Cited By
View all- Schraick LEhrlich-Sommer FStampfer KMeixner OHolzinger A(2024)Usability in human-robot collaborative workspacesUniversal Access in the Information Society10.1007/s10209-024-01163-6Online publication date: 25-Oct-2024
Designing Interaction with AI for Human Learning: Towards Human-Machine Teaming in Radiology Training
Authors: 
Margot Brereton, Aloha Hufana Ambe, David Lovell, Laurianne Sitbon, Tara Capel, 
Alessandro Soro, Yue Xu, Catarina Moreira, Benoit Favre, Andrew BradleyAuthors Info & Claims
Pages 639 - 647
Abstract
We explore the design of systems that enable humans and machines to operate as teams, exercising their different and complementary abilities to work and learn together. Machine Learning (ML) is now widely used in diverse applications such as medical image reading and autonomous vehicles, but typically, ML systems are not designed with human learning in mind, sometimes eroding or supplanting human skills, creating a whole that is less than the sum of its parts. We propose a new approach to ML/AI system design to foster human-machine mutual learning: synergistic interactions in which machines help people think critically and gain wisdom, while people help improve machine models by reframing ML tasks and immersing them in human-machine-human systems which provide feedback to the AI model while helping humans to learn. By explicitly aiming to increase human skill and wisdom, teaming goes beyond “human-in-the-loop” approaches where humans serve primarily to enhance machine performance. We contribute a conceptual model for human-machine teaming design and use a case study in radiology training to identify five critical considerations for interaction design and for how to make AI interactive: (1) human-machine dialogue (2) labelling and attention (3) problem framing (4) biases, values and affect (5) ethics, agency and human choice.
Supplemental Material
MP4 File
Presentation Video - OzCHI2023
- Download
- 15.79 MB
References
[1]
Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N. Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz. 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings.
[2]
Tariq Osman Andersen, Francisco Nunes, Lauren Wilcox, Enrico Coiera, and Yvonne Rogers. 2023. Introduction to the Special Issue on Human-Centred AI in Healthcare: Challenges Appearing in the Wild. ACM Trans. Comput. Interact. (2023).
[3]
Vernol Battiste, Joel Lachter, Summer Brandt, Armando Alvarez, Thomas Z. Strybel, and Kim Phuong L. Vu. 2018. Human-Automation Teaming: Lessons Learned and Future Directions. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics).
[4]
Jacqueline Beinecke, Anna Saranti, Alessa Angerschmid, Bastian Pfeifer, Vanessa Klemt, Andreas Holzinger, and Anne-Christin Hauschild. 2022. CLARUS: An Intera c tive Exp l ainable AI Pl a tform for Manual Counterfactuals in G r aph Ne u ral Network s. bioRxiv (2022), 2011–2022.
[5]
Alan F Blackwell. 2015. Interacting with an Inferred World: The Challenge of Machine Learning for Humane Computer Interaction. Aarhus Ser. Hum. Centered Comput. 1, 1 (2015), 12.
[6]
Carrie J. Cai, Emily Reif, Narayan Hegde, Jason Hipp, Been Kim, Daniel Smilkov, Martin Wattenberg, Fernanda Viegas, Greg S. Corrado, Martin C. Stumpe, and Michael Terry. 2019. Human-centered tools for coping with imperfect algorithms during medical decision-making. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings.
[7]
Sabrina Caldwell, Penny Sweetser, Nicholas O'donnell, Matthew J. Knight, Matthew Aitchison, Tom Gedeon, Daniel Johnson, Margot Brereton, Marcus Gallagher, and David Conroy. 2022. An Agile New Research Framework for Hybrid Human-AI Teaming: Trust, Transparency, and Transferability. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. (2022).
[8]
Tara Capel and Margot Brereton. 2023. What is Human-Centered about Human-Centered AI? A Map of the Research Landscape. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.
[9]
Stevie Chancellor. 2023. Toward Practices for Human-Centered Machine Learning. Commun. ACM 66, 3 (February 2023), 78–85.
