Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 150 references

Human-Centered AI Communication in Co-Creativity: An Initial Framework and Insights

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FAICO maps AI-to-human communication in co-creation into five design components.

desk verdict FAICO is an honest, useful synthesis of AI communication dimensions for co-creativity, but its own focus-group data expose four communication aspects it does not yet cover, so it should be treated as an initial checklist, not a validated one. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18385 v1 pith:PHOQALK3 submitted 2025-05-23 cs.HC cs.AI

Jeba Rezwana , Corey Ford This is my paper
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords human-AIco-creativityAIcommunicationFAICOco-creativeuserexperienceinteractionfocusgroupssystematicliteraturereview
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

This paper introduces FAICO, a Framework for AI Communication in co-creative systems, and argues that effective AI-to-human communication can be designed from five components: modalities, response mode, timing, communication type, and tone. The authors derive these components from a systematic review of 107 full-length papers and then probe the framework in two focus groups with experts in AI, HCI, and design. Their central claim is that these five components capture key choices that shape user experience in human-AI co-creation, and that using FAICO as a checklist can improve how co-creative AI systems talk to people. The focus groups added two preferences that extend the framework's guidance: users favor a back-and-forth feedback loop over one-shot communication, and communication should adapt to context, creative phase, and user expertise. If this holds, FAICO gives designers and researchers a practical tool for building and evaluating co-creative AI.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is FAICO itself, a five-component framework for classifying and designing AI-to-human communication in co-creative contexts. Modalities are the channels through which the AI speaks (text, speech, visuals, haptic, embodied); response mode is whether the AI initiates (proactive) or waits to be asked (reactive); timing is whether communication happens during co-creation (synchronous) or outside it (asynchronous); communication type covers explanation, suggestion, and feedback; and tone covers politeness, warmth, friendliness, and cultural alignment. The framework does the argument's work by giving each component its own evidence base connecting it to user experience, then serving as the prompt around which the focus-group study was organized.

What would settle it

Run a comparative design study in which teams use FAICO versus no framework to redesign the same co-creative AI, then measure user experience on a validated scale; if FAICO teams show no improvement, the claim that the framework guides better communication fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that AI communication in co-creativity can be organized into five components—modalities (text, speech, visuals, haptic, embodied), response mode (proactive versus reactive), timing (synchronous versus asynchronous), communication type (explanation, suggestion, feedback), and tone (politeness, warmth, friendliness, cultural alignment)—and that each component has documented effects on user experience. The paper grounds this taxonomy in a systematic review and then shows through two focus groups that expert users find the framework useful as a checklist, report that it surfaces components they would not otherwise consider, and express two concrete preferences: continuous human-AI feedback loops rather than linear one-way messages, and communication tailored to context, creative phase, and expertise. These findings are offered as the first step toward comprehensive guidelines for human-centered AI communication in co-creation.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's completeness rests on the systematic review's keyword and venue choices and on the reactions of 12 recruited experts, so if the search missed a major communication dimension or the focus group was unrepresentative, FAICO would be incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If FAICO is correct, designers gain a concrete checklist: for every co-creative AI, choose and justify a modality, response mode, timing, communication type, and tone instead of leaving those choices implicit.
  • Focus-group findings imply co-creative AI should support ongoing dialogue and feedback loops, not just single-prompt exchanges, to build mutual understanding.
  • Communication should be phase- and context-aware: open-ended and divergent suggestions early in ideation, and more direct and convergent feedback during refinement.
  • Users want configuration options over how the AI communicates, so FAICO can be translated into a user-facing configuration tool.
  • FAICO can serve as an evaluation and benchmarking tool for existing co-creative systems, revealing gaps such as missing proactive capability or limited tone and timing variety.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the authors leave implicit: if feedback loops are as central as the focus groups suggest, conversational LLM-based co-creative tools should consistently outperform one-shot generators on perceived partnership, and that difference can be measured directly.
  • FAICO's five components could be coded onto a corpus of existing co-creative systems to quantify which dimensions are most neglected; the focus-group result that tone was overlooked suggests tone would be the most common gap.
  • The framework's usefulness as a checklist could be tested experimentally by comparing design quality in teams given FAICO versus teams given no framework, which would separate the framework's contribution from participants' existing expertise.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. The paper introduces FAICO, a Framework for AI Communication in human-AI co-creativity, derived from a systematic literature review of 107 papers from the ACM Digital Library. FAICO comprises five components: modalities, response mode, timing, communication type, and tone, each linked to user-experience effects. The authors then report a formative focus-group study with 12 skilled participants in AI, HCI, and design, who used FAICO in collaborative writing and design tasks. Thematic analysis of the focus groups yielded six themes, including a preference for feedback-loop dialogue over linear communication, context-adaptive communication, user configurability, and emotionally connective, partner-like AI. The paper claims FAICO presents key aspects of AI communication and offers preliminary guidelines for human-centered AI communication, and it closes with proposed use cases (design cards, configuration tool, evaluation tool) and acknowledged limitations.

