Abdallah El Ali

Xin Sun, Shu Wei, Ting Pan et al.

Modeling users' cognitive states (e.g., cognitive load and decision confidence) is essential for building adaptive AI in high-stakes decision-making. While eye tracking provides non-invasive behavioral signals correlated with cognitive effort, prior work has not systematically examined how AI assistance contexts, specifically varying advice reliability and user heterogeneity, can alter the mapping between gaze signals and cognitive states. We conducted a within-subject lab eye-tracking study (N=54) on factual verification tasks under three conditions: No-AI, Correct-AI advice, and Incorrect-AI advice. We analyze condition-dependent changes in self-reports and eye-tracking patterns and evaluate the robustness of eye-tracking-based user modeling. Results show that AI advice increases decision confidence compared to No-AI, while Correct-AI is associated with lower perceived cognitive load and more efficient gaze behavior. Crucially, predictive modeling is context-sensitive: the relationship between eye-tracking signals and cognitive states shifts across AI conditions. Finally, fusing eye-tracking features with user priors (demographics, AI literacy/experience, and propensity to trust technology) improves cross-participant generalization. These findings support condition-aware and personalized user modeling for cognitively aligned adaptive AI systems.

Xin Sun, Di Wu, Sijing Qin et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-Judge). This work challenges its reliability by showing that trust judgments by LLMs are biased by disclosed source labels. Using a counterfactual design, we find that both humans and LLM judges assign higher trust to information labeled as human-authored than to the same content labeled as AI-generated. Eye-tracking data reveal that humans rely heavily on source labels as heuristic cues for judgments. We analyze LLM internal states during judgment. Across label conditions, models allocate denser attention to the label region than the content region, and this label dominance is stronger under Human labels than AI labels, consistent with the human gaze patterns. Besides, decision uncertainty measured by logits is higher under AI labels than Human labels. These results indicate that the source label is a salient heuristic cue for both humans and LLMs. It raises validity concerns for label-sensitive LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation, and we cautiously raise that aligning models with human preferences may propagate human heuristic reliance into models, motivating debiased evaluation and alignment.

Steeven Villa, Abdallah El Ali

The Augmented Human vision broadly seeks to improve or expand baseline human functioning through the restoration or extension of physical, intellectual, and social capabilities. However, given the rapid pace of technology development, we ask: what exactly does Augmented Human research involve, what are its core themes, and how has the Augmented Human(s) conference series evolved over time? To answer this, we conducted a scientometric analysis on the past 15 years of the Augmented Human(s) conference (N=735 paper), focusing on: geographical aspects, submissions and citation timelines, author frequency and popularity, and topic modeling. We find that: (a) Number of papers in the conference exhibit a bimodal distribution, peaking in 2015 and 2025, but showing periods of stagnant growth; (b) key topics over time include Haptics, Wearable Sensing, Vision & Eye Tracking, Embodied Interaction, and Sports / Motion; (c) some seminal papers on AH are not published in AH(s), but rather at related venues (e.g., CHI); (d) the conference has an active Japanese HCI community despite its historical Eurocentric location dominance. We contribute a closer look at the trajectory of the AH(s) field, and raise considerations of definitional and research scope ambiguities given the core problems/enhancements the field seeks to address.

Jieying Zhang, Steeven Villa, Abdallah El Ali

Advances in generative AI, speech synthesis, and embodied avatars enable systems that not only assist communication, but can act as proxies on users' behalf. Prior work in HCI has largely focused on systems as external tools, with less attention paid to the experiential consequences of users' speech and actions becoming assimilated with AI-generated output. We introduce the design and implementation of ProxyMe, a work-in-progress VR prototype that allows users to embody an avatar whose voice and spoken content are modified by an AI system. By combining avatar-based embodiment, voice cloning, and AI-mediated speech augmentation, ProxyMe invites the exploration of avatar self-extension: situations in which AI-modified communication is experienced as part of one's own expressive behavior. We chart out research challenges and envisioned scenarios, with a focus on how varying degrees of delegation and steerability can influence perceived agency, authorship, and self-identification.

Pooja Prajod, Hannes Cools, Thomas Röggla et al.