[10]
David Cohn, Les Atlas, and Richard Ladner. 1994. Improving Generalization with Active Learning. Mach. Learn. (1994).
[11]
A Feder Cooper, Emanuel Moss, Benjamin Laufer, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2022. Accountability in an Algorithmic Society: Relationality, Responsibility, and Robustness in Machine Learning. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’22), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 864–876.
[12]
Christo Dichev, Darina Dicheva, Galia Angelova, and Gennady Agre. 2014. From gamification to gameful design and gameful experience in learning. Cybern. Inf. Technol. (2014).
[13]
Graham Dove, Kim Halskov, Jodi Forlizzi, and John Zimmerman. 2017. UX design innovation: Challenges for working with machine learning as a design material. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings.
[14]
European Commission. 2018. Artificial Intelligence: Commission Outlines a European Approach to Boost Investment and Set Ethical Guidelines. Press Release (2018).
[15]
Joshua J. Fenton, Stephen H. Taplin, Patricia A. Carney, Linn Abraham, Edward A. Sickles, Carl D'Orsi, Eric A. Berns, Gary Cutter, R. Edward Hendrick, William E. Barlow, and Joann G. Elmore. 2007. Influence of Computer-Aided Detection on Performance of Screening Mammography. N. Engl. J. Med. (2007).
[16]
William Gale, Luke Oakden-Rayner, Gustavo Carneiro, Andrew P Bradley, and Lyle J Palmer. 2018. Producing radiologist-quality reports for interpretable artificial intelligence.
[17]
William Gale, Luke Oakden-Rayner, Gustavo Carneiro, Lyle J Palmer, and Andrew P Bradley. 2019. Producing radiologist-quality reports for interpretable deep learning. In 2019 IEEE 16th international symposium on biomedical imaging (ISBI 2019), 1275–1279.
[18]
Arthur C Graesser, Xiangen Hu, and Robert Sottilare. 2018. Intelligent tutoring systems. In International handbook of the learning sciences. Routledge, 246–255.
[19]
David Gur, Andriy I Bandos, Cathy S Cohen, Christiane M Hakim, Lara A Hardesty, Marie A Ganott, Ronald L Perrin, William R Poller, Ratan Shah, Jules H Sumkin, and others. 2008. The “laboratory” effect: comparing radiologists’ performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 249, 1 (2008), 47–53.
[20]
Kilem L Gwet. 2014. Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Advanced Analytics, LLC.
[21]
Sandra Harding. 2006. Science and social inequality: Feminist and postcolonial issues. University of Illinois Press.
[22]
Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 1026–1034.
[23]
Tad Hirsch, Kritzia Merced, Shrikanth Narayanan, Zac E Imel, and David C Atkins. 2017. Designing Contestability: Interaction Design, Machine Learning, and Mental Health. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’17), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 95–99.
[24]
Fred Hohman, Andrew Head, Rich Caruana, Robert DeLine, and Steven M. Drucker. 2019. Gamut: A design probe to understand how data scientists understand machine learning models. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings.
[25]
Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hal Daumé, Miroslav Dudík, and Hanna Wallach. 2019. Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need? In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings.
[26]
Ben Hutchinson, Andrew Smart, Alex Hanna, Emily Denton, Christina Greer, Oddur Kjartansson, Parker Barnes, and Margaret Mitchell. 2021. Towards Accountability for Machine Learning Datasets: Practices from Software Engineering and Infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’21), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 560–575.
[27]
Sham M Kakade, Shai Shalev-Shwartz, and Ambuj Tewari. 2008. Efficient Bandit Algorithms for Online Multiclass Prediction. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML ’08), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 440–447.
[28]
Alexey Kurakin, Ian J Goodfellow, and Samy Bengio. 2018. Adversarial examples in the physical world. In Artificial intelligence safety and security. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 99–112.