Significance. If FAICO is taken as an initial, provisional checklist rather than a complete taxonomy, it is a useful contribution to the co-creativity and human-AI interaction literature. The strengths of the paper are its transparent description of the literature review method, its explicit grounding of each component in prior empirical work, its honest acknowledgment of limitations in Section 6.3, and the concrete use cases (design cards, configuration tool, evaluation tool) that give the framework practical value. The focus-group findings, while preliminary, surface genuine user preferences (feedback loops, context sensitivity, configurability, emotional connection) that are not currently captured by FAICO's five components, which provides a clear and well-scoped agenda for future work. The paper is therefore significant as a formative step, though its central claim that FAICO captures 'key aspects' of AI communication needs to be reconciled with the authors' own qualitative findings.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1 / 6.3] The central claim that FAICO captures the key aspects of AI communication is not fully supported by the authors' own qualitative data. Section 4 defines exactly five components (modalities, response mode, timing, communication type, tone), but the thematic analysis in Section 5.4 reports six themes, four of which (Theme 3 'It should be a feedback loop', Theme 4 'Communication should be according to the situation', Theme 5 'It should have different options', and Theme 6 'It will be able to connect with you') do not map onto any of the five components. A feedback loop, context-adaptive communication, user configurability, and emotional expression are distinct constructs, not natural subcases of the existing categories. The authors acknowledge this in Section 6.1 (adding 'Explanation details') and Section 6.3 (emotional expression could be added), but they do not integrate these insights back into FAICO's definitions. As presented, FAICO is not complete relative to the evidence the paper itself generates, so the abstract's statement that FAICO 'presents key aspects of AI communication' overstates the current framework. The paper would need either to extend FAICO to include these dimensions (e.g., interaction structure, context adaptivity, configurability, affect) or to explicitly reframe FAICO as a partial checklist covering a subset of communication dimensions, with the focus-group themes as future extensions.
  2. [Section 5.2] The formative evaluation is partially self-referential, which limits the strength of the claim that FAICO is helpful or that it improves design consideration. Participants were shown FAICO on a whiteboard during the design tasks (Section 5.2) and then asked whether the framework influenced their perspectives and how useful it was (Section 5.4.1). This procedure invites positive bias, since participants are effectively evaluating a tool they were just given, and it does not test whether FAICO improves design in a blind or controlled way. The paper does call the study 'preliminary' and 'exploratory,' which is appropriate, but the abstract and conclusion present the focus-group feedback as evidence that FAICO is useful for guiding design. A stronger evaluation would separate an independent design task (without FAICO) from a reflective session about FAICO, or would compare designs produced with and without FAICO.
  3. [Section 3] The systematic review's transparency and completeness are undercut by the absence of the list of the 107 included papers and by the single-database, author-selected keyword strategy. The paper describes the screening process (abstract review, full-text review, affinity diagramming) but provides no list of the final corpus, no PRISMA-style flow details beyond the numbers (1196 -> 132 -> 107), and no documentation of the authors' iterative keyword choices beyond a brief description of 'preliminary research' and 'iterative discussion.' Because the framework's completeness depends on the representativeness of this corpus, and because the focus-group themes in Section 5.4 identify communication dimensions not in the corpus-derived FAICO, the reader cannot assess whether the search itself missed relevant literature (e.g., on dialogue loops, affect, or context adaptation). I recommend including the full list of included papers as an appendix or supplementary material, and adding a brief reflection on why the chosen keywords and single database might have limited coverage.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2 (Appendix)] The table contains the typo 'Priovus' in P10's description, which should be 'Previous.'
  2. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'The demographics of users and contexts also affect the different types of timing that participants wanted' appears to discuss response mode (proactive/reactive), not timing; this creates a brief terminological confusion between Sections 4.2 and 4.3.
  3. [Section 4.4] The definitions of explanation, feedback, and suggestion are clear, but the paragraph could benefit from a brief example of each type in a co-creative context, given that these constructs are central to the framework.
  4. [Section 6.1] The sentence 'Based on this theme, we expanded FAICO by adding Explanation details as an essential component of AI communication Rezwana and Ford [106]' lacks a verb or comma before the citation; it should be rephrased to '...AI communication (Rezwana and Ford [106]).'
  5. [References] Several references are cited via URLs or arXiv preprints without page numbers or venue details (e.g., [45], [46], [93], [141]); ensuring consistent citation styles across venues would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Section 5.3] The paper does not report the number of codes generated in the initial coding phase, which would give readers more insight into the thematic analysis process.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FAICO is built from an independent 107-paper review; the only self-referential element is the formative focus-group evaluation, which is acknowledged as preliminary.

  1. other [Section 5.2 (Procedure) and Section 5.4.1 (Theme 1)]
    "The whiteboard displayed an image of FAICO, providing a reference to support participants in the design process... After the design tasks, participants were asked closing questions about (1) AI Communication aspects within FAICO that they considered in their tasks, (2) whether our framework influenced their perspectives on AI Communication in co-creation, and (3) broader feedback on our framework, e.g. how useful it was when designing AI Communication. ..."

    The claim that FAICO is useful (Theme 1) is supported by participants who were shown FAICO on the whiteboard before the design tasks and then asked directly whether FAICO influenced them and how useful it was. This primes the framework and channels feedback toward it, so the 'helpful checklist' verdict is partly generated by the evaluation instrument itself rather than by independent evidence. This does not make the literature-derived component set circular, since the five FAICO components come from the systematic review in Section 3, but the formative validation of FAICO as useful is self-referential. The paper itself acknowledges the preliminary, non-generalizable nature of the study in Section 6.3.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is a systematic literature review of 107 ACM Digital Library papers, followed by affinity diagramming that produced the five FAICO components (modalities, response mode, timing, communication type, tone). That derivation is independent of the paper's own conclusions: the components are grounded in cited external literature, and no component is defined in terms of the empirical results it later claims to explain. The focus-group study is explicitly formative, not a predictive validation, and the paper does not claim to have derived FAICO from those focus groups. The main self-referential element is the evaluation procedure: participants were given FAICO as a design reference and then asked whether they found FAICO useful, inviting demand-characteristic positive feedback. This affects the strength of the 'framework is helpful' claim but does not reduce the framework's construction to its own inputs. The paper's own Section 6.3 acknowledges the study is preliminary, non-generalizable, and that additional aspects such as emotional expression could be added; that is a completeness limitation, not circularity. Self-citations exist (e.g., adopting the modality classification from Rezwana and Maher [108]), but they are transparently acknowledged prior work and are not used to forbid alternatives or to supply an unverified uniqueness theorem. Overall, the paper is largely self-contained in its literature-based derivation, with only a minor self-referential evaluation, so a low score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the representativeness of the ACM DL review, the chosen separation of communication from contribution, and the validity of the focus group method. No free parameters are fitted; FAICO is a conceptual framework.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption AI communication is a distinct component of interaction, separate from contribution to the shared artifact.
    The paper defines AI Communication this way in the Introduction and aligns it with Rezwana and Maher's COFI. This separation is a modeling choice, not a fact.
  • domain assumption User experience in co-creativity is influenced by AI communication design.
    The paper assumes this causal link based on cited HCI literature (e.g., [19,109]), but the focus group study is not a controlled test.
  • domain assumption Thematic analysis of two focus groups provides valid preliminary evidence.
    The authors use reflexive thematic analysis; this presumes that qualitative data from 12 experts gives meaningful signal despite the small, convenience sample.
invented entities (1)
  • FAICO framework
    purpose: Organizes components of AI-to-human communication in co-creation into five dimensions.
    FAICO is a conceptual framework proposed by the authors; the only evaluation in this paper is focus group feedback collected after showing participants the framework itself, so there is no external falsifiable evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Human-Centered AI Communication in Co-Creativity: An Initial Framework and Insights." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PHOQALK3

