Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 66 cited by

Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task

T0 review · 3 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-16 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Relying on LLMs for essay writing reduces brain connectivity and builds cognitive debt compared to writing unaided or with search tools.

desk verdict EEG connectivity drops with LLM assistance in writing tasks, but claims of cognitive debt accumulation lack support from the small crossover sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08872 v2 pith:5X6L4SNR submitted 2025-06-10 cs.AI

Nataliya Kosmyna , Eugene Hauptmann , Ye Tong Yuan , Jessica Situ , Xian-Hao Liao , Ashly Vivian Beresnitzky , Iris Braunstein , Pattie Maes This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords cognitivedebtLLMEEGconnectivityessaywritingAIassistancebrainnetworkslearningimplicationsneuralengagement
checked against defect_zero_iff_oneFoundation.DiscretenessForcing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper examines the effects of using large language model assistants on brain activity during essay writing by comparing three groups: those using only their minds, those with search engines, and those with LLMs. It tracks participants over multiple sessions with EEG measurements of brain connectivity, analysis of essay content, and assessments of how much ownership people feel over their work. The central finding is that brain-only users develop the strongest and most distributed neural networks, search users show medium levels, and LLM users show the weakest, with this pattern persisting and leading to poorer recall and engagement. If correct, the results indicate that relying on AI for such tasks may reduce the cognitive effort needed for learning and memory formation.

What carries the argument

EEG measurements of brain network connectivity during writing tasks, which scale down as reliance on external tools increases.

What would settle it

A study tracking the same individuals' brain connectivity over many months with and without LLM access during writing tasks to observe if connectivity declines specifically with LLM exposure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The study found that brain connectivity during essay writing was strongest and most distributed among participants who wrote without any tools, moderate for those using search engines, and weakest for those assisted by LLMs. This scaling of neural engagement inversely with tool use held across sessions, and in a fourth session where conditions switched, participants who had used LLMs showed reduced alpha and beta connectivity even when switched to no-tool writing. LLM users also reported the lowest sense of ownership over their essays and had difficulty accurately recalling quotes from their own writing, while brain-only users showed the highest ownership.

Load-bearing premise

That the observed differences in EEG brain connectivity reflect a buildup of cognitive debt from repeated LLM use rather than short-term task demands or pre-existing group differences.

Editorial extensions

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar cognitive reductions might occur in other domains like coding or problem-solving when using AI assistants.
  • Longer-term studies could test whether these effects reverse after prolonged periods without AI tools.
  • Educational practices may need to incorporate strategies to mitigate dependency on AI for core skill development.
  • The findings suggest potential societal impacts on critical thinking if AI use becomes widespread in learning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an empirical study comparing LLM-assisted, search-engine-assisted, and brain-only essay writing across three sessions (n=54) with a crossover in session 4 (n=18). Using EEG for brain connectivity, NLP metrics, human and AI essay scoring, it claims that brain-only participants show the strongest distributed neural networks, LLM users the weakest connectivity and lowest essay ownership, and that LLM users exhibit consistent underperformance at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels over four months, indicating accumulation of cognitive debt.

Significance. If the reported EEG connectivity differences and behavioral patterns prove robust, the work would be significant for cognitive science and AI ethics in education, providing empirical evidence of potential long-term costs of LLM reliance during learning tasks and motivating further study of tool effects on cognitive engagement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The headline claim of consistent underperformance 'over four months' and accumulation of cognitive debt relies on group comparisons from sessions 1-3 plus a small crossover (n=18) in session 4, but provides no within-subject longitudinal metrics such as session-by-session connectivity slopes for the original LLM arm or power calculations, leaving the accumulation interpretation unsupported.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (session-4 description): With only 18 completers in the crossover (presumably ~9 per switched arm), observed drops in alpha/beta connectivity for LLM-to-Brain participants cannot be isolated from immediate reassignment effects, selection bias among returnees, or unmeasured baseline differences; the design does not report within-subject change scores or equivalence checks between original groups.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: EEG connectivity differences are described as 'significant' without accompanying error bars, p-values, exact statistical tests, or detailed exclusion criteria, which limits evaluation of the strength of evidence for the ordering Brain-only > Search > LLM.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The description of NLP analyses (NERs, n-gram patterns, topic ontology) states within-group homogeneity but does not quantify how these metrics relate to the central cognitive-debt claim or report between-group contrasts.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's detailed feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Where appropriate, we have revised the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The headline claim of consistent underperformance 'over four months' and accumulation of cognitive debt relies on group comparisons from sessions 1-3 plus a small crossover (n=18) in session 4, but provides no within-subject longitudinal metrics such as session-by-session connectivity slopes for the original LLM arm or power calculations, leaving the accumulation interpretation unsupported.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point regarding the interpretation of our findings. The accumulation of cognitive debt is inferred from the consistent pattern of underperformance in the LLM group across the three sessions compared to the other groups. In the revised manuscript, we have included additional analyses showing session-by-session EEG connectivity metrics for all groups to better illustrate the patterns. We acknowledge the lack of formal within-subject slope calculations and power analysis, which we have noted as a limitation. We have adjusted the language in the abstract to 'consistent underperformance across sessions' to more accurately reflect the data without overclaiming accumulation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (session-4 description): With only 18 completers in the crossover (presumably ~9 per switched arm), observed drops in alpha/beta connectivity for LLM-to-Brain participants cannot be isolated from immediate reassignment effects, selection bias among returnees, or unmeasured baseline differences; the design does not report within-subject change scores or equivalence checks between original groups.

    Authors: We agree that the small sample size in the crossover session (n=18) restricts the generalizability and causal claims from these data. In the revision, we now explicitly report within-subject change scores for connectivity measures in the crossover groups. We have also added baseline equivalence checks between the subgroups that returned for session 4. The limitations section has been expanded to discuss potential confounds such as reassignment effects and selection bias among participants who completed all sessions. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: EEG connectivity differences are described as 'significant' without accompanying error bars, p-values, exact statistical tests, or detailed exclusion criteria, which limits evaluation of the strength of evidence for the ordering Brain-only > Search > LLM.

