CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyEthics and Social Impacts of AITechnostress in Professional Settings

AI-overdependence and human cognitive decline: Hazards, evidence, and mitigation strategies

Open access
Noorbehbahani, Fakhroddin, Oyibo, Kiemute·2026·Computers in Human Behavior Reports
DOI 10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101102
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The rapid diffusion of artificial intelligence (AI) dialogue systems and generative models across education, professional work, and healthcare brings substantial productivity gains but also raises growing concerns about overreliance, overdependence, and cognitive decline. Despite increasing scholarly attention, existing research remains fragmented across domains and disciplines, with no recent integrative review that systematically consolidates evidence on cognitive effects, associated hazards, and mitigation strategies across different domains. This fragmentation limits cumulative understanding of shared mechanisms, broader hazards, and effective responses, as well as their impacts on individuals’ learning, decision-making, professional competence, overall well-being, and wider societal outcomes. To address this gap, we present a cross-domain review of empirical and conceptual literature on AI-overdependence and its cognitive consequences, based on a systematic mapping of studies. The review focuses on two objectives: (1) synthesize available experimental and observational evidence on cognitive decline and task-specific deskilling, and (2) systematically organize theoretical arguments and emerging concerns where empirical evidence remains limited. In addition, the review explicitly identifies reported and hypothesized hazards of AI-overdependence and surveys proposed mitigation strategies across domains. To support integrative analysis, we introduce the P2BEAM taxonomy ( P s…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101102

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Noorbehbahani, F., & Oyibo, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Isfahan (IR)
  • York University (CA)
Corresponding author
Oyibo, Kiemute
ORCID
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-05
Volume
22
Pages
101102
ISSN
2451-9588 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101102
OpenAlex
W7161154090
Cited by
12
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 12
FWCI
65.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
York University - Keele Campus
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Technostress in Professional Settings
Keywords
cognitive decline, deskilling, generative AI, mitigation measures, professional competence, decision-making, well-being, artificial intelligence in education, artificial intelligence in healthcare, artificial intelligence in the workplace

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review