@misc{pith2026250518385,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Human-Centered AI Communication in Co-Creativity: An Initial Framework and Insights},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PHOQALK3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18385}
}
read the original abstract

Effective communication between AI and humans is essential for successful human-AI co-creation. However, many current co-creative AI systems lack effective communication, which limits their potential for collaboration. This paper presents the initial design of the Framework for AI Communication (FAICO) for co-creative AI, developed through a systematic review of 107 full-length papers. FAICO presents key aspects of AI communication and their impact on user experience, offering preliminary guidelines for designing human-centered AI communication. To improve the framework, we conducted a preliminary study with two focus groups involving skilled individuals in AI, HCI, and design. These sessions sought to understand participants' preferences for AI communication, gather their perceptions of the framework, collect feedback for refinement, and explore its use in co-creative domains like collaborative writing and design. Our findings reveal a preference for a human-AI feedback loop over linear communication and emphasize the importance of context in fostering mutual understanding. Based on these insights, we propose actionable strategies for applying FAICO in practice and future directions, marking the first step toward developing comprehensive guidelines for designing effective human-centered AI communication in co-creation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18385 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart showing the steps of the systematic literature review for developing the framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Framework for AI Communication in Co-Creative Contexts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Study Procedure DALL-E [2] to ensure participants had a shared understand￾ing of the case study areas and have common examples for discussion. A script was followed to maintain consistency between sessions. • Next, to initiate discussion, the following opening ques￾tions were asked: (1) How do you want an AI partner to communicate with you in a co-creation?; (2) What aspects of AI Communication do you find valuable … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue — openai.com

    Online. ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue — openai.com . https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/

  2. [2]

    DALL·E 2 — openai.com

    Online. DALL·E 2 — openai.com . https://openai.com/dall-e-2/

  3. [3]

    Midjourney

    Online. Midjourney. https://www.midjourney.com/

  4. [4]

    Sonix — sonix.ai

    Online. Sonix — sonix.ai. https://sonix.ai/

  5. [5]

    Sarah Abdellahi, Mary Lou Maher, Safat Siddiqui, Jeba Rezwana, and Ali Al- madan. 2020. Arny: A study of a co-creative interaction model focused on emotion feedback. In HCI International 2020-Late Breaking Papers: Multimodal- ity and Intelligence: 22nd HCI International Conference, HCII 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 19–24, 2020, Proceedings 22 . Springe...

    2020

  6. [6]

    Daehwan Ahn, Abdullah Almaatouq, Monisha Gulabani, and Kartik Hosanagar

  7. [7]

    Teresa M. Amabile. 1996. Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychol- ogy Of Creativity. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, US. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780429501234

    1996

  8. [8]

    Naeimeh Anzabi and Hiroyuki Umemuro. 2023. The Effect of Social Robots’ Listening Behaviors on Animacy, Likeability and Perceived Intelligence. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction . 343–350

    2023

Show all 150 references
  1. [9]

    Gary Bente, Sabine Rüggenberg, and Nicole C Krämer. 2004. Social presence and interpersonal trust in avatar-based, collaborative net-communications. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual International Workshop on Presence . 54–61

    2004

  2. [10]

    Gregory R Berry. 2006. Can computer-mediated asynchronous communication improve team processes and decision making? Learning from the management literature. The Journal of Business Communication (1973) 43, 4 (2006), 344–366

    1973

  3. [11]

    Jacquelyn Berry. 2024. Reactive Ai Feedback Improves Task Performance Over Time. A vailable at SSRN 4788587 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Oloff C Biermann, Ning F Ma, and Dongwook Yoon. 2022. From tool to compan- ion: Storywriters want AI writers to respect their personal values and writing strategies. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1209–1227

    2022

  5. [13]

    Oliver Bown. 2015. Player Responses to a Live Algorithm: Conceptualising computational creativity without recourse to human comparisons?. In ICCC. 126–133

    2015

  6. [14]

    Oliver Bown, Kazjon Grace, Liam Bray, and Dan Ventura. 2020. Speculative Exploration of the Role of Dialogue in Human-ComputerCo-creation.. In ICCC. 25–32

    2020

  7. [15]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic Analysis. (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11, 4 (Aug. 2019), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

    2019

  9. [17]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021. One Size Fits All? What Counts as Quality Practice in (Reflexive) Thematic Analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology 18, 3 (2021), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

    2021

  10. [18]

    Xia, and Jeba Rezwana

    Nick Bryan-Kinns, Corey Ford, Alan Chamberlain, Steven David Benford, Helen Kennedy, Zijin Li, Wu Qiong, Gus G. Xia, and Jeba Rezwana. 2023. Explainable AI for the Arts: XAIxArts. InProceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (Virtual Event, USA)(C&C ’23). A...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Nick Bryan-Kinns and Fraser Hamilton. 2012. Identifying mutual engagement. Behaviour & Information Technology 31, 2 (2012), 101–125

    2012

  12. [20]

    Murilo C Camargo, Rodolfo M Barros, and Vanessa T O Barros. 2018. Visual design checklist for graphical user interface (GUI) evaluation. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC ’18) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 670...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Linda Candy. 2019. The Creative Reflective Practitioner: Research Through Making and Practice (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315208060

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    H Clark and S Brennan. 1992. Grounding in Communication. Archives 7, July (1992), 734–738

    1992

  15. [23]

    Mark Colley, Jan Henry Belz, and Enrico Rukzio. 2021. Investigating the Effects of Feedback Communication of Autonomous Vehicles. In 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Leeds, United Kingdom) (AutomotiveUI ’21). A...

