Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 64 references

AI-Empowered Human Research Integrating Brain Science and Social Sciences Insights

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that AI should now be treated as an independent research participant, and it proposes two paradigms and three collaboration models to move scientific research toward human-AI joint inquiry.

desk verdict A clear position paper with a useful vocabulary, but the central ARP claim leans on cited studies that only treat AI as stimulus or subject, not as an autonomous co-researcher. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12761 v1 pith:4OS2HY4U submitted 2024-11-16 cs.HC cs.AI

Feng Xiong , Xinguo Yu , Hon Wai Leong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords human-AIjointresearchAIparticipantassistanttoolparadigmbrainsciencesocialsciencescollaboration
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

The paper argues that artificial intelligence has outgrown the role of a passive instrument and should be treated as an independent research collaborator. Its central claim is that researchers should move from human-only research to human-AI joint research, and it supplies two paradigms for that transition, one grounded in brain science and one in social science. If the claim holds, AI systems with cognitive and social capabilities would take part in experiments, surveys, and theory-building alongside human researchers, and research methods would be redesigned around that partnership. The paper's contribution is a structured vocabulary and scaffold for making that shift, not yet a proof that AI works as a participant.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is a three-level division of AI's role in research: tool, assistant, and participant. The participant tier carries the argument, because that is where AI stops being subordinate to human direction and enters the research as an autonomous collaborator. The paper grounds this tier in published findings that AI influences human neural decision-making, group behavior, trust, and perceptions of reliability, then uses the tool-assistant-participant ladder to map AI onto each stage of the research process.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison in which independent experts evaluate the novelty and correctness of research contributions produced by human-only teams versus teams with AI participants, and then track whether the AI-inclusive findings replicate, would settle whether AI as research participant adds scientific value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper diagnoses the current state of scientific research as still human-centered even as AI plays an expanding role, and it claims the time has come to formalize AI's place in the research process. It proposes two new research paradigms, the AI-Brain Science Research Paradigm and the AI-Social Sciences Research Paradigm, and within them three models of human-AI collaboration: AI as a research tool (ART), AI as a research assistant (ARA), and AI as a research participant (ARP). The strongest claim is normative: because AI 'continues to develop human-like capabilities,' it should now be recognized as an independent entity actively participating in research, not merely a subordinate apparatus.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that AI will acquire the cognitive and social capabilities needed to act as a genuine research participant, and that research involving AI participants will yield scientifically valid results.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Research designs would need to register AI as a participant, affecting how studies are planned, reported, and evaluated for validity.
  • Brain-science studies would examine human-AI interaction with the same instruments used for human-human interaction, such as fMRI and EEG.
  • Social-science surveys and experiments would treat AI avatars and conversational agents as social actors whose presence measurably changes behavior and trust.
  • The ART-ARA-ARP distinction gives researchers a shared language for specifying what role AI plays in a given study.
  • Human-AI joint research methods would combine empirical experiments on joint creativity with questionnaire surveys on critical thinking.
  • If taken literally, AI-as-participant would require rethinking scholarly authorship and credit, though the paper does not spell out those rules.
  • The line between assistant and participant is not sharply drawn; a testable extension would define observable criteria, such as autonomy in choosing hypotheses, to classify AI roles.
  • The paper itself notes that AI's full research potential is not yet realized and that a comprehensive framework has been lacking, so the proposal is best read as a roadmap rather than a demonstrated outcome.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If taken literally, AI-as-participant would require rethinking scholarly authorship and credit, though the paper does not spell out those rules.
  • The line between assistant and participant is not sharply drawn; a testable extension would define observable criteria, such as autonomy in choosing hypotheses, to classify AI roles.
  • The existing empirical examples are mostly short-term lab effects, so extending ARP to long-horizon discovery would require measuring cumulative research output rather than in-session influence.
  • The paper itself notes that AI's full research potential is not yet realized and that a comprehensive framework has been lacking, so the proposal is best read as a roadmap rather than a demonstrated outcome.
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, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper argues that AI has moved from being a mere instrument to an active collaborator in scientific research, and that it is time for researchers to transition to human-AI joint research. It reviews literature on human cognition, emotion, and collaborative learning, then proposes two new research paradigms—the AI-Brain Science Research Paradigm and the AI-Social Sciences Research Paradigm—together with three human-AI collaboration models: AI as a research tool (ART), AI as a research assistant (ARA), and AI as a research participant (ARP). The paper also sketches research methods, including empirical studies and questionnaire surveys, and claims these paradigms will reshape future research practice.

