mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

From Dyad to Triad: Eliciting XAI Requirements in Stroke Rehabilitation

arXiv 2607.25423 ↗First posted 28 Jul 2026cs.HC cs.AI cs.ETcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Eliciting explainable AI (XAI) requirements from stroke survivors presents a methodological challenge with direct implications for the design of trustworthy brain-computer interfaces for rehabilitation. How can patients and caregivers articulate preferences about algorithmic transparency when they lack conceptual frameworks for explainability, and when standard elicitation approaches are structurally inadequate for users with acquired communication disorders? We present a video-based scaffolding protocol for XAI requirements elicitation, developed and piloted in a rehabilitation context. In a formative study with three stroke survivors (two with moderate-to-severe aphasia) and three caregivers, facilitators employed four scaffolding approaches alongside the videos: 1) analogical bridging mapping AI states to familiar systems, 2) projective personas depersonalising sensitive topics, 3) binary forcing reducing cognitive load, and 4) extended response time. These approaches successfully surfaced heterogeneous, sometimes conflicting XAI needs across participants. Reflexive analysis additionally revealed three systematic facilitation biases, namely, normative bias, hypothesis confirmation bias, and presence effect, where scaffolding inadvertently shaped responses. We present these as protocol risk guidelines for practitioners. Together, the protocol and guidelines constitute a reusable methodological contribution for eliciting patient-facing XAI requirements in rehabilitation, arguing that such elicitation is a necessary prerequisite for trustworthy human-machine systems design, not an optional preliminary.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2026.

Builds on

4 of 39 references.

References · 4

  1. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  2. 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,206
  3. 2022Definition drives design: Disability models and mechanisms of bias in AI technologiescited by 5
  4. 2023Explainable artificial intelligence approaches for brain-computer interfaces: a review and design spacecited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.