    2021

  16. [24]

    2016.Music and Embodied Cognition: Listening, Moving, Feeling, and Thinking

    ARNIE COX. 2016.Music and Embodied Cognition: Listening, Moving, Feeling, and Thinking. Indiana University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt200610s

    2016

  17. [25]

    Andy Crabtree. 2025. H is for human and how (not) to evaluate qualitative research in HCI. Human–Computer Interaction (March 2025), 1–24. https: //doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2475743

    2025

  18. [26]

    Mihály Csíkszentmihályi. 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience . Harper Collins, New York, USA

    1990

  19. [27]

    Allan Dafoe, Yoram Bachrach, Gillian Hadfield, Eric Horvitz, Kate Larson, and Thore Graepel. 2021. Cooperative AI: machines must learn to find common ground. Nature 593, 7857 (2021), 33–36

    2021

  20. [28]

    Nicholas Davis. 2013. Human-computer co-creativity: Blending human and computational creativity. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , Vol. 9. 9–12

    2013

  21. [29]

    Nicholas Davis, Chih-PIn Hsiao, Kunwar Yashraj Singh, Lisa Li, and Brian Magerko. 2016. Empirically studying participatory sense-making in abstract drawing with a co-creative cognitive agent. In Proceedings of the 21st Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces ...

    2016

  22. [30]

    Dominik Dellermann, Philipp Ebel, Matthias Söllner, and Jan Marco Leimeister

  23. [31]

    Jayati Dev and L Jean Camp. 2020. User engagement with chatbots: a discursive psychology approach. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Conversational User Interfaces. 1–4

    2020

  24. [32]

    Sidney D’mello and Art Graesser. 2013. AutoTutor and affective AutoTutor: Learning by talking with cognitively and emotionally intelligent computers that talk back. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 2, 4 (2013), 1–39

    2013

  25. [33]

    Upol Ehsan, Q Vera Liao, Michael Muller, Mark O Riedl, and Justin D Weisz

  26. [34]

    Dina El-Zanfaly, Yiwei Huang, and Yanwen Dong. 2022. Sand Playground: De- signing Human-AI physical Interface for Co-creation in Motion. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition . 49–55

    2022

  27. [35]

    Birgit Endrass, Matthias Rehm, and Elisabeth André. 2009. Culture-specific communication management for virtual agents. In Proceedings of The 8th Inter- national Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 1 (Budapest, Hungary) (AAMAS ’09). International Fo...

    2009

  28. [36]

    In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Expanding explainability: Towards social transparency in ai systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    2021

  29. [37]

    Mingming Fan, Xianyou Yang, TszTung Yu, Q Vera Liao, and Jian Zhao. 2022. Human-AI Collaboration for UX Evaluation: Effects of Explanation and Syn- chronization. 6 (2022), 96: 1–96: 32. Issue CSCW1

    2022

  30. [39]

    Margarita Esau-Held, Andrew Marsh, Veronika Krauß, and Gunnar Stevens

  31. [40]

    Robert M French. 2000. The Turing Test: the first 50 years. Trends in cognitive sciences 4, 3 (2000), 115–122

    2000

  32. [41]

    Jonas Frich, Lindsay MacDonald Vermeulen, Christian Remy, Michael Mose Biskjaer, and Peter Dalsgaard. 2019. Mapping the Landscape of Creativity Support Tools in HCI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19...

    2019

  33. [42]

    Fiore, Ivan Garibay, Keri Grieman, John C

    Ozlem Ozmen Garibay, Brent Winslow, Salvatore Andolina, Margherita An- tona, Anja Bodenschatz, Constantinos Coursaris, Gregory Falco, Stephen M. Fiore, Ivan Garibay, Keri Grieman, John C. Havens, Marina Jirotka, Hernisa Kacorri, Waldemar Karwowski, Joe Kider, Joseph Konstan, S...

    2023

  34. [43]

    Nikolaus Franke and Frank Piller. 2004. Value creation by toolkits for user inno- vation and design: The case of the watch market. Journal of product innovation management 21, 6 (2004), 401–415

    2004

  35. [44]

    Kazjon Grace, Mary Lou Maher, Douglas Fisher, and Katherine Brady. 2015. Data-intensive evaluation of design creativity using novelty, value, and surprise. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 3, 3-4 (2015), 125–147. C&C ’25, June 23–25, 2025, Virtual, Uni...

    2015

  36. [45]

    Cong Guan, Lichao Zhang, Chunpeng Fan, Yichen Li, Feng Chen, Lihe Li, Yunjia Tian, Lei Yuan, and Yang Yu. 2023. Efficient Human-AI Coordination via Prepara- tory Language-based Convention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00416 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  37. [46]

    David Gunning. 2016. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). DARPA/I2O Proposers Day (Aug 2016)

    2016

  38. [47]

    Zohar Gilad, Ofra Amir, and Liat Levontin. 2021. The Effects of Warmth and Competence Perceptions on Users’ Choice of an AI System. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery,...