[29]
Constance D. Lehman, Robert D. Wellman, Diana S.M. Buist, Karla Kerlikowske, Anna N.A. Tosteson, and Diana L. Miglioretti. 2015. Diagnostic accuracy of digital screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection. JAMA Intern. Med. (2015).
[30]
Andrew L. Maas, Peng Qi, Ziang Xie, Awni Y. Hannun, Christopher T. Lengerich, Daniel Jurafsky, and Andrew Y. Ng. 2017. Building DNN acoustic models for large vocabulary speech recognition. Comput. Speech Lang. (2017).
[31]
Prashan Madumal, Tim Miller, Frank Vetere, and Liz Sonenberg. 2018. Towards a Grounded Dialog Model for Explainable Artificial Intelligence.
[32]
Scott Mayer McKinney, Marcin Sieniek, Varun Godbole, Jonathan Godwin, Natasha Antropova, Hutan Ashrafian, Trevor Back, Mary Chesus, Greg C. Corrado, Ara Darzi, Mozziyar Etemadi, Florencia Garcia-Vicente, Fiona J. Gilbert, Mark Halling-Brown, Demis Hassabis, Sunny Jansen, Alan Karthikesalingam, Christopher J. Kelly, Dominic King, Joseph R. Ledsam, David Melnick, Hormuz Mostofi, Lily Peng, Joshua Jay Reicher, Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Richard Sidebottom, Mustafa Suleyman, Daniel Tse, Kenneth C. Young, Jeffrey De Fauw, and Shravya Shetty. 2020. International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature (2020).
[33]
Jude Chua Soo Meng. 2009. Donald Schön, Herbert Simon and the sciences of the artificial. Des. Stud. 30, 1 (2009), 60–68.
[34]
Catarina Moreira, Yu Liang Chou, Mythreyi Velmurugan, Chun Ouyang, Renuka Sindhgatta, and Peter Bruza. 2021. LINDA-BN: An interpretable probabilistic approach for demystifying black-box predictive models. Decis. Support Syst. (2021).
[35]
Kathleen L. Mosier and Linda J. Skitka. 2018. Human decision makers and automated decision aids: Made for each other? In Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications.
[36]
Michael Muller and Justin Weisz. 2022. Extending a Human-AI Collaboration Framework with Dynamism and Sociality. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series.
[37]
Emanuele Neri, Nandita de Souza, Adrian Brady, Angel Alberich Bayarri, Christoph D. Becker, Francesca Coppola, and Jacob Visser. 2019. What the radiologist should know about artificial intelligence – an ESR white paper. Insights Imaging (2019).
[38]
Stefanos Nikolaidis, David Hsu, and Siddhartha Srinivasa. 2017. Human-robot mutual adaptation in collaborative tasks: Models and experiments. Int. J. Rob. Res. (2017).
[39]
Mahsan Nourani, Chiradeep Roy, Jeremy E. Block, Donald R. Honeycutt, Tahrima Rahman, Eric Ragan, and Vibhav Gogate. 2021. Anchoring Bias Affects Mental Model Formation and User Reliance in Explainable AI Systems. In International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Proceedings IUI.
[40]
Thomas O'Neill, Nathan McNeese, Amy Barron, and Beau Schelble. 2022. Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature. Hum. Factors (2022).
[41]
Ozlem Ozmen Garibay, Brent Winslow, Salvatore Andolina, Margherita Antona, Anja Bodenschatz, Constantinos Coursaris, Gregory Falco, Stephen M Fiore, Ivan Garibay, Keri Grieman, and others. 2023. Six human-centered artificial intelligence grand challenges. Int. J. Human–Computer Interact. 39, 3 (2023), 391–437.
[42]
Dong Huk Park, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Zeynep Akata, Anna Rohrbach, Bernt Schiele, Trevor Darrell, and Marcus Rohrbach. 2018. Multimodal Explanations: Justifying Decisions and Pointing to the Evidence. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
[43]
Pranav Rajpurkar, Jeremy Irvin, Kaylie Zhu, Brandon Yang, Hershel Mehta, Tony Duan, Daisy Ding, Aarti Bagul, Curtis Langlotz, Katie Shpanskaya, and others. 2017. Chexnet: Radiologist-level pneumonia detection on chest x-rays with deep learning. arXiv Prepr. arXiv1711.05225 (2017).