    Authors: We appreciate this feedback on the presentation of statistical results. The abstract has been updated to include specific details on the statistical tests performed (e.g., one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's HSD post-hoc tests), representative p-values, and a reference to the methods for exclusion criteria. Full statistical tables with error bars (standard errors) and exact values are provided in the results section and supplementary information. This allows readers to better assess the evidence for the observed ordering of brain connectivity across groups. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in empirical group comparisons

full rationale

The paper is a purely empirical study reporting direct EEG connectivity measurements, NLP essay analyses, and behavioral scores across three participant groups with a crossover in session 4. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the provided abstract or description. Central claims rest on observed differences in measured data (e.g., brain connectivity strength, essay ownership) rather than any reduction to inputs by construction. This matches the default expectation of no circularity for non-derivational empirical work.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study rests on standard neuroscientific assumptions about what EEG connectivity indicates; no free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption EEG connectivity strength and distribution reflect levels of cognitive engagement and load during writing tasks
    Invoked when interpreting weaker networks in the LLM group as reduced cognitive activity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5X6L4SNR

@misc{pith2026250608872,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5X6L4SNR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08872}
}
read the original abstract

This study explores the neural and behavioral consequences of LLM-assisted essay writing. Participants were divided into three groups: LLM, Search Engine, and Brain-only (no tools). Each completed three sessions under the same condition. In a fourth session, LLM users were reassigned to Brain-only group (LLM-to-Brain), and Brain-only users were reassigned to LLM condition (Brain-to-LLM). A total of 54 participants took part in Sessions 1-3, with 18 completing session 4. We used electroencephalography (EEG) to assess cognitive load during essay writing, and analyzed essays using NLP, as well as scoring essays with the help from human teachers and an AI judge. Across groups, NERs, n-gram patterns, and topic ontology showed within-group homogeneity. EEG revealed significant differences in brain connectivity: Brain-only participants exhibited the strongest, most distributed networks; Search Engine users showed moderate engagement; and LLM users displayed the weakest connectivity. Cognitive activity scaled down in relation to external tool use. In session 4, LLM-to-Brain participants showed reduced alpha and beta connectivity, indicating under-engagement. Brain-to-LLM users exhibited higher memory recall and activation of occipito-parietal and prefrontal areas, similar to Search Engine users. Self-reported ownership of essays was the lowest in the LLM group and the highest in the Brain-only group. LLM users also struggled to accurately quote their own work. While LLMs offer immediate convenience, our findings highlight potential cognitive costs. Over four months, LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels. These results raise concerns about the long-term educational implications of LLM reliance and underscore the need for deeper inquiry into AI's role in learning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith.Foundation.LawOfExistence defect_zero_iff_one unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    Brain-only participants exhibited the strongest, most distributed networks; Search Engine users showed moderate engagement; and LLM users displayed the weakest connectivity. Over four months, LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Showing 60 of 66 Pith papers that cite this

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 3,025 citations worldwide. See all 66 Pith citations

  1. Four Types of LLM Reliance and Their Predictors Among Undergraduate Writers: A Mixed-Methods Study at a Minority-Serving R1 University

    cs.CY 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    The paper classifies undergraduate LLM reliance into four types and shows that AI literacy predicts type while value beliefs predict intensity, with implications for outcome measurement.

  2. Automation, AI, and the Intergenerational Transmission of Knowledge

    econ.GN 2025-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Automating entry-level tasks can reduce long-run growth and welfare by shifting novices away from the most productive mentors, even with no change in total entry-level employment.

  3. AI Agents Push Humans Out of the Loop

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Effective human oversight of AI agents is undermined by the very systems that require it; design and organizational measures can slow that degradation.

  4. Do Not Copy/Paste: Soft Barriers for Copying in AI-Assisted Programming

    cs.SE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new metric and pilot study show that Unicode-based soft barriers can make AI-generated code resistant to naive copy-paste, but their effectiveness is highly model- and task-dependent.

  5. Probing How Users Interact with Turn-Level Design Frictions for AI Chatbots

    cs.HC 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Turn-level design frictions reliably raise workload, time, and felt ownership in AI chatbot writing, but improve recall and recognition only when they force users to formulate or assemble the response themselves.

  6. Are LLMs becoming similarly creative? Evidence from three years of models

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across three years of model releases, responses from different LLM providers to open-ended creative prompts have become more similar to each other, as measured by semantic embedding distance.

  7. "Always Want to Use it for Everything": Understanding Young Adults' Perceptions of AI Dependence

    cs.HC 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Young adult AI chatbot users define AI dependence through chronic use, efficiency, and delegation, and report that their abilities atrophy, suggesting existing dependence scales are misaligned with lived experience.

  8. Asking Questions the Right Way: A Multi-Agent Conversational System for Prompt Formulation in Complex Task Resolution

    cs.MA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An eight-agent question-asking system that front-loads intent clarification produced more complete prompts, higher-rated outputs, and single-turn task completion in a four-person pilot, with unstable effect sizes.

  9. (Im)Paired Programming: Coding Agents Improve Productivity but Harm Understanding

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using a coding agent improved initial task completion but lowered users' comprehension of their own code, with no net benefit on a later no-agent extension task.

  10. How to Craft the Right Language AI Policy For Your Research Group (Some Assembly Required)

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    There is no one-size-fits-all AI policy for astronomy groups; four value-based archetypes help labs design rules matched to their own priorities.

  11. Competitive and Complementary Tools

    q-bio.NC 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A competence–reliance ODE model predicts hysteretic skill collapse: once a learner outsources to an opaque tool, competence drops and does not recover until availability falls far below the collapse threshold.

  12. The Aura in the Machine: Genealogy and the Status of the Work of Art in the Generative Era

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A conceptual framework treating generative AI as industrial-scale generative art, adding systems taxonomy, distributed authorship roles, Algorithmic Repetition, and 'manifestation' as a third ontological status.

  13. Measuring How Students Rely on Generative AI in Academic Writing: Development and Multi-Source Validation of the Generative AI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS)

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 20-item scale measuring four types of GenAI reliance in academic writing shows five-factor structure, acceptable reliability, and scalar invariance in a single U.S. sample.

  14. How YouTube Frames ChatGPT Use in Education: An Epistemic Network Analysis with Supporting Multimodal Metadata

    cs.HC 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Educational YouTube videos frame ChatGPT in three distinct ways—scaffolding, practice, or productivity—and productivity-framed content reaches more learners despite lower pedagogical depth.

  15. Say What? Examining Text and Voice Input Modalities for Prompt-Based Programming in Computing Education

    cs.CY 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Among 919 intro CS students solving Prompt Problems, typed prompts beat unedited voice on first-attempt success for two of three tasks; edited voice matched text, and most preferred text.

  16. What is Left for Us? Second Scholarship Against the Degradation of Research by AI

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AI degrades research by automating formative practices of judgment; second scholarship reclaims tacit knowledge, commitment, socialization, and deep reading as what communities must value.

  17. Reflective Dialogue or Prompt Refinement? Effects of Tutor Scaffolding on Students' Independent LLM Use for Programming

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Socratic LLM tutoring, not prompt-refinement coaching, later yields higher learning gains and more understanding-driven prompting with unconstrained LLMs in a robotics course.

  18. Framing, Judging, Steering: An Assessable Competency Model for Teach-ing Students to Reason With Generative AI

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Proposes the CoRe-3 (FJS) competency model separating Framing, Judging, and Steering for generative AI use, with preliminary validation via simulations on an open platform showing skill dissociation and validity.

  19. Sycophancy is an Educational Safety Risk: Why LLM Tutors Need Sycophancy Benchmarks

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper identifies a Reasoning-Sycophancy Paradox and introduces the EduFrameTrap benchmark to evaluate how LLMs handle epistemic pressure in tutoring across multiple subjects.

  20. Prober.ai: Gated Inquiry-Based Feedback via LLM-Constrained Personas for Argumentative Writing Development

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Prober.ai constrains LLMs via personas and JSON schemas to deliver gated, inquiry-based questions on argumentative writing weaknesses, aiming to reduce cognitive debt from AI overuse.