Significance. If the proposed framework were operationalized and supported with direct evidence, it could serve as a useful organizing structure for studying human-AI collaboration in brain science and social sciences. The paper has value as a broad literature review and as an explicit articulation of the tool/assistant/participant trichotomy, which many researchers discuss implicitly. However, the central claim that AI is already ready to act as an independent research participant is not supported by the cited evidence, and the proposed paradigms and methods lack operational definitions. The contribution is therefore currently more of a position statement or agenda than a validated framework. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, parameter-free derivations, or falsifiable predictions; its strengths lie in synthesis and conceptual organization rather than in new empirical or formal results.

major comments (3)
  1. [AI as Research Participant Empowers Human Research] The definition of ARP states that AI 'actively engages in research process, contributing autonomously,' but all four cited supporting studies—Mahmoodi et al. (2022), Dell'Acqua et al. (2023), Traeger et al. (2020), and Pataranutaporn et al. (2023)—treat AI as an experimental stimulus or a manipulated agent within human experiments. In none of these does AI set the research question, design the experiment, analyze the data, or interpret the results. The term 'research participant' is therefore equivocal: a participant-as-subject or participant-as-stimulus is not a participant-as-collaborator. The normative conclusion that AI 'should now be recognized as an independent entity actively participating in research' is load-bearing and unsupported by the paper's own evidence. The authors should either redefine ARP to the weaker claim that AI can serve as a simulated participant or subject, adjusting the paper's conclusions accordingly, or provide direct evidence of AI performing autonomous research functions in a co-researcher role.
  2. [Research Methods of Human-AI Joint Research] This section claims to outline methods for conducting human-AI joint research, but it only summarizes two existing studies—Doshi and Hauser (2023) on AI-assisted story writing and Jia and Tu (2024) on AI and critical thinking—and does not present a concrete methodological protocol for implementing the proposed ART/ARA/ARP models. No operational definitions, procedures, or validation criteria are provided for how researchers would assign roles, collect data, or measure the contribution of AI as a research participant. As a result, the promised 'practical approaches for integrating AI as a full research partner' are not delivered. The section should either be expanded with explicit methodological guidance or relabeled as an illustrative review of relevant existing studies.
  3. [New Research Paradigms of Human-AI Joint Research] The two 'new research paradigms' are under-specified. The text only states that they are based on traditional paradigms and 'consider the impact of AI' on cognition/emotion or social interaction, without articulating their assumptions, scope, or distinctive methodological commitments. It is not made clear what is genuinely new about these paradigms relative to existing applications of AI in brain science and social sciences. In particular, the paper cites Hardy et al. (2023), which already distinguishes AI as tools, models, and participants, but does not discuss how the proposed ART/ARA/ARP taxonomy relates to or extends that prior framework. The authors should explicitly define each paradigm, state its novel elements, and explain how the three collaboration models instantiate these paradigms in testable ways.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] The sentence 'As artificial general intelligence (AGI) AGI advances' contains a duplicated 'AGI'; the phrase 'these capabilities are critical for AI to effectively engage' is also vague and should specify which capabilities are meant and how they would be assessed.
  2. [AI as Research Participant Empowers Human Research] The author name is spelled 'Dell'Aqua' in the text but 'Dell'Acqua' in the reference list; please make the spelling consistent. In addition, the reference to Han et al. (2024) is incomplete, listing 'LC, R.' as an author without a full name.
  3. [Figure 2] The labels 'human-AI joint thinking' and 'AI identifies emerging research trends and gap' in the figure are not defined in the text; either define these terms explicitly or remove them from the figure for clarity.
  4. [Fundamentals of Human Research] The citation 'Van den Boosche et al. (2006)' appears to be a typo for 'Van den Bossche et al.'; please verify the correct spelling against the reference list.
  5. [Conclusion] The paper lacks a dedicated 'Limitations and Future Work' section. Given that the proposed paradigms and methods are not empirically validated in this manuscript, a candid discussion of limitations would strengthen the paper's scholarly credibility.
  6. [Related Work] Given that Hardy et al. (2023) explicitly distinguishes AI as tools, models, and participants, the absence of a direct comparison between that taxonomy and the proposed ART/ARA/ARP trichotomy weakens the novelty claim and should be addressed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a position/review with no derivation chain, fitting, or self-citations; its ARP evidence gap is an inference problem, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