[44]
Saad Ranginwala and Alexander J. Towbin. 2018. Use of Social Media in Radiology Education. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. (2018).
[45]
Christina Rödel, Susanne Stadler, Alexander Meschtscherjakov, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2014. Towards Autonomous Cars: The Effect of Autonomy Levels on Acceptance and User Experience. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI ’14), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8.
[46]
Jeremy Roschelle and Stephanie D. Teasley. 1995. The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving. In Computer Supported Collaborative Learning.
[47]
Donald A Schon. 1984. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic books.
[48]
Bill Siwicki. 2018. Testing algorithms key to applying AI and machine learning in healthcare. HealthcareITNews. Retrieved from https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/testing-algorithms-key-applying-ai-and-machine-learning-healthcare
[49]
Masatoshi Tsuchiya. 2018. Performance impact caused by hidden bias of training data for recognizing textual entailment. arXiv Prepr. arXiv1804.08117 (2018).
[50]
Judy Wajcman. 2004. Technofeminism. Cambridge: Polity. (2004).
[51]
Natnael A Wondimu, Cédric Buche, and Ubbo Visser. 2022. Interactive machine learning: A state of the art review. arXiv Prepr. arXiv2207.06196 (2022).
[52]
Qian Yang, Alex Scuito, John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Aaron Steinfeld. 2018. Investigating how experienced UX designers effectively work with machine learning. In DIS 2018 - Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference.
[53]
Nur Yildirim, Changhoon Oh, Deniz Sayar, Kayla Brand, Supritha Challa, Violet Turri, Nina Crosby Walton, Anna Elise Wong, Jodi Forlizzi, James McCann, and others. 2023. Creating Design Resources to Scaffold the Ideation of AI Concepts. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 2326–2346.
[54]
J D Zamfirescu-Pereira, Heather Wei, Amy Xiao, Kitty Gu, Grace Jung, Matthew G Lee, Bjoern Hartmann, and Qian Yang. 2023. Herding AI Cats: Lessons from Designing a Chatbot by Prompting GPT-3.
[55]
Cognii: Artificial Intelligence for Education. Retrieved November 6, 2023 from https://www.cognii.com/
[56]
Radiopaedia. Retrieved February 1, 2021 from https://radiopaedia.org/
[57]
ChatGPT. Retrieved June 5, 2023 from https://chat.openai.com/
[58]
Annalise.ai. Retrieved February 1, 2021 from https://annalise.ai/
Recommendations
Human-Centred Machine Learning
CHI EA '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsMachine learning is one of the most important and successful techniques in contemporary computer science. It involves the statistical inference of models (such as classifiers) from data. It is often conceived in a very impersonal way, with algorithms ...
Human-like computing and human---computer interaction
HCI '16: Proceedings of the 30th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference: Fusion!Intelligent interfaces have moved into the mainstream, but often using black-box algorithms that even the developers, let alone the users can understand. Human-like computing is about making algorithms closer to the way humans' think in order to improve ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
December 2023
733 pages
ISBN:9798400717079
DOI:10.1145/3638380
Copyright © 2023 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 10 May 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Short-paper
- Research
- Refereed limited
Data Availability
Presentation Video - OzCHI2023 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3638380.3638435#Margot_Presentation_Video.mp4
Funding Sources
Conference
OzCHI 2023
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 362 of 729 submissions, 50%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 249Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)249
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)59
Reflects downloads up to 21 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Schraick LEhrlich-Sommer FStampfer KMeixner OHolzinger A(2024)Usability in human-robot collaborative workspacesUniversal Access in the Information Society10.1007/s10209-024-01163-6Online publication date: 25-Oct-2024
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in