    2021

  39. [48]

    Andrea L Guzman and Seth C Lewis. 2020. Artificial intelligence and commu- nication: A human–machine communication research agenda. New media & society 22, 1 (2020), 70–86

    2020

  40. [49]

    Jeffrey T Hancock, Mor Naaman, and Karen Levy. 2020. AI-mediated commu- nication: Definition, research agenda, and ethical considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 25, 1 (2020), 89–100

    2020

  41. [50]

    Gunnar Harboe and Elaine M. Huang. 2015. Real-World Affinity Diagramming Practices: Bridging the Paper-Digital Gap. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery,...

    2015

  42. [51]

    Matthew Guzdial and Mark Riedl. 2019. An interaction framework for studying co-creative ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.09709 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Patrick GT Healey, Joe Leach, and Nick Bryan-Kinns. 2005. Inter-play: Under- standing group music improvisation as a form of everyday interaction. Proceed- ings of Less is More—Simple Computing in an Age of Complexity (2005)

    2005

  44. [53]

    Gary Hsieh, Brett A Halperin, Evan Schmitz, Yen Nee Chew, and Yuan-Chi Tseng. 2023. What is in the cards: Exploring uses, patterns, and trends in design cards. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    2023

  45. [54]

    Yan Huang, S Shyam Sundar, Zhiyao Ye, and Ariel Celeste Johnson. 2021. Do women and extroverts perceive interactivity differently than men and intro- verts? Role of individual differences in responses to HCI vs. CMC interactivity. Computers in Human Behavior 123 (2021), 106881

    2021

  46. [55]

    Patrick GT Healey. 2021. Human-Like Communication. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England (2021)

    2021

  47. [56]

    Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang. 2022. Too late to be creative? AI-empowered tools in creative processes. In CHI conference on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts. 1–9

    2022

  48. [57]

    Pranut Jain, Rosta Farzan, and Adam J Lee. 2023. Co-Designing with Users the Explanations for a Proactive Auto-Response Messaging Agent. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, MHCI (2023), 1–23

    2023

  49. [58]

    Nuwan Nanayakkarawasam Peru Kandage Janaka, Shengdong Zhao, and Shardul Sapkota. 2023. Can Icons Outperform Text? Understanding the Role of Pictograms in OHMD Notifications. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI...

    2023

  50. [59]

    Bowen Hui and Craig Boutilier. 2008. Toward experiential utility elicitation for interface customization. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 298–305

    2008

  51. [60]

    Anna Kantosalo and Anna Jordanous. 2020. Role-based perceptions of computer participants in human-computer co-creativity. AISB

    2020

  52. [61]

    Anna Kantosalo, Prashanth Thattai Ravikumar, Kazjon Grace, and Tapio Takala

  53. [62]

    Anna Kantosalo, Jukka M Toivanen, Ping Xiao, and Hannu Toivonen. 2014. From Isolation to Involvement: Adapting Machine Creativity Software to Support Human-Computer Co-Creation.. In ICCC. 1–7

    2014

  54. [63]

    Y G Ji, J H Park, C Lee, and M H Yun. 2006. A Usability Checklist for the Usability Evaluation of Mobile Phone User Interface. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 20, 3 (2006), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327590ijhc2003_3

    2006

  55. [64]

    Pegah Karimi, Jeba Rezwana, Safat Siddiqui, Mary Lou Maher, and Nasrin Dehbozorgi. 2020. Creative sketching partner: an analysis of human-AI co- creativity. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 221–230

    2020

  56. [65]

    Fakhreddine Karray, Milad Alemzadeh, Jamil Abou Saleh, and Mo Nours Arab

  57. [66]

    Jody Koenig Kellas and April R Trees. 2014. Rating interactional sense-making in the process of joint storytelling. In The Sourcebook of Nonverbal Measures: Going Beyond Words. Taylor and Francis, 281–294

    2014

  58. [67]

    Pranav Khadpe, Ranjay Krishna, Li Fei-Fei, Jeffrey T Hancock, and Michael S Bernstein. 2020. Conceptual metaphors impact perceptions of human-ai col- laboration. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–26

    2020

  59. [68]

    Pegah Karimi, Kazjon Grace, Mary Lou Maher, and Nicholas Davis. 2018. Evalu- ating creativity in computational co-creative systems. International Conference on Computational Creativity (2018)

    2018

  60. [69]

    McDermott, and Matthew W

    Robyn Kozierok, John Aberdeen, Cheryl Clark, Christopher Garay, Bradley Goodman, Tonia Korves, Lynette Hirschman, Patricia L. McDermott, and Matthew W. Peterson. 2021. Hallmarks of Human-Machine Collaboration: A framework for assessment in the DARPA Communicating with Computer...

    2021 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Matthias Kraus, Nicolas Wagner, Wolfgang Minker, Ankita Agrawal, Artur Schmidt, Pranav Krishna Prasad, and Wolfgang Ertel. 2022. KURT: A house- hold assistance robot capable of proactive dialogue. In 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) ...

    2022

  62. [71]

    L Kulp, A Sarcevic, R Farneth, O Ahmed, D Mai, I Marsic, and R S Burd. 2017. Exploring Design Opportunities for a Context-Adaptive Medical Checklist Through Technology Probe Approach. In DIS (Des Interact Syst Conf) . 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064715

    2017

  63. [72]

    Tinea Larsson, Jose Font, and Alberto Alvarez. 2022. Towards AI as a creative colleague in game level design. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , Vol. 18. 137–145

    2022

  64. [73]

    Tomas Lawton, Kazjon Grace, and Francisco J Ibarrola. 2023. When is a tool a tool? user perceptions of system agency in human–ai co-creative drawing. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1978– 1996

    2023

  65. [74]

    Jihyun Kim, Kelly Merrill Jr, and Chad Collins. 2021. AI as a friend or assis- tant: The mediating role of perceived usefulness in social AI vs. functional AI. Telematics and Informatics 64 (2021), 101694

    2021

  66. [75]

    Makayla Lewis. 2023. AIxArtist: A First-person Tale of Interacting with Artificial Intelligence to Escape Creative Block. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Explainable AI for the Arts (XAIxArts), ACM Creativity and Cognition (C&C) 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/...

