TY - CHAP A1 - Rosbach, Emely A1 - Ammeling, Jonas A1 - Krügel, Sebastian A1 - Kießig, Angelika A1 - Fritz, Alexis A1 - Ganz, Jonathan A1 - Puget, Chloé A1 - Donovan, Taryn A1 - Klang, Andrea A1 - Köller, Maximilian C. A1 - Bolfa, Pompei A1 - Tecilla, Marco A1 - Denk, Daniela A1 - Kiupel, Matti A1 - Paraschou, Georgios A1 - Kok, Mun Keong A1 - Haake, Alexander F. H. A1 - de Krijger, Ronald R. A1 - Sonnen, Andreas F.-P. A1 - Kasantikul, Tanit A1 - Dorrestein, Gerry M. A1 - Smedley, Rebecca C. A1 - Stathonikos, Nikolas A1 - Uhl, Matthias A1 - Bertram, Christof A1 - Riener, Andreas A1 - Aubreville, Marc ED - Yamashita, Naomi ED - Evers, Vanessa ED - Yatani, Koji ED - Ding, Xianghua ED - Lee, Bongshin ED - Chetty, Marshini ED - Toups-Dugas, Phoebe T1 - "When Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" - Examining Confirmation Bias and the Role of Time Pressure During Human-AI Collaboration in Computational Pathology T2 - CHI'25: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems N2 - 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. UR - https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713319 Y1 - 2025 UR - https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713319 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:573-58797 SN - 979-8-4007-1394-1 PB - ACM CY - New York ER - TY - INPR A1 - Rosbach, Emely A1 - Ammeling, Jonas A1 - Krügel, Sebastian A1 - Kießig, Angelika A1 - Fritz, Alexis A1 - Ganz, Jonathan A1 - Puget, Chloé A1 - Donovan, Taryn A1 - Klang, Andrea A1 - Köller, Maximilian C. A1 - Bolfa, Pompei A1 - Tecilla, Marco A1 - Denk, Daniela A1 - Kiupel, Matti A1 - Paraschou, Georgios A1 - Kok, Mun Keong A1 - Haake, Alexander F. H. A1 - de Krijger, Ronald R. A1 - Sonnen, Andreas F.-P. A1 - Kasantikul, Tanit A1 - Dorrestein, Gerry M. A1 - Smedley, Rebecca C. A1 - Stathonikos, Nikolas A1 - Uhl, Matthias A1 - Bertram, Christof A1 - Riener, Andreas A1 - Aubreville, Marc T1 - "When TwoWrongs Don’t Make a Right" - Examining Confirmation Bias and the Role of Time Pressure During Human-AI Collaboration in Computational Pathology UR - https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.01007 Y1 - 2024 UR - https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.01007 PB - arXiv CY - Ithaca ER - TY - INPR A1 - Rosbach, Emely A1 - Ganz, Jonathan A1 - Ammeling, Jonas A1 - Riener, Andreas A1 - Aubreville, Marc T1 - Automation Bias in AI-Assisted Medical Decision-Making under Time Pressure in Computational Pathology UR - https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.00998 Y1 - 2024 UR - https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.00998 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Ammeling, Jonas A1 - Manger, Carina A1 - Kwaka, Elias A1 - Krügel, Sebastian A1 - Uhl, Matthias A1 - Kießig, Angelika A1 - Fritz, Alexis A1 - Ganz, Jonathan A1 - Riener, Andreas A1 - Bertram, Christof A1 - Breininger, Katharina A1 - Aubreville, Marc ED - Stolze, Markus ED - Loch, Frieder ED - Baldauf, Matthias ED - Alt, Florian ED - Schneegass, Christina ED - Kosch, Thomas ED - Hirzle, Teresa ED - Sadeghian, Shadan ED - Draxler, Fiona ED - Bektas, Kenan ED - Lohan, Katrin ED - Knierim, Pascal T1 - Appealing but Potentially Biasing - Investigation of the Visual Representation of Segmentation Predictions by AI Recommender Systems for Medical Decision Making T2 - Mensch und Computer 2023: Building Bridges: Tagungsband (Proceedings) UR - https://doi.org/10.1145/3603555.3608561 Y1 - 2023 UR - https://doi.org/10.1145/3603555.3608561 SN - 979-8-4007-0771-1 SP - 330 EP - 335 PB - ACM CY - New York ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Rosbach, Emely A1 - Ganz, Jonathan A1 - Ammeling, Jonas A1 - Riener, Andreas A1 - Aubreville, Marc ED - Palm, Christoph ED - Breininger, Katharina ED - Deserno, Thomas Martin ED - Handels, Heinz ED - Maier, Andreas ED - Maier-Hein, Klaus