Cited by 111Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Innovative Human-Technology Interaction

Designing Contestability: Interaction Design, Machine Learning, and Mental Health

Open access
Hirsch, Tad, Merced, Kritzia, Narayanan, Shrikanth, Imel, Zac E., Atkins, David C.·2017·Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems

Abstract

We describe the design of an automated assessment and training tool for psychotherapists to illustrate challenges with creating interactive machine learning (ML) systems, particularly in contexts where human life, livelihood, and wellbeing are at stake. We explore how existing theories of interaction design and machine learning apply to the psychotherapy context, and identify "contestability" as a new principle for designing systems that evaluate human behavior. Finally, we offer several strategies for making ML systems more accountable to human actors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3064663.3064703

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Contestability ensures failures are avoided by allowing human controllers to intervene before machine decisions are put into force.

    “Contestability ensures such failures are avoided by allowing human controllers to intervene before machine decisions are put into force.”

    From Contestable AI by Design: Towards a Framework (2022) · cites this paper as Hirsch et al. (2017)

    In “Facilitating Contestation” (page unavailable), the paper calls for mechanisms that let users challenge machine predictions and explains why errors can harm therapists and patients. It does not say contestability ensures failures are avoided or that human controllers intervene before machine-informed decisions take effect; “Design for Contestability” instead describes strategies to help mitigate future misuse. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Corrections, appeals, and additional contextual information from human controllers and decision subjects can be used as feedback signals for the decision-making process as a whole.

    “Corrections, appeals, and additional contextual information from human controllers and decision subjects can be used as feedback signals for the decision-making process as a whole (Hirsch et al., 2017;Vaccaro et al., 2020).”

    From Contestable AI by Design: Towards a Framework (2022) · cites this paper as Hirsch et al., 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [8]Emerging Technology from the arXiv 2016 Neural Network Learns to Identify Criminals by Their Faces MIT Technology Review

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hirsch, T., Merced, K., Narayanan, S., Imel, Z. E., & Atkins, D. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2017-06-10
Volume
2017
Pages
95-99
OpenAlex
W2623360248
Cited by
110
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
19.10
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Designing Interactive Systems Conference (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Health (AA023814, AA018673, DA034860)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
contestability, automated assessment, psychotherapy training, interaction design, high-stakes decision making

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