@inproceedings{RosbachAmmelingKruegeletal.2025, author = {Rosbach, Emely and Ammeling, Jonas and Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Kießig, Angelika and Fritz, Alexis and Ganz, Jonathan and Puget, Chlo{\´e} and Donovan, Taryn and Klang, Andrea and K{\"o}ller, Maximilian C. and Bolfa, Pompei and Tecilla, Marco and Denk, Daniela and Kiupel, Matti and Paraschou, Georgios and Kok, Mun Keong and Haake, Alexander F. H. and de Krijger, Ronald R. and Sonnen, Andreas F.-P. and Kasantikul, Tanit and Dorrestein, Gerry M. and Smedley, Rebecca C. and Stathonikos, Nikolas and Uhl, Matthias and Bertram, Christof and Riener, Andreas and Aubreville, Marc}, title = {"When Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" - Examining Confirmation Bias and the Role of Time Pressure During Human-AI Collaboration in Computational Pathology}, pages = {528}, booktitle = {CHI'25: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems}, editor = {Yamashita, Naomi and Evers, Vanessa and Yatani, Koji and Ding, Xianghua and Lee, Bongshin and Chetty, Marshini and Toups-Dugas, Phoebe}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {New York}, isbn = {979-8-4007-1394-1}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713319}, year = {2025}, abstract = {Artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision support systems hold promise for enhancing diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in computational pathology. However, human-AI collaboration can introduce and amplify cognitive biases, like confirmation bias caused by false confirmation when erroneous human opinions are reinforced by inaccurate AI output. This bias may increase under time pressure, a ubiquitous factor in routine pathology, as it strains practitioners' cognitive resources. We quantified confirmation bias triggered by AI-induced false confirmation and examined the role of time constraints in a web-based experiment, where trained pathology experts (n=28) estimated tumor cell percentages. Our results suggest that AI integration fuels confirmation bias, evidenced by a statistically significant positive linear-mixed-effects model coefficient linking AI recommendations mirroring flawed human judgment and alignment with system advice. Conversely, time pressure appeared to weaken this relationship. These findings highlight potential risks of AI in healthcare and aim to support the safe integration of clinical decision support systems.}, language = {en} } @article{AmmelingAubrevilleFritzetal.2024, author = {Ammeling, Jonas and Aubreville, Marc and Fritz, Alexis and Kießig, Angelika and Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {An interdisciplinary perspective on AI-supported decision making in medicine}, volume = {2025}, pages = {102791}, journal = {Technology in Society}, number = {81}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {1879-3274}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102791}, year = {2024}, abstract = {Artificial intelligence (AI)-supported medical diagnosis offers the potential to utilize the collaborative intelligence of context-sensitive humans and narrowly focused machines for patients' benefit. The employment of machine-learning-based decision-support systems (MLDSS) in medicine, however, raises important multidisciplinary challenges that cannot be addressed in isolation. We discuss three disciplinary perspectives on the topic and their interplay. Ethical issues arise at the level of changing responsibility structures in healthcare. Behavioral issues relate to the actual impact that the system has on physicians. Technical issues arise with respect to the training of a machine learning (ML) model that gives accurate advice. We argue that the interaction between physicians and MLDSS including the concrete design of the interface in which this interaction occurs can only be considered at the intersection of all three disciplines.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{AmmelingMangerKwakaetal.2023, author = {Ammeling, Jonas and Manger, Carina and Kwaka, Elias and Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Uhl, Matthias and Kießig, Angelika and Fritz, Alexis and Ganz, Jonathan and Riener, Andreas and Bertram, Christof and Breininger, Katharina and Aubreville, Marc}, title = {Appealing but Potentially Biasing - Investigation of the Visual Representation of Segmentation Predictions by AI Recommender Systems for Medical Decision Making}, booktitle = {Mensch und Computer 2023: Building Bridges: Tagungsband (Proceedings)}, editor = {Stolze, Markus and Loch, Frieder and Baldauf, Matthias and Alt, Florian and Schneegass, Christina and Kosch, Thomas and Hirzle, Teresa and Sadeghian, Shadan and Draxler, Fiona and Bektas, Kenan and Lohan, Katrin and Knierim, Pascal}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {New York}, isbn = {979-8-4007-0771-1}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3603555.3608561}, pages = {330 -- 335}, year = {2023}, language = {en} } @article{KruegelAmmelingAubrevilleetal.2024, author = {Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Ammeling, Jonas and Aubreville, Marc and Fritz, Alexis and Kießig, Angelika and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {Perceived responsibility in AI-supported medicine}, volume = {40}, journal = {AI \& Society: Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Communication}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {London}, issn = {1435-5655}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01972-6}, pages = {1485 -- 1495}, year = {2024}, abstract = {In a representative vignette study in Germany with 1,653 respondents, we investigated laypeople's attribution of moral responsibility in collaborative medical diagnosis. Specifically, we compare people's judgments in a setting in which physicians are supported by an AI-based recommender system to a setting in which they are supported by a human colleague. It turns out that people tend to attribute moral responsibility to the artificial agent, although this is traditionally considered a category mistake in normative ethics. This tendency is stronger when people believe that AI may become conscious at some point. In consequence, less responsibility is attributed to human agents in settings with hybrid diagnostic teams than in settings with human-only diagnostic teams. Our findings may have implications for behavior exhibited in contexts of collaborative medical decision making with AI-based as opposed to human recommenders because less responsibility is attributed to agents who have the mental capacity to care about outcomes.}, language = {en} }