Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

On the Influence of Cognitive Styles on Users' Understanding of Explanations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2210.02123 v1 pith:XYBDEELS submitted 2022-10-05 cs.HC

On the Influence of Cognitive Styles on Users' Understanding of Explanations

classification cs.HC
keywords cognitiveusersexplanationsunderstandingstylesdesigndifferencesinfluence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly complex, making it difficult for users to understand how the AI has derived its prediction. Using explainable AI (XAI)-methods, researchers aim to explain AI decisions to users. So far, XAI-based explanations pursue a technology-focused approach - neglecting the influence of users' cognitive abilities and differences in information processing on the understanding of explanations. Hence, this study takes a human-centered perspective and incorporates insights from cognitive psychology. In particular, we draw on the psychological construct of cognitive styles that describe humans' characteristic modes of processing information. Applying a between-subject experiment design, we investigate how users' rational and intuitive cognitive styles affect their objective and subjective understanding of different types of explanations provided by an AI. Initial results indicate substantial differences in users' understanding depending on their cognitive style. We expect to contribute to a more nuanced view of the interrelation of human factors and XAI design.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Just Keep Prompting: Evaluating Repetitive Socratic Prompting in VLMs

    cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Repeated conversational pressure destabilizes VLM video answers — correct answers regress, wrong ones sometimes recover, and models differ sharply in how they respond.