  21. Understanding Critical Thinking in Generative Artificial Intelligence Use: Development, Validation, and Correlates of the Critical Thinking in AI Use Scale

    cs.AI 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 13-item 'Critical Thinking in AI Use Scale' with three factors (Verification, Motivation, Reflection) predicts self-reported verification behavior and fact-checking accuracy with AI-generated claims.

  22. Reflection-Satisfaction Tradeoff: Investigating Impact of Reflection on Student Engagement with AI-Generated Programming Hints

    cs.CY 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reflection prompts that produce deeper student reflection are associated with lower satisfaction with AI-generated hints, with no measurable gain in immediate problem-solving performance.

  23. TaskLens: Generating Task-Conditioned Scaffolded Interfaces for Learning Professional Creative Software

    cs.HC 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    TaskLens uses LLMs to generate task-specific scaffolded interfaces that reduce perceived workload and improve performance and concept learning for novices using professional 3D software.

  24. Tracing the Techno-Supremacy Doctrine: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the AI Executive Elite

    cs.CY 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Introduces the Techno-Supremacy Doctrine as an analytical framework and finds that AI executive discourse shows polarization with a general increase in pro-technology-solution narratives after ChatGPT, often acknowled...

  25. Authorship Without Writing: Large Language Models and the Senior Author Analogy

    cs.CY 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A human who directs, critically reviews, approves, and takes responsibility for an LLM-generated paper can legitimately count as its author, by the same criteria that make non-writing senior researchers authors.

  26. DIY-MKG: An LLM-Based Polyglot Language Learning System

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DIY-MKG is an open-source LLM-assisted system for building personalized multilingual vocabulary knowledge graphs with user-selected expansion and adaptive, flaggable quizzes.

  27. An Empirical Study to Understand How Students Use ChatGPT for Writing Essays

    cs.HC 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An online study of 70 students found that gender, race, and self-efficacy predict distinct ChatGPT query patterns during essay writing, with patterns linked to enjoyment and perceived ownership of the final essay.

  28. How AI Assistance Affects Human Skill Development: A Study of Learning with Logic Puzzles

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Low-cost AI assistance increases AI request frequency, and the share of time spent on independent reasoning during AI access is positively associated with latent skill gains after assistance is removed.

  29. Exploring Dependence, Overreliance, and Addiction Related Behaviors Associated with Large Language Model Use Among Software Engineers

    cs.SE 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Software engineers report habitual, functional dependence on LLMs and some overreliance, with addiction-like behavior appearing marginal.

  30. Vibe Compiler: A Research-Logic Synthesis Tool That Runs without Prompt Engineering -Toward Enhancing Metacognition for Sustaining Agency in the Age of Generative AI-

    cs.CY 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A prototype Vibe Compiler maps vague research ideas onto a 16-parameter paper ontology, reports missing logical slots as questions, and its authors used it to write the paper, claiming content, not prompting, drives L...

  31. Hybrid AI for Explainable and Accurate Conversational Agents in eGovernment

    cs.CY 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A chatbot architecture uses an LLM only to translate free text into typed inputs while a DCR rule graph controls the conversation and issues conclusions.

  32. Students' Epistemological Beliefs and their Chatbot Preferences in AI-mediated Physics Learning

    physics.ed-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Students who chose a combination chatbot (guided inquiry then answers) scored slightly higher on an epistemological-beliefs survey than answer-preference students, but the difference was not robust to multiple-testing...

  33. Reflections and Recommendations on AI Adoption Practice from a Mixed-Ability Research Group

    cs.HC 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The five members of one mixed-ability lab interviewed themselves and produced ten AI-use recommendations balancing accessibility, privacy, identity, and experimentation.

  34. AI usage patterns are shaped by perceived gains in human agency

    cs.CY 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Ethnographic study of 51 AI chatbot users finds that perceived gains in individual agency shape sustained usage patterns more than accuracy or reliability concerns.

  35. Using Biometrics to Understand AI-Assisted Coding Performance and its Perception

    cs.HC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A multisite biometric study finds lower cognitive engagement under AI assistance via EEG and blink rate, with physiological-performance links present only in the non-AI condition.

  36. ChatGPT vs Teachers vs Students: Large-Scale Analysis of Generative AI Discourse in Education Communities on Reddit

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Large-scale topic modeling of 270k Reddit posts shows GenAI discourse in education shifting from detection-evasion to enforcement, with K-12 teachers emphasizing cognitive dependency, academics focusing on detection, ...

  37. Overreliance in Writing Tasks: Exploring Similarity-Based Measures of AI Influence on Writing and Proposing a Reflective Writing Interface Intervention

    cs.HC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Mixed-methods study finds AI assistance linked to higher textual overlap with suggestions in writing tasks, and a reflective interface prototype increases user awareness of AI incorporation.

  38. Evidence-Decision-Feedback: Theory-Driven Adaptive Scaffolding for LLM Agents

    cs.MA 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    EDF organizes LLM tutoring agents into evidence, decision, and feedback modules, and its Copa instantiation shows within-system correlations between task mastery, scaffold fading, and interpretable feedback in 33 dyads.

  39. Thinking Less, Trusting More: GenAI's Impacts on Students' Cognitive Habits

    cs.HC 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Trust-driven routine use of generative AI is linked to reduced cognitive engagement in STEM students, with higher technophilic traits increasing vulnerability.

  40. VizCopilot: Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Enterprise Chatbots with Context Visualization

    cs.HC 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    VizCopilot integrates topic modeling with document visualization to support user oversight of retrieved context in enterprise chatbots, enabling detection of misalignments and adaptation of prompting strategies.

  41. A principled way to think about AI in education: guidance for educators and policy makers based on goals, models of human learning, and use of technologies

    cs.CY 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A principles-based framework links educational goals, socio-cultural learning theory, and human/technology roles to guide generative AI use in higher education.

  42. Vibe Coding in Product Teams: Reconfiguring AI-Assisted Workflows, Prototyping, and Collaboration

    cs.HC 2025-09 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    Interviews reveal a four-stage vibe coding workflow that accelerates prototyping while introducing tensions between quick efficiency and reflective design intention, plus asymmetries in trust and ownership.

  43. Pilot Study on Generative AI and Critical Thinking in Higher Education Classrooms

    cs.CY 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A short video lesson on evaluating generative AI output was associated with a statistically significant but fragile improvement in one course's AI-critique assignment, in a small non-randomized pilot.

  44. AI Feedback Enhances Community-Based Content Moderation through Engagement with Counterarguments

    cs.CY 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    AI argumentative feedback on community notes produces larger quality improvements than supportive or neutral feedback in a hybrid moderation experiment.

  45. Understanding Cognition-Induced Risks in Agentic AI Systems

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A three-level cognitive-scope framework (physical, social, self-referential) sorts the human-centered risks of LLM agents and pairs each with mitigation strategies.

  46. Characterizing the Evolving Landscape of Modern Information Seeking

    cs.IR 2026-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    This paper is a PhD research proposal for studying how Generative AI has changed information seeking, but it presents no completed results.