    2023 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Claire Liang, Julia Proft, Erik Andersen, and Ross A Knepper. 2019. Implicit communication of actionable information in human-ai teams. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2019

  68. [77]

    Antonios Liapis, Georgios N Yannakakis, and Julian Togelius. 2014. Computa- tional game creativity. ICCC

    2014

  69. [78]

    Francis Pol Lim. 2017. An analysis of synchronous and asynchronous commu- nication tools in e-learning. Advanced Science and Technology Letters 143, 46 (2017), 230–234

    2017

  70. [79]

    Sue Lim, Ralf Schmälzle, and Gary Bente. 2024. Artificial social influence via human-embodied AI agent interaction in immersive virtual reality (VR): Effects of similarity-matching during health conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05486 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Kelvin Leong and Anna Sung. 2023. An Exploratory Study of How Emotion Tone Presented in A Message Influences Artificial Intelligence (AI) Powered Recommendation System. (2023)

    2023

  72. [81]

    Zhiyu Lin, Upol Ehsan, Rohan Agarwal, Samihan Dani, Vidushi Vashishth, and Mark O Riedl. 2023. Beyond Prompts: Exploring the Design Space of Mixed- Initiative Co-Creativity Systems. In International Conference on Computational Creativity

    2023

  73. [82]

    Yimeng Liu and Misha Sra. 2024. DanceGen: Supporting Choreography Ideation and Prototyping with Generative AI. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 920–938

    2024

  74. [83]

    Ryan Louie, Andy Coenen, Cheng Zhi Huang, Michael Terry, and Carrie J. Cai

  75. [84]

    Andrés Lucero, Peter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, and Jacob Buur. 2016. Designing with cards. Collaboration in creative design: Methods and tools (2016), 75–95

    2016

  76. [85]

    Michal Luria and Stuart Candy. 2022. Letters from the Future: Exploring Eth- ical Dilemmas in the Design of Social Agents. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2022

  77. [86]

    Zhiyu Lin, Rohan Agarwal, and Mark Riedl. 2022. Creative wand: a system to study effects of communications in co-creative settings. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , Vol. 18. 45–52

    2022

  78. [87]

    Rohit Mallick, Christopher Flathmann, Caitlin Lancaster, Allyson Hauptman, Nathan McNeese, and Guo Freeman. 2024. The pursuit of happiness: the power and influence of AI teammate emotion in human-AI teamwork. Behaviour & Information Technology 43, 14 (2024), 3436–3460

    2024

  79. [88]

    Lena Mamykina, Linda Candy, and Ernest Edmonds. 2002. Collaborative cre- ativity. Commun. ACM 45, 10 (oct 2002), 96–99. https://doi.org/10.1145/570907. 570940

    2002 doi

  80. [89]

    Samuel Mascarenhas, João Dias, Nuno Afonso, Sibylle Enz, and Ana Paiva. 2009. Using rituals to express cultural differences in synthetic characters. In Proceed- ings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 1 (Budapest, Hungary) ...

    2009

  81. [90]

    In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20)

    Novice-AI Music Co-Creation via AI-Steering Tools for Deep Generative Models. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/33...

    2020

  82. [91]

    Siddharth Mehrotra, Chadha Degachi, Oleksandra Vereschak, Catholijn M Jonker, and Myrthe L Tielman. 2024. A systematic review on fostering ap- propriate trust in Human-AI interaction: Trends, opportunities and challenges. ACM Journal on Responsible Computing 1, 4 (2024), 1–45

    2024

  83. [92]

    Christian Meurisch, Cristina A Mihale-Wilson, Adrian Hawlitschek, Florian Giger, Florian Müller, Oliver Hinz, and Max Mühlhäuser. 2020. Exploring user expectations of proactive AI systems. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 4, 4...

    2020

  84. [93]

    François Mairesse, Marilyn A Walker, Matthias R Mehl, and Roger K Moore

  85. [94]

    Caterina Moruzzi and Solange Margarido. 2024. A user-centered framework for human-ai co-creativity. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–9

    2024

  86. [95]

    Juha Munnukka, Karoliina Talvitie-Lamberg, and Devdeep Maity. 2022. Anthro- pomorphism and social presence in Human–Virtual service assistant interac- tions: The role of dialog length and attitudes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 135, C (Oct. 2022), 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ch...

    2022

  87. [96]

    Bilge Mutlu, Fumitaka Yamaoka, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Nori- hiro Hagita. 2009. Nonverbal leakage in robots: communication of intentions through seemingly unintentional behavior. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interacti...

    2009

  88. [97]

    Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R Tauber. 1994. Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 72–78

    1994

  89. [98]

    Sally J McMillan and Jang-Sun Hwang. 2002. Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of advertising 31, 3 (2002), 29–42

    2002

  90. [99]

    An T Nguyen, Aditya Kharosekar, Saumyaa Krishnan, Siddhesh Krishnan, Eliz- abeth Tate, Byron C Wallace, and Matthew Lease. 2018. Believe it or not: Designing a human-ai partnership for mixed-initiative fact-checking. In Pro- ceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User In...

    2018

  91. [100]

    Changhoon Oh, Jungwoo Song, Jinhan Choi, Seonghyeon Kim, Sungwoo Lee, and Bongwon Suh. 2018. I Lead, You Help but Only with Enough Details: Understanding User Experience of Co-Creation with Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in ...