This manuscript makes no quantitative predictions and contains no fitting procedure or equation chain whose output could be equivalent to its input by construction. The central claim—that it is time to transition to human-AI joint research and to treat AI as a research participant—is presented as a normative synthesis of prior empirical work rather than as a derived result. The cited studies in the ARP section (Mahmoodi et al.; Dell'Acqua et al.; Traeger et al.; Pataranutaporn et al.) show AI as an experimental stimulus or subject, not as an autonomous co-researcher; that mismatch is an evidential gap concerning sufficiency of capability, not a circular definition. There are no self-citations by the authors in the reference list, so no self-citation chain is load-bearing. The ART/ARA/ARP taxonomy overlaps in name with Hardy et al.'s "tools, models, participants" framing, but the paper does not derive its taxonomy from that work, and "research assistant" and "research participant (as collaborator)" are not the same as "model" and "participant (as experimental subject)", so this is at most a novelty or attribution concern rather than a circular reduction. Thus no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The framework rests on normative claims about AI's status as a participant and on the adequacy of the proposed taxonomy, rather than on empirical evidence. No free parameters are fitted because the paper contains no quantitative model.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AI should be treated as an independent research participant (ARP) in scientific inquiry.
    Stated in 'AI as Research Participant Empowers Human Research': AI 'should now be recognized as an independent entity actively participating in research.' The status is asserted without empirical or formal support.
  • ad hoc to paper The ART/ARA/ARP trichotomy is exhaustive and its categories are meaningful and distinct.
    Introduced in 'New Research Paradigms of Human-AI Joint Research' without a derivation or criteria; the boundary between assistant and participant is not defined.
  • domain assumption Insights from human cognition and collaborative learning transfer to human-AI interaction design.
    In 'From Human Research to Human-AI Joint Research', the paper assumes brain science and social science findings about human processes can guide AI collaboration design; the transfer is not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption AI systems will acquire the cognitive and social abilities needed for autonomous research participation.
    The introduction lists 'AI system must continuously advance, acquiring higher cognitive and social interaction abilities' as a condition, but the paper does not show these abilities exist at the required level.
invented entities (3)
  • AI as Research Participant (ARP)
    purpose: A collaboration model in which AI autonomously contributes to research as an independent participant.
    Introduced as a new model; no falsifiable handle or testable consequence is provided beyond examples of existing AI-in-experiment setups.
  • AI-Brain Science Research Paradigm
    purpose: A proposed paradigm integrating AI into brain science research while accounting for AI's effects on cognition and emotion.
    Conceptual label without a formal definition or unique methodological content that distinguishes it from AI-assisted brain science.
  • AI-Social Sciences Research Paradigm
    purpose: A proposed paradigm for social sciences research that treats AI as a participant and studies AI-influenced social interaction.
    Similar proposals are cited (Grossmann et al. 2023; Xu et al. 2024), and the paper adds no operational content to distinguish this paradigm.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI-Empowered Human Research Integrating Brain Science and Social Sciences Insights." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4OS2HY4U

@misc{pith2026241112761,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI-Empowered Human Research Integrating Brain Science and Social Sciences Insights},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4OS2HY4U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12761}
}
read the original abstract

This paper explores the transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI) in enhancing scientific research, particularly in the fields of brain science and social sciences. We analyze the fundamental aspects of human research and argue that it is high time for researchers to transition to human-AI joint research. Building upon this foundation, we propose two innovative research paradigms of human-AI joint research: "AI-Brain Science Research Paradigm" and "AI-Social Sciences Research Paradigm". In these paradigms, we introduce three human-AI collaboration models: AI as a research tool (ART), AI as a research assistant (ARA), and AI as a research participant (ARP). Furthermore, we outline the methods for conducting human-AI joint research. This paper seeks to redefine the collaborative interactions between human researchers and AI system, setting the stage for future research directions and sparking innovation in this interdisciplinary field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12761 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. From human-human social interaction to human-AI social interaction. The left part describes the fundamentals of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Human-AI collaboration models and new research paradigms of human-AI joint research. (a) Three human-AI col [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Research methods for conducting human-AI joint research. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Adesso, G. 2023. Towards the ultimate brain: Exploring scientific discovery with ChatGPT AI. AI Magazine, 44(3): 328--342