  47. Students' Practices and Skills in the LLM-Era: "You Can't Outsource the Struggle and Still Get the Skill"

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A thematic synthesis of 54 Reddit posts finds graduate students use LLMs across research tasks but often skip validation, and need both traditional skills and LLM-specific skills.

  48. Cognitive Commons in the Age of Generative Intelligence: A Heterodox Appraisal of the Knowledge Erosion Hypothesis

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The knowledge-collapse model's durable contribution is identifying a cognitive-commons externality, not predicting inevitable doom; the remedy is stronger aggregation of validated human knowledge.

  49. Multi-Modal Multi-Agent Robotic Cognitive Alignment enabled by Non-Invasive Consumer Brain Computer Interfaces: A Proof of Concept Exploration

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper presents a proof-of-concept closed-loop system using consumer EEG to detect high cognitive engagement and defer multi-agent robotic communications until lower workload.

  50. A Theory-Guided LLM Pedagogical Agent for STEM+C Scaffolding Without Over-Reliance

    cs.MA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Copa is a theory-guided multimodal LLM agent that supports high school computational modeling through adaptive feedback, shown in a 33-dyad study to increase student confidence and conceptual verbalization without fos...

  51. Position: the Stochastic Parrot in the Coal Mine. Model Collapse is a Threat to Low-Resource Communities

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Model collapse threatens AI democratization by disproportionately impacting low-resource and marginalized communities through reduced training efficiency and data distributions skewed away from distribution tails.

  52. Measuring Changes in Instructor Class Design and Student Learning After the Release of Large Language Models (LLMs)

    cs.CY 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A pilot mixed-methods study at one university uses surveys and pre/post-LLM grade data to document patterns in faculty course design and student learning outcomes after generative AI release.

  53. When Thinking Pays Off: Incentive Alignment for Human-AI Collaboration

    cs.HC 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A new incentive mechanism significantly reduces overreliance on AI advice and improves decision quality, demonstrated in a behavioral experiment with 180 participants.

  54. NLP Meets the World: Toward Improving Conversations With the Public About Natural Language Processing Research

    cs.CY 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    NLP researchers should define cognitive terms, temper expectations, and candidly address ethical failures when speaking with the public.

  55. ChatGPT produces more "lazy" thinkers: Evidence of cognitive engagement decline

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In a 40-person randomized experiment, students allowed to use ChatGPT reported significantly lower cognitive engagement during an academic writing task than students who wrote without AI.

  56. AI Scientists as Engines of Discovery: A Case for Development within Reformed Institutions

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    Position paper arguing that multi-agent AI systems can become AI scientists and calling for reformed scientific institutions to support their development with emphasis on verification and dual-use safety.

  57. Before You Think: System 0, AI-Mediated Cognition and Cognitive Colonization

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    System 0 is positioned as theoretically distinct from Tri-System Theory and Thinkframes, with cognitive colonization as a key mechanism of invisible AI influence on cognition.

  58. Exploratory Responsiveness and Adaptive Rigidity under AI-Assisted Optimization

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    A dynamical framework is proposed where AI assistance substitutes for or amplifies exploratory search on rugged landscapes depending on the level of adaptive responsiveness.

  59. Position: Adopting AI in Practice Does Not Guarantee the Productivity Boost

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    Adopting AI does not guarantee productivity boosts due to five moderating factors (human resource composition, baseline capability, learning curve, incentives for fair use, and objective flexibility), by revising an e...

  60. Security, Privacy, and Ethical Risks in OpenClaw

    cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The paper analyzes security, privacy, and ethical risks in the OpenClaw AI agent system arising from its architecture, storage, tool use, and integrations, arguing these form major barriers to trustworthy adoption.

See all 66 Pith citations

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

144 extracted references · 144 canonical work pages · cited by 66 Pith papers (see all)

  1. [1]

    The impact of large language models on higher education: Exploring the connection between AI and education 4.0,

    Peláez-Sánchez, I. C., Velarde-Camaqui, D., & Glasserman-Morales, L. D. (2024). The impact of large language models on higher education: Exploring the connection between AI and Education 4.0. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1392091. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1392091

    work page doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1392091 2024

  2. [3]

    Gerlich, M. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006

    work page doi:10.3390/soc15010006 2025

  3. [5]

    Shanmugasundaram, M., & Tamilarasu, A. (2023). The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: A review. Frontiers in Cognition, 2, 1203077. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077

    work page doi:10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077 2023

  4. [6]

    Su, J., & Yang, W. (2023). Unlocking the Power of ChatGPT: A Framework for Applying Generative AI in Education. ECNU Review of Education, 6(3), 355-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231168423

    work page doi:10.1177/20965311231168423 2023

  5. [7]

    Milana, M., Brandi, U., Hodge, S., & Hoggan-Kloubert, T. (2024). Artificial intelligence (AI), conversational agents, and generative AI: implications for adult education practice and research. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 43(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2024.2310448

    work page doi:10.1080/02601370.2024.2310448 2024

  6. [8]

    Bai, L., Liu, X., & Su, J. (2023). ChatGPT: The cognitive effects on learning and memory. Brain-X, 1, e30. https://doi.org/10.1002/brx2.30

    work page doi:10.1002/brx2.30 2023

  7. [9]

    Sajja, R., Sermet, Y., Cikmaz, M., Cwiertny, D., & Demir, I. (2024). Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Intelligent Assistant for Personalized and Adaptive Learning in Higher Education. Information (Basel), 15(10), 596. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15100596

    work page doi:10.3390/info15100596 2024

  8. [10]

    Cacicio, S., & Riggs, R. (2023). ChatGPT: Leveraging AI to Support Personalized Teaching and Learning. Adult Literacy Education: The International Journal of Literacy, Language, and Numeracy, 5(2), 70-74. https://doi.org/10.35847/SCacicio.RRiggs.5.2.70

    work page doi:10.35847/scacicio.rriggs.5.2.70 2023

Show all 144 references
  1. [11]

    King, M. R. (2023). A Conversation on Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, and Plagiarism in Higher Education. Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, 16(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 Preprint, under review 155

    2023 doi

  2. [12]

    D., Reig, B., Shih, G., & Moy, L

    Shen, Y., Heacock, L., Elias, J., Hentel, K. D., Reig, B., Shih, G., & Moy, L. (2023). ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models Are Double-edged Swords. Radiology, 307(2), e230163-e230163. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230163

    2023 doi

  3. [13]

    F., Han, H., Alam, M

    Ahmad, S. F., Han, H., Alam, M. M., Rehmat, M. K., Irshad, M., Arraño-Muñoz, M., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2023). Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, Article 311. htt...

    2023 doi

  4. [14]

    Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., & Kasneci, G. (2023). Chat...