    2018

  92. [101]

    Erik Miehling, Manish Nagireddy, Prasanna Sattigeri, Elizabeth M Daly, David Piorkowski, and John T Richards. 2024. Language Models in Dialogue: Conver- sational Maxims for Human-AI Interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15115 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  93. [102]

    Junseok Park, Kwanyoung Park, Hyunseok Oh, Ganghun Lee, Minsu Lee, Youngki Lee, and Byoung-Tak Zhang. 2021. Toddler-Guidance Learning: Im- pacts of Critical Period on Multimodal AI Agents. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction . 212–220

    2021

  94. [103]

    Susanne Poeller, Martin Johannes Dechant, Madison Klarkowski, and Regan L Mandryk. 2023. Suspecting sarcasm: how league of legends players dismiss positive communication in toxic environments. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CHI PLAY (2023), 1–26

    2023

  95. [104]

    Sara Price, Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze, Carey Jewitt, Nikoleta Yiannoutsou, Kate- rina Fotopoulou, Svetlana Dajic, Juspreet Virdee, Yixin Zhao, Douglas Atkinson, and Frederik Brudy. 2022. The Making of Meaning through Dyadic Haptic Affective Touch. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interac...

    2022 doi

  96. [105]

    S Zahra Razavi, Lenhart K Schubert, Kimberly Van Orden, Mohammad Rafayet Ali, Benjamin Kane, and Ehsan Hoque. 2022. Discourse behavior of older adults interacting with a dialogue agent competent in multiple topics. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 12,...

    2022

  97. [106]

    Clifford Ivar Nass and Scott Brave. 2005. Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship . MIT press Cambridge

    2005

  98. [107]

    Jeba Rezwana and Mary Lou Maher. 2021. COFI: A Framework for Modeling Interaction in Human-AI Co-Creative Systems. (2021)

    2021

  99. [108]

    Jeba Rezwana and Mary Lou Maher. 2022. Designing Creative AI Partners with COFI: A Framework for Modeling Interaction in Human-AI Co-Creative Systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (2022)

    2022

  100. [109]

    Carolyn E Pang, Carman Neustaedter, Bernhard E Riecke, Erick Oduor, and Serena Hillman. 2013. Technology preferences and routines for sharing health information during the treatment of a chronic illness. InProceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing syst...

    2013

  101. [110]

    Jeba Rezwana and Mary Lou Maher. 2024. Conceptual Models as a Basis for a Framework for Exploring Mental Models of Co-Creative AI. (2024)

    2024

  102. [111]

    Rodrigues, Bernardo P

    David L. Rodrigues, Bernardo P. Cavalheiro, and Marília Prada. 2022. Emoji as Icebreakers? Emoji can signal distinct intentions in first time online interactions. Telemat. Inf. 69, C (April 2022), 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022. 101783

    2022 doi

  103. [112]

    RunwayML. 2024. RunwayML: Creative Tools Powered by Machine Learning. https://runwayml.com/ Accessed: 2024-01-30

    2024

  104. [113]

    Fabian Samek, Mathias Eulers, Markus Dresel, Nicole Jochems, Andreas Schrader, and Alfred Mertins. 2023. CoSy-AI enhanced assistance system for face to face communication trainings in higher healthcare education: AI en- hanced assistance system for face to face communication t...

    2023

  105. [114]

    Jeba Rezwana and Corey Ford. 2025. Improving User Experience with FAICO: Towards a Framework for AI Communication in Human-AI Co-Creativity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02526 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  106. [115]

    Orit Shaer, Angelora Cooper, Osnat Mokryn, Andrew L Kun, and Hagit Ben Shoshan. 2024. AI-Augmented Brainwriting: Investigating the use of LLMs in group ideation. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2024

  107. [116]

    Yang Shi, Tian Gao, Xiaohan Jiao, and Nan Cao. 2023. Understanding design collaboration between designers and artificial intelligence: A systematic litera- ture review. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–35

    2023

  108. [117]

    Jeba Rezwana and Mary Lou Maher. 2022. Understanding User Perceptions, Col- laborative Experience and User Engagement in Different Human-AI Interaction Designs for Co-Creative Systems. In Creativity and Cognition. 38–48

    2022

  109. [118]

    Robert Soden, Austin Toombs, and Michaelanne Thomas. 2024. Evaluating Interpretive Research in HCI. Interactions 31, 1 (Jan. 2024), 38–42. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3633200

    2024 doi

  110. [119]

    Sinan Sonlu, Uğur Güdükbay, and Funda Durupinar. 2021. A conversational agent framework with multi-modal personality expression. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 40, 1 (2021), 1–16

    2021

  111. [120]

    Alina Striner, Thomas Röggla, Mikel Zorrilla, Sergio Cabrero Barros, Stefano Masneri, Héctor Rivas Pagador, Irene Calvis, Jie Li, and Pablo Cesar. 2022. The Co-Creation Space: Supporting Asynchronous Artistic Co-creation Dynamics. In Companion Publication of the 2022 Conferenc...

    2022

  112. [121]

    Qiyang Sun, Yupei Li, Emran Alturki, Sunil Munthumoduku Krishna Murthy, and Björn W Schuller. 2024. Towards Friendly AI: A Comprehensive Review and New Perspectives on Human-AI Alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15114 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  113. [122]

    There is not enough information

    Jakob Schoeffer, Niklas Kuehl, and Yvette Machowski. 2022. “There is not enough information”: On the effects of explanations on perceptions of informational fairness and trustworthiness in automated decision-making. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Account...

    2022

  114. [123]

    Skov, and Jesper Kjeldskov

    Niels van Berkel, Mikael B. Skov, and Jesper Kjeldskov. 2021. Human-AI inter- action: intermittent, continuous, and proactive. Interactions 28, 6 (nov 2021), 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/3486941

    2021 doi

  115. [124]

    Emma M Van Zoelen, Karel Van Den Bosch, and Mark Neerincx. 2021. Becoming team members: Identifying interaction patterns of mutual adaptation for human- robot co-learning. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8 (2021), 692811

    2021

  116. [125]

    Anthony Sicilia, Jennifer Gates, and Malihe Alikhani. 2024. HumBEL: A Human- in-the-Loop Approach for Evaluating Demographic Factors of Language Models in Human-Machine Conversations. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computat...

