect what a model associates with their name. We report interim findings from an ongoing study and introduce LMP2, a browser-based self-audit tool. In two user studies ($N_{total}{=}458$), GPT-4o predicts 11 of 50 features for everyday people with $\ge$60\% accuracy, and participants report wanting control over LLM-generated associations despite not considering all outputs privacy violations. To validate our probing method, we evaluate eight LLMs on public figures and non-existent names, observing clear separation between stable name-conditioned associations and model defaults. Our findings also contribute to exposing a broader generative AI evaluation crisis: when outputs are probabilistic, context-dependent, and user-mediated through elicitation, what model--individual associations even include is under-specified and operationalisation relies on crafting probes and metrics that are hard to validate or compare. To move towards reliable, actionable human-centred LLM privacy audits, we identify nine frictions that emerged in our study and offer recommendations for future work and the design of human-centred LLM privacy audits.
Recent digitisation efforts in natural history museums have produced large volumes of collection data, yet their scale and scientific complexity often hinder public access and understanding. Conventional data management tools, such as databases, restrict exploration through keyword-based search or require specialised schema knowledge. This paper presents a system design that uses conversational AI to query nearly 1.7 million digitised specimen records from the life-science collections of the Australian Museum. Designed and developed through a human-centred design process, the system contains an interactive map for visual-spatial exploration and a natural-language conversational agent that retrieves detailed specimen data and answers collection-specific questions. The system leverages function-calling capabilities of contemporary large language models to dynamically retrieve structured data from external APIs, enabling fast, real-time interaction with extensive yet frequently updated datasets. Our work provides a new approach of connecting large museum collections with natural language-based queries and informs future designs of scientific AI agents for natural history museums.
Silent and whispered speech offer promise for always-available voice interaction with AI, yet existing methods struggle to balance vocabulary size, wearability, silence, and noise robustness. We present NasoVoce, a nose-bridge-mounted interface that integrates a microphone and a vibration sensor. Positioned at the nasal pads of smart glasses, it unobtrusively captures both acoustic and vibration signals. The nasal bridge, close to the mouth, allows access to bone- and skin-conducted speech and enables reliable capture of low-volume utterances such as whispered speech. While the microphone captures high-quality audio, it is highly sensitive to environmental noise. Conversely, the vibration sensor is robust to noise but yields lower signal quality. By fusing these complementary inputs, NasoVoce generates high-quality speech robust against interference. Evaluation with Whisper Large-v2, PESQ, STOI, and MUSHRA ratings confirms improved recognition and quality. NasoVoce demonstrates the feasibility of a practical interface for always-available, continuous, and discreet AI voice conversations.
Emerging experimental evidence shows that writing with AI assistance can change both the views people express in writing and the opinions they hold afterwards. Yet, we lack substantive understanding of procedural and behavioral changes in co-writing with AI that underlie the observed opinion-shaping power of AI writing tools. We conducted a mixed-methods study, combining retrospective interviews with 19 participants about their AI co-writing experience with a quantitative analysis tracing engagement with ideas and opinions in 1{,}291 AI co-writing sessions. Our analysis shows that engaging with the AI's suggestions -- reading them and deciding whether to accept them -- becomes a central activity in the writing process, taking away from more traditional processes of ideation and language generation. As writers often do not complete their own ideation before engaging with suggestions, the suggested ideas and opinions seeded directions that writers then elaborated on. At the same time, writers did not notice the AI's influence and felt in full control of their writing, as they -- in principle -- could always edit the final text. We term this shift \textit{Reactive Writing}: an evaluation-first, suggestion-led writing practice that departs substantially from conventional composing in the presence of AI assistance and is highly vulnerable to AI-induced biases and opinion shifts.