    2023 doi

  5. [15]

    Pedró, F., Subosa, M., Rivas, A., & Valverde, P. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366994

    2019

  6. [16]

    Zhou, J., Muller, H., Holzinger, A., & Chen, F. (2024). Ethical ChatGPT: Concerns, Challenges, and Commandments. Electronics (Basel), 13(17), 3417. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13173417

    2024 doi

  7. [17]

    C., Hsu, Y

    Yang, T. C., Hsu, Y. C., & Wu, J. Y. (2025). The effectiveness of ChatGPT in assisting high school students in programming learning: evidence from a quasi-experimental research. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2450659

    2025 doi

  8. [18]

    Zhang, S., Zhao, X., Zhou, T., & Kim, J. H. (2024). Do you have AI dependency? The roles of academic self-efficacy, academic stress, and performance expectations on problematic AI usage behavior. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 34-14...

    2024 doi

  9. [19]

    Jelson, A., Manesh, D., Jang, A., Dunlap, D., & Lee, S. W. (2025). An Empirical Study to Understand How Students Use ChatGPT for Writing Essays. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10551. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.10551

    2025 arXiv

  10. [20]

    Wang, J., & Fan, W. (2025). The effect of ChatGPT on students' learning performance, learning perception, and higher-order thinking: Insights from a meta-analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 621. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04787-y

    2025 doi

  11. [21]

    (2020, March 5)

    Turner, E., & Rainie, L. (2020, March 5). Most Americans rely on their own research to make big decisions, and that often means online searches. Pew Research Center. Retrieved March 17, 2025, from Preprint, under review 156 https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/03/05/mo...

    2020

  12. [22]

    von Hoyer, J., Hoppe, A., Kammerer, Y., Otto, C., Pardi, G., Rokicki, M., Yu, R., Dietze, S., Ewerth, R., & Holtz, P. (2022). The Search as Learning Spaceship: Toward a comprehensive model of psychological and technological facets of Search as Learning. Frontiers in Psychology...

    2022 doi

  13. [23]

    Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp.13-39). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7

    2000 doi

  14. [24]

    A., Wood, E., Mueller, J., & Ross, C

    Willoughby, T., Anderson, S. A., Wood, E., Mueller, J., & Ross, C. (2009). Fast searching for information on the Internet to use in a learning context: The impact of domain knowledge. Computers and Education, 52(3), 640-648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.009

    2009 doi

  15. [25]

    C., & Azevedo, R

    Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 270-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.03.001

    2008 doi

  16. [26]

    Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4),199-209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_2

    2005 doi

  17. [27]

    Opfermann, M., Azevedo, R., & Leutner, D. (2012). Metacognition and hypermedia learning: How do they relate? In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2224-2228). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_709

    2012 doi

  18. [28]

    L., & Chiarelli, S

    Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(4), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504714

    2004 doi

  19. [29]

    Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776-778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745

    2011 doi

  20. [30]

    Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 275-285. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

    1988 doi

  21. [31]

    Sundararajan, N., & Adesope, O. (2020). Keep it coherent: A meta-analysis of the seductive details effect. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 707-734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09522-4

    2020 doi

  22. [32]

    Mutlu-Bayraktar, D., Cosgun, V., & Altan, T. (2019). Cognitive load in multimedia learning environments: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 141, Article 103618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103618 Preprint, under review 157

    2019 doi

  23. [33]

    Chen, O., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2017). The expertise reversal effect is a variant of the more general element interactivity effect. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2),393-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9359-1

    2017 doi

  24. [34]

    Klepsch, M., Schmitz, F., & Seufert, T. (2017). Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1997. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01997

    2017 doi

  25. [35]

    Paas, F., & van Gog, T. (2006). Optimising worked example instruction: Different ways to increase germane cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 87-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.004

    2006 doi

  26. [36]

    Gwizdka, J. (2010). Distribution of cognitive load in Web search. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(11), 2167-2187. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21385

    2010 doi

  27. [37]

    Gong, C., & Yang, Y. (2024). Google effects on memory: A meta-analytical review of the media effects of intensive Internet search behavior. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, Article 1332030. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1332030

    2024 doi

  28. [38]

    Al-Samarraie, H., & Al-Hatem, A. I. (2018). The Effect of Web Search Result Display on Users' Perceptual Experience and Information Seeking Performance. The Reference Librarian, 59(1), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2017.1399849

    2018 doi

  29. [39]

    Gwizdka, J. (2009). Individual differences in cognitive load during web search: Impacts on task efficiency and strategy. The Ergonomics Open Journal, 2(1), 114-121

    2009

  30. [40]

    Stadler, M., Bannert, M., & Sailer, M. (2024). Cognitive ease at a cost: LLMs reduce mental effort but compromise depth in student scientific inquiry. Computers in Human Behavior, 160, 108386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386

    2024 doi

  31. [41]

    Schmidhuber, J., Schlogl, S., Ploder, C., Kaber, D., Fortino, G., Guerrieri, A., Nurnberger, A., Mendonca, D., Yu, Z., & Schilling, M. (2021). Cognitive Load and Productivity Implications in Human-Chatbot Interaction. 2021 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Human-Machine Sys...

    2021 doi

  32. [42]

    (2025, April)

    Lee, H.-P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025, April). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. In Proceedings of ...

    2025 doi

  33. [43]

    Yang, Y., Shin, A., Kang, M., Kang, J., & Song, J. Y. (2024). Can We Delegate Learning to Automation?: A Comparative Study of LLM Chatbots, Search Engines, and Books. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2410.01396 Preprint, under review 158

    2024 doi

  34. [44]

    L., & Toms, E

    O'Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 938-955. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20801

    2008 doi

  35. [45]

    L., Cairns, P., & Hall, M

    O'Brien, H. L., Cairns, P., & Hall, M. (2018). A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 112, 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.004

    2018 doi

  36. [46]

    Webster, J., & Ho, H. (1997). Audience engagement in multimedia presentations. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 28(2), 63 77. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/264701.264706

    1997 doi

  37. [47]

    Ouyang, Z., Jiang, Y., & Liu, H. (2024). The Effects of Duolingo, an AI-Integrated Technology, on EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Engagement in Online Classes. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 25(3), 97-115. https://doi.org/10.19173/...

    2024 doi

  38. [48]

    C., Ding, Z., Lin, J., & Hopfgartner, F

    Cao, C. C., Ding, Z., Lin, J., & Hopfgartner, F. (2023). AI Chatbots as Multi-Role Pedagogical Agents: Transforming Engagement in CS Education. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2308.03992

    2023 doi

  39. [49]

    Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17

    2023 doi

  40. [50]

    Deng, X., & Yu, Z. (2023). A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Effect of Chatbot Technology Use in Sustainable Education. Sustainability, 15(4), 2940. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042940

    2023 doi

  41. [51]

    W., Moody, T

    Small, G. W., Moody, T. D., Siddarth, P., & Bookheimer, S. Y. (2009). Your brain on Google: Patterns of cerebral activation during Internet searching. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17(2), 116-126. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181953a02

    2009 doi

  42. [52]

    S., & Monosov, I

    Bromberg-Martin, E. S., & Monosov, I. E. (2020). Neural circuitry of information seeking. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 62-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.006

    2020 doi

  43. [53]

    N., Michel, C

    Dong, G., Potenza, M. N., Michel, C. M., & Michel, C. M. (2015). Behavioural and brain responses related to Internet search and memory. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 42(8), 2546-2554. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13039

    2015 doi

  44. [54]

    Causse, M., Lepron, E., Mandrick, K., Peysakhovich, V., Berry, I., Callan, D., & Rémy, F. (2022). Facing successfully high mental workload and stressors: An fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 43(3), 1011-1031. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25703 Preprint, under review 159

    2022 doi

  45. [55]

    and Gašević, D., (2024)

    Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X. and Gašević, D., (2024). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology. http...