H. ED - Tolxdorff, Thomas T1 - Automation Bias in AI-assisted Medical Decision-making under Time Pressure in Computational Pathology T2 - Bildverarbeitung für die Medizin 2025: Proceedings, German Conference on Medical Image Computing, Regensburg March 09–11, 2025 UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-47422-5_27 Y1 - 2025 UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-47422-5_27 SN - 978-3-658-47422-5 SP - 129 EP - 134 PB - Springer Vieweg CY - Wiesbaden ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Rosbach, Emely A1 - Ammeling, Jonas A1 - Ganz, Jonathan A1 - Bertram, Christof A1 - Conrad, Thomas A1 - Riener, Andreas A1 - Aubreville, Marc T1 - Stuck on Suggestions: Automation Bias, the Anchoring Effect, and the Factors That Shape Them in Computational Pathology JF - Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging N2 - Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven clinical decision support systems (CDSS) hold promise to improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in computational pathology. However, collaboration between human experts and AI may give rise to cognitive biases, such as automation and anchoring bias, wherein users may be inclined to blindly adopt system recommendations or be disproportionately influenced by the presence of AI predictions, even when they are inaccurate. These biases may be exacerbated under time pressure, pervasive in routine pathology diagnostics, or shaped by individual user characteristics. To investigate these effects, we conducted a web-based experiment in which trained pathology experts (n = 28) estimated tumor cell percentages twice: once independently and once with the aid of an AI. A subset of the estimates in each condition was performed under time constraints. Our findings indicate that AI integration generally enhances diagnostic performance. However, it also introduced a 7% automation bias rate, quantified as the number of accepted negative consultations, where a previously correct independent assessment gets overturned by inaccurate AI guidance. While time pressure did not increase the frequency of automation bias occurrence, it appeared to intensify its severity, as evidenced by a performance decline linked to increased automation reliance under cognitive load. A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) analysis, simulating weighted averaging, revealed a statistically significant positive coefficient for AI advice, indicating a moderate degree of anchoring on system output. This effect was further intensified under time pressure, suggesting that anchoring bias may become more pronounced when cognitive resources are limited. A secondary LMM evaluation assessing automation reliance, used as a proxy for both automation and anchoring bias, demonstrated that professional experience and self-efficacy were associated with reduced dependence on system support, whereas higher confidence during AI-assisted decision-making was linked to increased automation reliance. Together, these findings underscore the dual nature of AI integration in clinical workflows, offering performance benefits while also introducing risks of cognitive bias–driven diagnostic errors. As an initial investigation focused on a single medical specialty and diagnostic task, this study aims to lay the groundwork for future research to explore these phenomena across diverse clinical contexts, ultimately supporting the establishment of appropriate reliance on automated systems and the safe, effective integration of human–AI collaboration in medical decision-making. UR - https://doi.org/10.59275/j.melba.2026-87b1 Y1 - 2026 UR - https://doi.org/10.59275/j.melba.2026-87b1 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:573-67787 SN - 2766-905X VL - 3 IS - MELBA–BVM 2025 Special Issue SP - 126 EP - 147 PB - Melba editors CY - [s. l.] ER -