Digital Human Modelling (DHM) is increasingly shaped by advances in AI, wearable biosensing, and interactive digital environments, particularly in research addressing accessibility and inclusion. However, many AI-enabled DHM approaches remain tightly coupled to specific platforms, tasks, or interpretative pipelines, limiting reproducibility, scalability, and ethical reuse. This paper presents a platform-agnostic DHM framework designed to support AI-ready multimodal interaction research by explicitly separating sensing, interaction modelling, and inference readiness. The framework integrates the OpenBCI Galea headset as a unified multimodal sensing layer, providing concurrent EEG, EMG, EOG, PPG, and inertial data streams, alongside a reproducible, game-based interaction environment implemented using SuperTux. Rather than embedding AI models or behavioural inference, physiological signals are represented as structured, temporally aligned observables, enabling downstream AI methods to be applied under appropriate ethical approval. Interaction is modelled using computational task primitives and timestamped event markers, supporting consistent alignment across heterogeneous sensors and platforms. Technical verification via author self-instrumentation confirms data integrity, stream continuity, and synchronisation; no human-subjects evaluation or AI inference is reported. Scalability considerations are discussed with respect to data throughput, latency, and extension to additional sensors or interaction modalities. Illustrative use cases demonstrate how the framework can support AI-enabled DHM and HCI studies, including accessibility-oriented interaction design and adaptive systems research, without requiring architectural modifications. The proposed framework provides an emerging-technology-focused infrastructure for future ethics-approved, inclusive DHM research.
In real-world collaboration, alignment, process structure, and outcome quality do not exhibit a simple linear or one-to-one correspondence: similar alignment may accompany either rapid convergence or extensive multi-branch exploration, and lead to different results. Existing accounts often isolate these dimensions or focus on specific participant types, limiting structural accounts of collaboration. We reconceptualize collaboration through two complementary lenses. The task lens models collaboration as trajectory evolution in a structured task space, revealing patterns such as advancement, branching, and backtracking. The intent lens examines how individual intents are expressed within shared contexts and enter situated decisions. Together, these lenses clarify the structural relationships among alignment, decision-making, and trajectory structure. Rather than reducing collaboration to outcome quality or treating alignment as the sole objective, we propose a unified dynamic view of the relationships among alignment, process, and outcome, and use it to re-examine collaboration structure across Human-Human, AI-AI, and Human-AI settings.
Digital educational environments are expanding toward complex AI and human discourse, providing researchers with an abundance of data that offers deep insights into learning and instructional processes. However, traditional qualitative analysis remains a labor-intensive bottleneck, severely limiting the scale at which this research can be conducted. We present Sandpiper, a mixed-initiative system designed to serve as a bridge between high-volume conversational data and human qualitative expertise. By tightly coupling interactive researcher dashboards with agentic Large Language Model (LLM) engines, the platform enables scalable analysis without sacrificing methodological rigor. Sandpiper addresses critical barriers to AI adoption in education by implementing context-aware, automated de-identification workflows supported by secure, university-housed infrastructure to ensure data privacy. Furthermore, the system employs schema-constrained orchestration to eliminate LLM hallucinations and enforces strict adherence to qualitative codebooks. An integrated evaluations engine allows for the continuous benchmarking of AI performance against human labels, fostering an iterative approach to model refinement and validation. We propose a user study to evaluate the system's efficacy in improving research efficiency, inter-rater reliability, and researcher trust in AI-assisted qualitative workflows.
Large language model (LLM)-based AI systems have shown promise for patient-facing diagnostic and management conversations in simulated settings. Translating these systems into clinical practice requires assessment in real-world workflows with rigorous safety oversight. We report a prospective, single-arm feasibility study of an LLM-based conversational AI, the Articulate Medical Intelligence Explorer (AMIE), conducting clinical history taking and presentation of potential diagnoses for patients to discuss with their provider at urgent care appointments at a leading academic medical center. 100 adult patients completed an AMIE text-chat interaction up to 5 days before their appointment. We sought to assess the conversational safety and quality, patient and clinician experience, and clinical reasoning capabilities compared to primary care providers (PCPs). Human safety supervisors monitored all patient-AMIE interactions in real time and did not need to intervene to stop any consultations based on pre-defined criteria. Patients reported high satisfaction and their attitudes towards AI improved after interacting with AMIE (p < 0.001). PCPs found AMIE's output useful with a positive impact on preparedness. AMIE's differential diagnosis (DDx) included the final diagnosis, per chart review 8 weeks post-encounter, in 90% of cases, with 75% top-3 accuracy. Blinded assessment of AMIE and PCP DDx and management (Mx) plans suggested similar overall DDx and Mx plan quality, without significant differences for DDx (p = 0.6) and appropriateness and safety of Mx (p = 0.1 and 1.0, respectively). PCPs outperformed AMIE in the practicality (p = 0.003) and cost effectiveness (p = 0.004) of Mx. While further research is needed, this study demonstrates the initial feasibility, safety, and user acceptance of conversational AI in a real-world setting, representing crucial steps towards clinical translation.