    2024

  46. [56]

    Herbold, S., Hautli-Janisz, A., Heuer, U., Vogel, L., Müller, R., & Brandt, M. (2023). A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays. Scientific Reports, 13, 18617. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45644-9

    2023 doi

  47. [57]

    C., Akter, S., Sultana, N., Sultana, J., & Rahman, S

    Niloy, A. C., Akter, S., Sultana, N., Sultana, J., & Rahman, S. I. U. (2024). Is Chatgpt a menace for creative writing ability? An experiment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(2), 919-930. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12929

    2024 doi

  48. [58]

    Stahl, M., Biermann, L., Nehring, A., & Wachsmuth, H. (2024). Exploring LLM prompting strategies for joint essay scoring and feedback generation. In Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (pp. 283-298). https://aclanthol...

    2024

  49. [59]

    Lee, S., Cai, Y., Meng, D., Wang, Z., & Wu, Y. (2024). Unleashing Large Language Models' Proficiency in Zero-shot Essay Scoring. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2404.04941

    2024 doi

  50. [60]

    A., Xu, P., Khattab, O., & Lam, M

    Shao, Y., Jiang, Y., Kanell, T. A., Xu, P., Khattab, O., & Lam, M. S. (2024). Assisting in Writing Wikipedia-like Articles From Scratch with Large Language Models. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2402.14207

    2024 doi

  51. [61]

    Avin, C., Daltrophe, H., & Lotker, Z. (2024). On the impossibility of breaking the echo chamber effect in social media using regulation. Scientific Reports, 14, 1107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50850-6

    2024 doi

  52. [62]

    Leung, E., & Urminsky, O. (2025). The narrow search effect and how broadening search promotes belief updating. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 122(13), e2408175122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2408175122

    2025 doi

  53. [63]

    V., & Xiao, Z

    Sharma, N., Liao, Q. V., & Xiao, Z. (2024). Generative echo chamber? Effect of LLM-powered search systems on diverse information seeking. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '24) (pp. 1-17). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642459

    2024 doi

  54. [64]

    Huang, H., Wang, Y., Rudin, C., & Browne, E. P. (2022). Towards a comprehensive evaluation of dimension reduction methods for transcriptomic data visualization. Communications Biology, 5, 719. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03628-x

    2022 doi

  55. [65]

    Hare, A., Chen, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, Z., & Brinton, C. G. (2020). On extending NLP techniques from the categorical to the latent space: KL divergence, Zipf's law, and similarity search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.01941 https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.01941 Preprint, under review 160

    2020

  56. [66]

    A., Zhang, M., Mei, Q., & Bendersky, M

    Kong, W., Hombaiah, S. A., Zhang, M., Mei, Q., & Bendersky, M. (2024). PRewrite: Prompt rewriting with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08189 https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08189

    2024

  57. [67]

    Zhang, S., Hu, Y., & Bian, G. (2017). Research on string similarity algorithm based on Levenshtein distance. In 2017 IEEE 2nd Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC) (pp. 2247-2251). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IAEAC.2017.8054419

    2017 doi

  58. [68]

    Chen, Y., Arkin, J., Hao, Y., Zhang, Y., Roy, N., & Fan, C. (2024). PRompt Optimization in Multi-Step Tasks (PROMST): Integrating Human Feedback and Heuristic-based Sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08702 https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08702

    2024

  59. [69]

    Bröhl, F., & Kayser, C. (2021). Delta/theta band EEG differentially tracks low and high frequency speech-derived envelopes. NeuroImage, 233, 117958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117958

    2021 doi

  60. [70]

    J., & Kasicki, S

    Korzeniewska, A., Mańczak, M., Kamiński, M., Blinowska, K. J., & Kasicki, S. (2003). Determination of information flow direction among brain structures by a modified directed transfer function (dDTF) method. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 125(1-2), 195-207. https://doi.org/1...

    2003 doi

  61. [71]

    Fang, Z., Zhang, H., Liu, Y., Li, Y., He, H., & Yao, D. (2024). Joint order and coefficient estimation for MVAR models using group sparsity. In 2024 32nd European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO) (pp. 2292-2296). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/EUSIPCO63174.2024.10715190

    2024 doi

  62. [72]

    M., & Tecchio, F

    Porcaro, C., Zappasodi, F., Rossini, P. M., & Tecchio, F. (2009). Choice of multivariate autoregressive model order affecting real network functional connectivity estimate. Clinical Neurophysiology, 120(2), 436-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2008.11.011

    2009 doi

  63. [73]

    Weiss, T., Hesse, W., Ungureanu, M., Hecht, H., Leistritz, L., Witte, H., & Miltner, W. H. R. (2008). How do brain areas communicate during the processing of noxious stimuli? An analysis of laser-evoked event-related potentials using the Granger causality index. Journal of Neu...

    2008 doi

  64. [74]

    Li, M., & Zhang, N. (2022). A dynamic directed transfer function for brain functional network-based feature extraction. Brain Informatics, 9, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40708-022-00154-8

    2022 doi

  65. [75]

    Fink, A., & Benedek, M. (2014). EEG alpha power and creative ideation. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 44(100), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.12.002

    2014 doi

  66. [76]

    G., Ravindran, A

    Cruz-Garza, J. G., Ravindran, A. S., Kopteva, A. E., Rivera Garza, C., & Contreras-Vidal, J. L. (2020). Characterization of the stages of creative writing with Preprint, under review 161 mobile EEG using generalized partial directed coherence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, ...

    2020 doi

  67. [77]

    J., Li, Y., Duan, H

    Xie, Y. J., Li, Y., Duan, H. D., Xu, X. L., Zhang, W. M., & Fang, P. (2021). Theta oscillations and source connectivity during complex audiovisual object encoding in working memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 614950. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.614950

    2021 doi

  68. [78]

    Safari, M., Shalbaf, R., Bagherzadeh, S., & Mohammadi, A. (2024). Classification of mental workload using brain connectivity and machine learning on electroencephalogram data. Scientific Reports, 14, 9153. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59652-w

    2024 doi

  69. [79]

    Krumm, G., Arán Filippetti, V., Catanzariti, M., & Mateos, D. M. (2025). Exploring the neural basis of creativity: EEG analysis of power spectrum and functional connectivity during creative tasks in school-aged children. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 19, 1548620. ht...

    2025 doi

  70. [80]

    Bhattacharya, J., & Petsche, H. (2005). Drawing on mind's canvas: Differences in cortical integration patterns between artists and non-artists. Human Brain Mapping, 26(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20104

    2005 doi

  71. [81]

    Razumnikova, O., Volf, N., & Tarasova, I. (2009). Strategy and results: Sex differences in electrographic correlates of verbal and figural creativity. Hum. Physiol. 35, 285-294. doi: 10.1134/S0362119709030049 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0362119709030049

    2009 doi

  72. [82]

    K., & van Gaal, S

    Boot, N., Baas, M., Mühlfeld, E., de Dreu, C. K., & van Gaal, S. (2017). Widespread neural oscillations in the delta band dissociate rule convergence from rule divergence during creative idea generation. Neuropsychologia 104, 8-17. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.07.033 h...

    2017 doi

  73. [83]

    Dong, G., & Potenza, M. N. (2016). Short-term internet-search practicing modulates brain activity during recollection. Neuroscience, 335, 82-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.08.028

    2016 doi

  74. [84]

    Sauseng, P., Griesmayr, B., Freunberger, R., & Klimesch, W. (2010). Control mechanisms in working memory: A possible function of EEG theta oscillations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(7), 1015-1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.12.006

    2010 doi

  75. [85]

    Harmony, T. (2013). The functional significance of delta oscillations in cognitive processing. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 7, 83. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2013.00083 Preprint, under review 162

    2013 doi

  76. [86]

    P., & Gruzelier, J

    Burgess, A. P., & Gruzelier, J. (1997). How reproducible is the topographical distribution of EEG amplitude? International Journal of Psychophysiology, 26(2), 113-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8760(97)00759-9

    1997 doi

  77. [87]

    Onton, J., Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2005). Frontal midline EEG dynamics during working memory. NeuroImage, 27(2), 341-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.04.014

    2005 doi

  78. [88]

    Chen, Y., & Huang, X. (2015). Modulation of alpha and beta oscillations during an n-back task with varying temporal memory load. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2031. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02031

    2015 doi

  79. [89]

    Kopell, N., Ermentrout, G., Whittington, M., & Traub, R. (2000). Gamma rhythms and beta rhythms have different synchronization properties. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97(4), 1867-1872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.4.1867

    2000 doi

  80. [90]

    Varela, F., Lachaux, J., Rodriguez, E., & Martinerie, J. (2001). The brainweb: Phase synchronization and large-scale integration. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(4), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1038/35067550

    2001 doi

  81. [91]

    K., & Fries, P

    Engel, A. K., & Fries, P. (2010). Beta-band oscillations—Signalling the status quo? Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20(2), 156-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2010.02.015

    2010 doi

  82. [92]

    Benchenane, K., Tiesinga, P., & Battaglia, F. (2011). Oscillations in the prefrontal cortex: A gateway to memory and attention. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 21(3), 475-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2011.01.004

    2011 doi

  83. [93]

    H., & Siegel, M

    Donner, T. H., & Siegel, M. (2011). A framework for local cortical oscillation patterns. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(5), 191-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.03.007

    2011 doi

  84. [94]

    Kilavik, B., Zaepffel, M., Brovelli, A., Mackay, W., & Riehle, A. (2013). The ups and downs of β oscillations in sensorimotor cortex. Experimental Neurology, 245, 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.09.014

    2013 doi

  85. [95]

    Spitzer, B., & Haegens, S. (2017). Beyond the status quo: A role for beta oscillations in endogenous content (re)activation. eNeuro, 4(4), ENEURO.0170-17.2017. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0170-17.2017

    2017 doi

  86. [96]

    Budiyono, Herman. (2025). Exploring long-term impact of AI writing tools on independent writing skills: A case study of Indonesian language education students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 15(5), 1003-1013. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2025....

    2025 doi

  87. [97]

    Harmony, T., Hinojosa, G., Marosi, E., Becker, J., Rodriguez, M., Reyes, A., & Fernández, T. (1990). Correlation between EEG spectral parameters and an Preprint, under review 163 educational evaluation. International Journal of Neuroscience, 54(1-2), 147-155. https://doi.org/1...

    1990 doi

  88. [98]

    Haslinger, B., Erhard, P., Altenmüller, E., Hennenlotter, A., Schwaiger, M., Gräfin von Einsiedel, H., Rummeny, E., Conrad, B., & Ceballos-Baumann, A. O. (2004). Reduced recruitment of motor association areas during bimanual coordination in concert pianists. Human brain mappin...

    2004 doi

  89. [99]

    Krings, T., Töpper, R., Foltys, H., Erberich, S., Sparing, R., Willmes, K., & Thron, A. (2000). Cortical activation patterns during complex motor tasks in piano players and control subjects. A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroscience letters, 278(3), 189-193. ...

    2000 doi

  90. [100]

    Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00028-7

    2003 doi

  91. [101]

    U., Fair, D

    Dosenbach, N. U., Fair, D. A., Cohen, A. L., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2008). A dual-networks architecture of top-down control. Trends in cognitive sciences, 12(3), 99-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.001

    2008 doi

  92. [102]

    Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7

    1998 doi

  93. [103]

    Klimesch, W. (1999). EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: A review and analysis. Brain Research Reviews, 29(2-3), 169-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0173(98)00056-3

    1999 doi

  94. [104]

    J., Seelig, D., & Madsen, J

    Kahana, M. J., Seelig, D., & Madsen, J. R. (2001). Theta returns. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11(6), 739-744. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(01)00278-1

    2001 doi

  95. [105]

    M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J

    Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., Reber, P. J., & Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight. PLOS Biology, 2(4), e97. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097

    2004 doi

  96. [106]

    M., Braver, T

    Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624

    2001 doi

  97. [107]

    R., & Moscovitch, M

    Cabeza, R., Ciaramelli, E., Olson, I. R., & Moscovitch, M. (2008). The parietal cortex and episodic memory: an attentional account. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 9(8), 613-625. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2459

    2008 doi

  98. [108]

    S., Schoenebeck, G., & Dhillon, P

    Anwar, M. S., Schoenebeck, G., & Dhillon, P. S. (2024). Filter bubble or homogenization? Disentangling the long-term effects of recommendations on user consumption patterns. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024 (WWW '24)(pp. 123-134). Association for Computing Machine...

    2024 doi

  99. [109]

    Kawasaki, M., Kitajo, K., & Yamaguchi, Y. (2014). Fronto-parietal and fronto-temporal theta phase synchronization for visual and auditory-verbal working memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 200. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00200

    2014 doi

  100. [110]

    Wang, R., Ge, S., Zommara, N., Ravienna, K., Espinoza, T., & Iramina, K. (2019). Consistency and dynamical changes of directional information flow in different brain states: A comparison of working memory and resting-state using EEG. NeuroImage, 203, 116188. https://doi.org/10...