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Alwehaibi, H. U. 2012. Novel program to promote critical thinking among higher education students: Empirical study from Saudi Arabia. Asian Social Science, 8(11): 193

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Bail, C. A. 2024. Can Generative AI improve social science? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(21): e2314021121

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    J.; Shenoy, P.; Chalodhorn, R.; and Rao, R

    Bell, C. J.; Shenoy, P.; Chalodhorn, R.; and Rao, R. P. 2008. Control of a humanoid robot by a noninvasive brain--computer interface in humans. Journal of neural engineering, 5(2): 214

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Ben \' tez, C.; and Canales, E. 2013. Critical thinking as a resilience factor in an engineering program. Creative education, 4(9): 611--613

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Birbaumer, N.; Weber, C.; Neuper, C.; Buch, E.; Haapen, K.; and Cohen, L. 2006. Physiological regulation of thinking: brain--computer interface (BCI) research. Progress in brain research, 159: 369--391

    work page 2006

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Bozkurt, A. 2023. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) powered conversational educational agents: The inevitable paradigm shift. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18(1)

    2023

  2. [10]

    K.; Kraus, S.; Breier, M.; and Corvello, V

    Burger, B.; Kanbach, D. K.; Kraus, S.; Breier, M.; and Corvello, V. 2023. On the use of AI-based tools like ChatGPT to support management research. European Journal of Innovation Management, 26(7): 233--241

    2023

  3. [11]

    T.; and Wylie, R

    Chi, M. T.; and Wylie, R. 2014. The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational psychologist, 49(4): 219--243

    2014

  4. [12]

    Cropley, D. 2023. Is artificial intelligence more creative than humans?: ChatGPT and the divergent association task. Learning Letters, 2: 13--13

    2023

  5. [13]

    Daly, W. M. 1998. Critical thinking as an outcome of nursing education. What is it? Why is it important to nursing practice? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2): 323--331

    1998

  6. [14]

    Z.; Chaudhari, A

    Darestani, M. Z.; Chaudhari, A. S.; and Heckel, R. 2021. Measuring robustness in deep learning based compressive sensing. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2433--2444. PMLR

    2021

  7. [15]

    Dehay, C.; and Kennedy, H. 2020. Evolution of the human brain. Science, 369(6503): 506--507

    2020

  8. [16]

    Dell'Acqua, F.; Kogut, B.; and Perkowski, P. 2023. Super mario meets ai: Experimental effects of automation and skills on team performance and coordination. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1--47

    2023

  9. [17]

    Dillenbourg, P. 1999. What do you mean by collaborative learning? Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches., 1--19

    1999

  10. [18]

    Dolan, R. J. 2002. Emotion, cognition, and behavior. science, 298(5596): 1191--1194

    2002

  11. [19]

    O.; Koster, E

    Dolcos, F.; Katsumi, Y.; Moore, M.; Berggren, N.; de Gelder, B.; Derakshan, N.; Hamm, A. O.; Koster, E. H.; Ladouceur, C. D.; Okon-Singer, H.; et al. 2020. Neural correlates of emotion-attention interactions: From perception, learning, and memory to social cognition, individua...

    2020

  12. [20]

    R.; and Hauser, O

    Doshi, A. R.; and Hauser, O. 2023. Generative artificial intelligence enhances creativity. Available at SSRN

    2023

  13. [21]

    Q.; Muhammad, S.; et al

    Farooq, M.; Buzdar, H. Q.; Muhammad, S.; et al. 2023. AI-Enhanced Social Sciences: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliographic Analysis of Web of Science Published Research Papers. Pakistan Journal of Society, Education and Language (PJSEL), 10(1): 250--267

    2023

  14. [22]

    Fragiadakis, G.; Diou, C.; Kousiouris, G.; and Nikolaidou, M. 2024. Evaluating human-ai collaboration: A review and methodological framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19098

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Fui-Hoon Nah, F.; Zheng, R.; Cai, J.; Siau, K.; and Chen, L. 2023. Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration

    2023

  16. [24]

    Goffman, E. 1983. The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. American sociological review, 48(1): 1--17

    1983

  17. [25]

    P.; Yordanova, K.; Vered, M.; Nair, R.; Abreu, P

    Graziani, M.; Dutkiewicz, L.; Calvaresi, D.; Amorim, J. P.; Yordanova, K.; Vered, M.; Nair, R.; Abreu, P. H.; Blanke, T.; Pulignano, V.; et al. 2023. A global taxonomy of interpretable AI: unifying the terminology for the technical and social sciences. Artificial intelligence ...

    2023

  18. [26]

    C.; Christakis, N

    Grossmann, I.; Feinberg, M.; Parker, D. C.; Christakis, N. A.; Tetlock, P. E.; and Cunningham, W. A. 2023. AI and the transformation of social science research. Science, 380(6650): 1108--1109

    2023

  19. [27]

    Han, Y.; Qiu, Z.; Cheng, J.; and LC, R. 2024. When Teams Embrace AI: Human Collaboration Strategies in Generative Prompting in a Creative Design Task. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1--14

    2024

  20. [28]

    Hardy, M.; Sucholutsky, I.; Thompson, B.; and Griffiths, T. 2023. Large language models meet cognitive science: LLMs as tools, models, and participants. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society, volume 45

    2023

  21. [29]

    Huang, H. 2024. Eight challenges in developing theory of intelligence. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 18: 1388166

    2024

  22. [30]

    A.; and Kanselaar, G

    Janssen, J.; Erkens, G.; Kirschner, P. A.; and Kanselaar, G. 2012. Task-related and social regulation during online collaborative learning. Metacognition and Learning, 7: 25--43

    2012

  23. [31]

    Jia, X.-H.; and Tu, J.-C. 2024. Towards a New Conceptual Model of AI-Enhanced Learning for College Students: The Roles of Artificial Intelligence Capabilities, General Self-Efficacy, Learning Motivation, and Critical Thinking Awareness. Systems, 12(3): 74

    2024

  24. [32]

    Korinek, A. 2023. Language models and cognitive automation for economic research. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research

    2023

  25. [33]

    Krauss, P. 2024. Understanding AI Better with Brain Research. In Artificial Intelligence and Brain Research: Neural Networks, Deep Learning and the Future of Cognition, 203--208. Springer

    2024

  26. [34]

    A.; and Jochems, W

    Kreijns, K.; Kirschner, P. A.; and Jochems, W. 2003. Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in human behavior, 19(3): 335--353

    2003

  27. [35]

    Lazarus, R. S. 1999. The cognition-emotion debate: A bit of history. Handbook of cognition and emotion, 5(6): 3--19

    1999

  28. [36]

    Li, J.; and Ren, Y. 2020. The cultivation of critical thinking ability in academic reading based on questionnaires and interviews. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(22): 104--120

    2020

  29. [37]

    Li, Z.; and Zou, X. 2019. A Review on Personalized Academic Paper Recommendation. Comput. Inf. Sci., 12(1): 33--43

    2019

  30. [38]

    Mahmoodi, A.; Nili, H.; Bang, D.; Mehring, C.; and Bahrami, B. 2022. Distinct neurocomputational mechanisms support informational and socially normative conformity. PLoS biology, 20(3): e3001565

    2022

  31. [39]

    A.; Nahas, J.; Chmoulevitch, D.; Cropper, S

    Olson, J. A.; Nahas, J.; Chmoulevitch, D.; Cropper, S. J.; and Webb, M. E. 2021. Naming unrelated words predicts creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(25): e2022340118

    2021

  32. [40]

    Pataranutaporn, P.; Liu, R.; Finn, E.; and Maes, P. 2023. Influencing human--AI interaction by priming beliefs about AI can increase perceived trustworthiness, empathy and effectiveness. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(10): 1076--1086

    2023

  33. [41]

    P \'e rez, J.; Castro, M.; and L \'o pez, G. 2023. Serious games and ai: Challenges and opportunities for computational social science. IEEE Access, 11: 62051--62061

    2023

  34. [42]

    Pessoa, L. 2008. On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nature reviews neuroscience, 9(2): 148--158

    2008

  35. [43]

    Pessoa, L. 2013. The cognitive-emotional brain: From interactions to integration. MIT press

    2013

  36. [44]

    Phelps, E. A. 2006. Emotion and cognition: insights from studies of the human amygdala. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57(1): 27--53

    2006

  37. [45]

    E.; Kaufman, J

    Rafner, J.; Beaty, R. E.; Kaufman, J. C.; Lubart, T.; and Sherson, J. 2023. Creativity in the age of generative AI. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(11): 1836--1838

    2023

  38. [46]

    Rezwana, J.; and Maher, M. L. 2023. Designing creative AI partners with COFI: A framework for modeling interaction in human-AI co-creative systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 30(5): 1--28

    2023

  39. [47]

    C.; and Burkander, K

    Roohr, K. C.; and Burkander, K. 2020. Exploring critical thinking as an outcome for students enrolled in community colleges. Community College Review, 48(3): 330--351

    2020

  40. [48]

    Scherer, K. 1984. On the nature and function of emotion: A component process approach

    1984

  41. [49]

    Shen, H.; Knearem, T.; Ghosh, R.; Alkiek, K.; Krishna, K.; Liu, Y.; Ma, Z.; Petridis, S.; Peng, Y.-H.; Qiwei, L.; et al. 2024. Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09264

    2024

  42. [50]

    Somasundaram, R. 2023. Quickly Write and Journal Publish Research Article with ChatGPT

    2023

  43. [51]

    Sommerville, J. A. 2020. Social cognition

    2020

  44. [52]

    A.; Karcher, D

    Spillias, S.; Tuohy, P.; Andreotta, M.; Annand-Jones, R.; Boschetti, F.; Cvitanovic, C.; Duggan, J.; Fulton, E. A.; Karcher, D. B.; Paris, C.; et al. 2023. Human-AI collaboration to identify literature for evidence synthesis. Cell Reports Sustainability

    2023

  45. [53]

    C.; and Eke, D

    Stahl, B. C.; and Eke, D. 2024. The ethics of ChatGPT--Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology. International Journal of Information Management, 74: 102700

    2024

  46. [54]

    Steyvers, M.; and Kumar, A. 2024. Three challenges for AI-assisted decision-making. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(5): 722--734

    2024

  47. [55]

    H.; Renaud, R

    Stupnisky, R. H.; Renaud, R. D.; Daniels, L. M.; Haynes, T. L.; and Perry, R. P. 2008. The interrelation of first-year college students’ critical thinking disposition, perceived academic control, and academic achievement. Research in Higher Education, 49: 513--530

    2008

  48. [56]

    L.; Strohkorb Sebo, S.; Jung, M.; Scassellati, B.; and Christakis, N

    Traeger, M. L.; Strohkorb Sebo, S.; Jung, M.; Scassellati, B.; and Christakis, N. A. 2020. Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human--robot team. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12): 6370--6375

    2020

  49. [57]

    L.; and Schunk, D

    Usher, E. L.; and Schunk, D. H. 2017. Social cognitive theoretical perspective of self-regulation. In Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 19--35. Routledge

    2017

  50. [58]

    Van den Boosche, P.; Gijselaers, W.; Segers, M.; and Kirschner, P. 2006. Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments. Small Group Research, 37(5): 490--521

    2006

  51. [59]

    Wang, G.; Bao, H.; Liu, Q.; Zhou, T.; Wu, S.; Huang, T.; Yu, Z.; Lu, C.; Gong, Y.; Zhang, Z.; et al. 2024. Brain-inspired artificial intelligence research: A review. Science China Technological Sciences, 67(8): 2282--2296

    2024

  52. [60]

    Wu, X.; Duan, R.; and Ni, J. 2024. Unveiling security, privacy, and ethical concerns of ChatGPT. Journal of Information and Intelligence, 2(2): 102--115

    2024

  53. [61]

    Xu, E.; Wang, W.; and Wang, Q. 2023. The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1): 1--11

    2023

  54. [62]

    Xu, R.; Sun, Y.; Ren, M.; Guo, S.; Pan, R.; Lin, H.; Sun, L.; and Han, X. 2024. AI for social science and social science of AI: A survey. Information Processing & Management, 61(3): 103665

    2024

  55. [63]

    Zhao, L.; Zhang, L.; Wu, Z.; Chen, Y.; Dai, H.; Yu, X.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, T.; Hu, X.; Jiang, X.; et al. 2023. When brain-inspired ai meets agi. Meta-Radiology, 100005

    2023

  56. [64]

    Ziems, C.; Held, W.; Shaikh, O.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Z.; and Yang, D. 2024. Can large language models transform computational social science? Computational Linguistics, 50(1): 237--291

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.