    2024

  117. [126]

    Suzanne Vossen, Jaap Ham, and Cees Midden. 2009. Social influence of a persuasive agent: the role of agent embodiment and evaluative feedback. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology . 1–7

    2009

  118. [127]

    Michael Vössing, Niklas Kühl, Matteo Lind, and Gerhard Satzger. 2022. Design- ing transparency for effective human-AI collaboration. Information Systems Frontiers 24, 3 (2022), 877–895

    2022

  119. [128]

    It Felt Like Having a Second Mind

    Qian Wan, Siying Hu, Yu Zhang, Piaohong Wang, Bo Wen, and Zhicong Lu. 2023. " It Felt Like Having a Second Mind": Investigating Human-AI Co-creativity in Prewriting with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10811 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  120. [129]

    Yiwen Wang, Ziming Li, Pratheep Kumar Chelladurai, Wendy Dannels, Tae Oh, and Roshan L Peiris. 2023. Haptic-Captioning: Using Audio-Haptic Interfaces to Enhance Speaker Indication in Real-Time Captions for Deaf and Hard-of- Hearing Viewers. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Confe...

    2023

  121. [130]

    Yan Tao, Olga Viberg, Ryan S Baker, and René F Kizilcec. 2024. Cultural bias and cultural alignment of large language models. PNAS nexus 3, 9 (2024), pgae346

    2024

  122. [131]

    Daniel S Weld and Gagan Bansal. 2018. Intelligible artificial intelligence. ArXiv e-prints, March 2018 (2018). C&C ’25, June 23–25, 2025, Virtual, United Kingdom

    2018

  123. [132]

    Zhuohao Wu, Danwen Ji, Kaiwen Yu, Xianxu Zeng, Dingming Wu, and Moham- mad Shidujaman. 2021. AI Creativity and the Human-AI Co-creation Model. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction . 171–190

    2021

  124. [133]

    Kailas Vodrahalli, Roxana Daneshjou, Tobias Gerstenberg, and James Zou. 2022. Do humans trust advice more if it comes from ai? an analysis of human-ai interactions. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 763–777

    2022

  125. [134]

    Qian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, Carolyn Rosé, and John Zimmerman. 2020. Re- examining whether, why, and how human-AI interaction is uniquely difficult to design. In Proceedings of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2020

  126. [135]

    Qingqing Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, Carolyn Ros´e, and John Zimmerman. 2020. Re-Examining Whether, Why, and How Human-AI Interaction Is Uniquely Difficult to Design. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machiner...

    2020

  127. [136]

    Georgios N Yannakakis, Antonios Liapis, and Constantine Alexopoulos. 2014. Mixed-initiative co-creativity. (2014)

    2014

  128. [137]

    Su-Fang Yeh, Meng-Hsin Wu, Tze-Yu Chen, Yen-Chun Lin, XiJing Chang, You- Hsuan Chiang, and Yung-Ju Chang. 2022. How to guide task-oriented chatbot users, and when: A mixed-methods study of combinations of chatbot guidance types and timings. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Confe...

    2022

  129. [138]

    Peter Wegner. 1997. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Com- mun. ACM 40, 5 (1997), 80–91

    1997

  130. [139]

    Rui Zhang, Wen Duan, Christopher Flathmann, Nathan McNeese, Bart Knij- nenburg, and Guo Freeman. 2024. Verbal vs. Visual: How Humans Perceive and Collaborate with AI Teammates Using Different Communication Modal- ities in Various Human-AI Team Compositions. Proceedings of the ...

    2024

  131. [140]

    An ideal human

    Rui Zhang, Nathan J McNeese, Guo Freeman, and Geoff Musick. 2021. " An ideal human" expectations of AI teammates in human-AI teaming. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (2021), 1–25

    2021

  132. [141]

    Yan Xia and Yue Chen. 2023. A Review of How Team Creativity is Affected by the Design of Communication Tools. In International Conference on Human- Computer Interaction. Springer, 297–314

    2023

  133. [142]

    Jijie Zhou and Yuhan Hu. 2024. Beyond Words: Infusing Conversational Agents with Human-like Typing Behaviors. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces . 1–12

    2024

  134. [143]

    Shiwen Zhou and Jamie C Gorman. 2024. The Impact of Communication Timing and Sequencing on Team Performance: A Comparative Study of Human-AI and All-Human Teams. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 68. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los ...

    2024

  135. [146]

    Rui Zhang, Wen Duan, Christopher Flathmann, Nathan McNeese, Guo Freeman, and Alyssa Williams. 2023. Investigating AI teammate communication strategies and their impact in human-AI teams for effective teamwork. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–31

    2023

  136. [149]

    Xinyan Zhao, Yuan Sun, Wenlin Liu, and Chau-Wai Wong. 2024. Tailoring Generative AI Chatbots for Multiethnic Communities in Disaster Preparedness Communication: Extending the CASA Paradigm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08411 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  137. [2007]

    Journal of artificial intelligence research 30 (2007), 457– 500

    Using linguistic cues for the automatic recognition of personality in conversation and text. Journal of artificial intelligence research 30 (2007), 457– 500

    2007

  138. [2008]

    International journal on smart sensing and intelligent systems 1, 1 (2008), 137–159

    Human-computer interaction: Overview on state of the art. International journal on smart sensing and intelligent systems 1, 1 (2008), 137–159

    2008

  139. [2019]

    Business & Information Systems Engineering 61, 5 (2019), 637–643

    Hybrid intelligence. Business & Information Systems Engineering 61, 5 (2019), 637–643

    2019

  140. [2020]

    In International Conference on Computational Creativ- ity

    Modalities, Styles and Strategies: An Interaction Framework for Human- Computer Co-Creativity.. In International Conference on Computational Creativ- ity. 57–64

  141. [2021]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.08222 (2021)

    Will we trust what we don’t understand? Impact of model interpretability and outcome feedback on trust in AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.08222 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  142. [2023]

    Foggy sounds like nothing

    “Foggy sounds like nothing”—enriching the experience of voice assistants with sonic overlays. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 27, 5 (2023), 1927–1947

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.