As AI decision support systems play a growing role in high-stakes decision making, ensuring effective integration of human intuition with AI recommendations is essential. Despite advances in AI explainability, challenges persist in fostering appropriate reliance. This review explores AI decision support systems that enhance human intuition through the analysis of 84 studies addressing three questions: (1) What design strategies enable AI systems to support humans’ intuitive capabilities while maintaining decision-making autonomy? (2) How do AI presentation and interaction approaches influence trust calibration and reliance behaviors in human–AI collaboration? (3) What ethical and practical implications arise from integrating AI decision support systems into high-risk human decision making, particularly regarding trust calibration, skill degradation, and accountability across different domains? Our findings reveal four key design strategies: complementary role architectures that amplify rather than replace human judgment, adaptive user-centered designs tailoring AI support to individual decision-making styles, context-aware task allocation dynamically assigning responsibilities based on situational factors, and autonomous reliance calibration mechanisms empowering users’ control over AI dependence. We identified that visual presentations, interactive features, and uncertainty communication significantly influence trust calibration, with simple visual highlights proving more effective than complex presentation and interactive methods in preventing over-reliance. However, a concerning performance paradox emerges where human–AI combinations often underperform the best individual agent while surpassing human-only performance. The research demonstrates that successful AI integration in high-risk contexts requires domain-specific calibration, integrated sociotechnical design addressing trust calibration and skill preservation simultaneously, and proactive measures to maintain human agency and competencies essential for safety, accountability, and ethical responsibility.
Xu et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: