mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Unpacking Human-AI Interaction in Safety-Critical Industries: A Systematic Literature Review

arXiv 2310.03392 ↗First posted 5 Oct 2023cs.HC cs.AIcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Ensuring quality human-AI interaction (HAII) in safety-critical industries is essential. Failure to do so can lead to catastrophic and deadly consequences. Despite this urgency, existing research on HAII is limited, fragmented, and inconsistent. We present here a survey of that literature and recommendations for research best practices that should improve the field. We divided our investigation into the following areas: 1) terms used to describe HAII, 2) primary roles of AI-enabled systems, 3) factors that influence HAII, and 4) how HAII is measured. Additionally, we described the capabilities and maturity of the AI-enabled systems used in safety-critical industries discussed in these articles. We found that no single term is used across the literature to describe HAII and some terms have multiple meanings. According to our literature, seven factors influence HAII: user characteristics (e.g., user personality), user perceptions and attitudes (e.g., user biases), user expectations and experience (e.g., mismatched user expectations and experience), AI interface and features (e.g., interactive design), AI output (e.g., perceived accuracy), explainability and interpretability (e.g., level of detail, user understanding), and usage of AI (e.g., heterogeneity of environments). HAII is most measured with user-related subjective metrics (e.g., user perceptions, trust, and attitudes), and AI-assisted decision-making is the most common primary role of AI-enabled systems. Based on this review, we conclude that there are substantial research gaps in HAII. Researchers and developers need to codify HAII terminology, involve users throughout the AI lifecycle (especially during development), and tailor HAII in safety-critical industries to the users and environments.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 163 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2023.

Builds on

15 of 163 references.

References · 15

  1. 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,201
  2. 2019On the Utility of Learning about Humans for Human-AI Coordinationcited by 345
  3. 2018Metrics for Explainable AI: Challenges and Prospectscited by 257
  4. 2020Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AIcited by 166
  5. 2023Who Should I Trust: AI or Myself? Leveraging Human and AI Correctness Likelihood to Promote Appropriate Trust in AI-Assisted Decision-Makingcited by 67
  6. 2021Transitioning to human interaction with AI systems: New challenges and opportunities for HCI professionals to enable human-centered AIcited by 38
  7. 2021Designing AI for Trust and Collaboration in Time-Constrained Medical Decisions: A Sociotechnical Lenscited by 35
  8. 2023A Systematic Literature Review of User Trust in AI-Enabled Systems: An HCI Perspectivecited by 33
  9. 2020Bias and Discrimination in AI: a cross-disciplinary perspectivecited by 24
  10. 2018A review of possible effects of cognitive biases on the interpretation of rule-based machine learning modelscited by 22
  11. 2023Explainability in AI Policies: A Critical Review of Communications, Reports, Regulations, and Standards in the EU, US, and UKcited by 13
  12. 2020Improving Workflow Integration with xPath: Design and Evaluation of a Human-AI Diagnosis System in Pathologycited by 9
3 more
  1. 2020Lessons Learned from Designing an AI-Enabled Diagnosis Tool for Pathologistscited by 9
  2. 2020The Journal Coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A Comparative Analysiscited by 9
  3. 2023End-User Development for Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

3 papers.