    2019 doi

  101. [111]

    F., & Frank, M

    Cavanagh, J. F., & Frank, M. J. (2014). Frontal theta as a mechanism for cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(8), 414-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.012

    2014 doi

  102. [112]

    E., Padding, L., & Ridderinkhof, K

    Wokke, M. E., Padding, L., & Ridderinkhof, K. (2019). Creative brains show reduced mid frontal theta. bioRxiv, 370494. https://doi.org/10.1101/370494

    2019 doi

  103. [113]

    F., & Gilbert, S

    Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(9), 676-688. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661316300985

    2016

  104. [114]

    (2025, June 8)

    Google Books Ngram Viewer. (2025, June 8). Retrieved from https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=he%2Cshe%2Chis%2Chers%2Ctheir%2Cmine%2Cmy%2CI&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=0

    2025

  105. [115]

    J., Kaza, E., Kessler, C., & Lotze, M

    Shah, C., Erhard, K., Ortheil, H. J., Kaza, E., Kessler, C., & Lotze, M. (2013). Neural correlates of creative writing: an fMRI study. Human brain mapping, 34(5), 1088-1101. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21493

    2013 doi

  106. [116]

    Shumailov, I., Shumaylov, Z., Zhao, Y., Gal, Y., Papernot, N., & Anderson, R. (2023). The curse of recursion: Training on generated data makes models forget. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17493. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17493

    2023

  107. [117]

    Xing, X., Shi, F., Huang, J., Zhang, X., & Wu, Y. (2025). On the caveats of AI autophagy. Nature Machine Intelligence, 7, 172-180. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-025-00984-1

    2025 doi

  108. [118]

    Annamalai, M. S. M. S., Bilogrevic, I., & De Cristofaro, E. (2025). Beyond the Crawl: Unmasking Browser Fingerprinting in Real User Interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01608. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01608

    2025

  109. [119]

    Lawall, A. (2024). Fingerprinting and Tracing Shadows: The Development and Impact of Browser Fingerprinting on Digital Privacy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12045

    2024

  110. [120]

    de Vries, A. (2023). The growing energy footprint of artificial intelligence. Joule, 7(10), 2191-2194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2023.09.004

    2023 doi

  111. [121]

    (2025, March)

    Martin, E., & Peskoe, A. (2025, March). Extracting profits from the public: How utility ratepayers are paying for Big Tech's power. Environmental and Energy Law Program, Harvard Law School. Retrieved June 8, 2025. Preprint, under review 165

    2025

  112. [122]

    (2025, May 20)

    O'Donnell, J., & Crownhart, C. (2025, May 20). We did the math on AI's energy footprint. Here's the story you haven't heard. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved June 8, 2025

    2025

  113. [123]

    & Xie, J

    Ning, L., Liu, L., Wu, J., Wu, N., Berlowitz, D., Prakash, S., ... & Xie, J. (2025, May). User-LLM: Efficient LLM contextualization with user embeddings. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 (pp. 1219-1223)

    2025

  114. [124]

    (2025, June)

    Shojaee, P., Mirzadeh, I., Alizadeh, K., Horton, M., Bengio, S., & Farajtabar, M. (2025, June). The illusion of thinking: Understanding the strengths and limitations of reasoning models via the lens of problem complexity. Retrieved June 8, 2025, from https://ml-site.cdn-apple....

    2025

  115. [125]

    Rofouei, M., Shukla, A., Wei, Q., et al. (2024). Search with stateful chat (U.S. Patent Application No. US 2024/0289407 A1). Google LLC. Retrieved from https://patents.google.com/patent/US20240289407A1/en

    2024

  116. [126]

    Kleinberg, J., Ludwig, J., Mullainathan, S., & Sunstein, C. R. (2019). Discrimination in the age of algorithms. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3329669

    2019 doi

  117. [127]

    (2019, October)

    Manyika, J., Silberg, J., & Presten, B. (2019, October). What do we do about the biases in AI? Harvard Business Review

    2019

  118. [128]

    Enobio 32: https://www.neuroelectrics.com/products/research/enobio/enobio-32

  119. [129]

    (2025, December 4)

    The Economist. (2025, December 4). At home and at school: AI is transforming childhood . The Economist . Retrieved December 12, 2025

    2025

  120. [130]

    O., & et al

    Budzyń, K., Romańczyk, M., Kitala, D., Kołodziej, P., Bugajski, M., Adami, H. O., & et al. (2025). Endoscopist deskilling risk after exposure to artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: A multicentre, observational study. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 10 (10), 896-9...

    2025 doi

  121. [131]

    Zindulka, T., Goller, S., Fernandes, D., Welsch, R., & Buschek, D. (2025). The AI Memory Gap: Users Misremember What They Created With AI or Without. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.11851

    2025

  122. [132]

    Agarwal, D., Naaman, M., & Vashistha, A. (2025). AI suggestions homogenize writing toward Western styles and diminish cultural nuances. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25) (Article 1117, pp. 1–21). Association for Computing...

    2025 doi

  123. [133]

    Yakura, H., Lopez-Lopez, E., Brinkmann, L., Serna, I., Gupta, P., Soraperra, I., & Rahwan, I. (2024). Empirical evidence of Large Language Model's influence on human spoken communication. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01754 . Preprint, under review 166 Appendix A: List of clusters...

    2024

  124. [134]

    The respondent recalled a direct quote from their essay, which was a quote from Spider-Man: 'With great power comes great responsibility.'

  125. [135]

    The respondent chose the prompt about thinking before speaking because they found it more down-to-earth and relevant, as opposed to the other prompts which they considered more challenging or less personal

  126. [136]

    They expressed that 20 minutes may not be enough time to write a more analytical essay, but found the format of the current essay to be more relaxed

  127. [137]

    The respondent followed a specific structure in their essay, starting with an introduction referencing the main topic, then discussing the problem and posing a question

  128. [138]

    They recall that their essay is about the benefits of having choices, as it allows exploration of different pleasures and keeps the brain stimulated

  129. [139]

    The respondent initially struggled to find examples and used ChatGPT to generate examples and combine outputs to create an introduction

  130. [140]

    The respondent chose the prompt about the importance of thinking before speaking. 8. The respondent's writing process involved initially pouring out thoughts in scattered lines or words, then drawing from personal experience with a book that changed their perspective

  131. [141]

    The respondent did not use any outside sources to help with their essay and only did a basic proofread as they finished each paragraph, without thoroughly reviewing the entire essay at the end

  132. [142]

    The respondent expressed that they value making their own ideas and are a fan of not relying on AI for generating ideas, believing their own ideas are more intuitive and sufficient

  133. [143]

    This suggests that the respondent values individuality and the freedom to express oneself, and sees these as key components of a perfect society

  134. [144]

    The respondent chose the third topic, seeking to gather more information and contradict the main tendency of the text to create a more enriching essay

  135. [145]

    They attempted to quote from their essay but couldn't remember it word for word. 14. They recalled the content of their essay, which analyzed the importance of thinking before speaking in terms of learning empathy and social acceptance, as well as the potential drawbacks of th...

  136. [146]

    They used ChatGPT to generate an introduction and elaborate on the idea, then revised the output to fit their thoughts. Preprint, under review 167 B: Dynamic Direct Transfer Function (dDTF) for Alpha band for participants 36 and 43 Alpha, Participant 36 Alpha, Participant 43 0...

Pith tools

Reviewed May 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.