As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into journalism, designing effective AI-use disclosures that inform readers without imposing unnecessary burden is a key challenge. While prior research has primarily focused on trust and credibility, the impact of disclosures on readers' attentional and cognitive load remains underexplored. To address this gap, we conducted a $3\times2\times2$ mixed factorial study manipulating the level of AI-use disclosure detail (none, one-line, detailed), news type (politics, lifestyle), and role of AI (editing, partial content generation), measuring load via NASA-TLX and eye-tracking. Our results reveal a significant attentional cost: one-line disclosures resulted in significantly higher fixation durations and saccade counts, particularly for AI-edited content. Detailed disclosures did not impose additional burden. Drawing on Information-Gap Theory, we argue that brief labels may trigger increased visual scrutiny by alerting readers to AI use without providing enough information. NASA-TLX scores and pupil diameter showed no significant differences across conditions, suggesting that AI-use disclosures do not impose cognitive burden regardless of the detail level. Interview insights contextualize these findings and reveal a strong preference for detailed or ``detail-on-demand'' designs. Our findings inform the design of gaze-informed adaptive disclosure interfaces that dynamically adjust transparency levels based on readers' attentional patterns and news context.

Pooja Prajod, Hannes Cools, Thomas Röggla et al.

As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into news production, calls for transparency about the use of AI have gained considerable traction. Recent studies suggest that AI disclosures can lead to a ``transparency dilemma'', where disclosure reduces readers' trust. However, little is known about how the \textit{level of detail} in AI disclosures influences trust and contributes to this dilemma within the news context. In this 3$\times$2$\times$2 mixed factorial study with 40 participants, we investigate how three levels of AI disclosures (none, one-line, detailed) across two types of news (politics and lifestyle) and two levels of AI involvement (low and high) affect news readers' trust. We measured trust using the News Media Trust questionnaire, along with two decision behaviors: source-checking and subscription decisions. Questionnaire responses and subscription rates showed a decline in trust only for detailed AI disclosures, whereas source-checking behavior increased for both one-line and detailed disclosures, with the effect being more pronounced for detailed disclosures. Insights from semi-structured interviews suggest that source-checking behavior was primarily driven by interest in the topic, followed by trust, whereas trust was the main factor influencing subscription decisions. Around two-thirds of participants expressed a preference for detailed disclosures, while most participants who preferred one-line indicated a need for detail-on-demand disclosure formats. Our findings show that not all AI disclosures lead to a transparency dilemma, but instead reflect a trade-off between readers' desire for more transparency and their trust in AI-assisted news content.

Xin Sun, Ting Pan, Yajing Wang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly show step-by-step reasoning rationales alongside their answers, turning reasoning from an internal model capability into a user-facing interface feature. Yet it is unclear whether such rationales help users judge when trust is warranted or merely persuade through fluent reasoning. We address this gap through the lens of auditable trust calibration: user-facing rationales should help people inspect whether an answer is warranted by evidence. We test this framing in factual verification through two linked studies. Study 1, an online experiment (N=68), manipulated rationale presentation format (instant, delayed, on demand), rationale correctness (correct, incorrect), and certainty framing (none, certain, uncertain). Study 2, a controlled eye-tracking study (N=54), examined how no-, correct-, and incorrect-rationale conditions were associated with users' trust, decision-making, and eye-movement patterns. Study 1 showed no reliable presentation-format effects; instead, rationale correctness and certainty framing influenced the trust in the information, trust in the LLM system, and decision confidence. In Study 2, incorrect rationales drew more attention to the supporting evidence and larger pupil diameter while the rationale was viewed, consistent with greater cognitive effort. Incorrect rationales also lowered trust in LLM system relative to showing no rationale, whereas the no-rationale difference was weaker for trust in information. A post-hoc predictive modeling analysis of gaze data from Study 2 further showed that gaze features carried predictive signal for trust- and decision-related user states. This work challenges the assumption that more reasoning is always better and supports rationale designs that are selective, linked to evidence, calibrated in how they express certainty, and easier to verify.

Xin Sun, Shu Wei, Jos A Bosch et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly show reasoning rationales alongside their answers, turning "reasoning" into a user-interface element. While step-by-step rationales are typically associated with model performance, how they influence users' trust and decision-making in factual verification tasks remains unclear. We ran an online study (N=68) manipulating three properties of LLM reasoning rationales: presentation format (instant vs. delayed vs. on-demand), correctness (correct vs. incorrect), and certainty framing (none vs. certain vs. uncertain). We found that correct rationales and certainty cues increased trust, decision confidence, and AI advice adoption, whereas uncertainty cues reduced them. Presentation format did not have a significant effect, suggesting users were less sensitive to how reasoning was revealed than to its reliability. Participants indicated they use rationales to primarily audit outputs and calibrate trust, where they expected rationales in stepwise, adaptive forms with certainty indicators. Our work shows that user-facing rationales, if poorly designed, can both support decision-making yet miscalibrate trust.