Cited by 129Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyUsability and User Interface DesignClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

The impact of cognitive feedback on judgment performance and trust with decision aids

Seong, Younho, Bisantz, Ann M.·2008·International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ergon.2008.01.007

Cites

42 of 42 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

Authors
Seong, Y., & Bisantz, A. M.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (US)
  • State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Seong, Younho
Venue
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-07
Volume
38
Issue
7-8
Pages
608-625
ISSN
0169-8141 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1968913351
Cited by
129
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
decision aids, cognitive feedback, trust calibration, metadata, lens model, trust in automation, human-automation interaction

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