This study estimates cognitive effort based on functional near-infrared spectroscopy data and performance scores using a hybrid DeepNet model. The estimation of cognitive effort enables educators to modify material to enhance learning effectiveness and student engagement. In this study, we collected oxygenated hemoglobin using functional near-infrared spectroscopy during an educational quiz game. Participants (n=16) responded to 16 questions in a Unity-based educational game, each within a 30-second response time limit. We used DeepNet models to predict the performance score from the oxygenated hemoglobin, and compared traditional machine learning and DeepNet models to determine which approach provides better accuracy in predicting performance scores. The result shows that the proposed CNN-GRU gives better performance with 73% than other models. After the prediction, we used the predicted score and the oxygenated hemoglobin to observe cognitive effort by calculating relative neural efficiency and involvement in our test cases. Our result shows that even with moderate accuracy, the predicted cognitive effort closely follow the actual trends. This findings can be helpful in designing and improving learning environments and provide valuable insights into learning materials.

Understanding how information is dynamically accumulated and transformed in human reasoning has long challenged cognitive psychology, philosophy, and artificial intelligence. Existing accounts, from classical logic to probabilistic models, illuminate aspects of output or individual modelling, but do not offer a unified, quantitative description of general human reasoning dynamics. To solve this, we introduce Information Flow Tracking (IF-Track), that uses large language models (LLMs) as probabilistic encoder to quantify information entropy and gain at each reasoning step. Through fine-grained analyses across diverse tasks, our method is the first successfully models the universal landscape of human reasoning behaviors within a single metric space. We show that IF-Track captures essential reasoning features, identifies systematic error patterns, and characterizes individual differences. Applied to discussion of advanced psychological theory, we first reconcile single- versus dual-process theories in IF-Track and discover the alignment of artificial and human cognition and how LLMs reshaping human reasoning process. This approach establishes a quantitative bridge between theory and measurement, offering mechanistic insights into the architecture of reasoning.

How does AI affect how we learn? When OpenAI released " study mode " in July 2025, the company touted ChatGPT's educational benefits. "When ChatGPT is prompted to teach or tutor, it can significantly improve academic performance," the company's vice president of education told reporters at the product's launch. But any dedicated teacher would be right to wonder: Is this just marketing, or does scholarly research really support such claims? While generative AI tools are moving into classrooms at lightning speed, robust research on the question at hand hasn't moved nearly as fast.

As AI companions become capable of human-like communication, including telling jokes, understanding how people cognitively and emotionally respond to AI humor becomes increasingly important. This study used electroencephalography (EEG) to compare how people process humor from AI versus human sources. Behavioral analysis revealed that participants rated AI and human humor as comparably funny. However, neurophysiological data showed that AI humor elicited a smaller N400 effect, suggesting reduced cognitive effort during the processing of incongruity. This was accompanied by a larger Late Positive Potential (LPP), indicating a greater degree of surprise and emotional response. This enhanced LPP likely stems from the violation of low initial expectations regarding AI's comedic capabilities. Furthermore, a key temporal dynamic emerged: human humor showed habituation effects, marked by an increasing N400 and a decreasing LPP over time. In contrast, AI humor demonstrated increasing processing efficiency and emotional reward, with a decreasing N400 and an increasing LPP. This trajectory reveals how the brain can dynamically update its predictive model of AI capabilities. This process of cumulative reinforcement challenges "algorithm aversion" in humor, as it demonstrates how cognitive adaptation to AI's language patterns can lead to an intensified emotional reward. Additionally, participants' social attitudes toward AI modulated these neural responses, with higher perceived AI trustworthiness correlating with enhanced emotional engagement. These findings indicate that the brain responds to AI humor with surprisingly positive and intense reactions, highlighting humor's potential for fostering genuine engagement in human-AI social interaction.

Students routinely use ChatGPT and the like now to help them with their homework, such as writing an essay. It takes less effort to complete and is easier to do than by hand. It can even produce as good if not better output than the student's own work. However, there is a growing concern that over-reliance on using GenAI in this way will stifle the development of learning writing and critical thinking skills. How might this trend be reversed? What if students were required to make more effort when using GenAI to do their homework? It might be more challenging, but the additional effort involved could result in them learning more and having a greater sense of achievement. This tension can be viewed as a form of effort paradox; where effort is both viewed as something to be avoided but at the same time is valued. Is it possible to let students learn sometimes with less and other times more effort? Students are already adept at the former but what about the latter? Could we design new kinds of AI tools that deliberately require more effort to use to deepen the learning experience? In this paper, I begin to outline what form these might take, for example, asking students to use a combination of GenAI tools with traditional learning approaches (e.g. note-taking while reading). I also discuss how else to design tools to think with that augments human cognition; where students learn more the skills of metacognition and reflection.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures within Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved impressive reasoning capabilities by selectively activating experts to facilitate structured cognitive processes. Despite notable advances, existing reasoning models often suffer from cognitive inefficiencies like overthinking and underthinking. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel inference-time steering methodology called Reinforcing Cognitive Experts (RICE), designed to improve reasoning performance without additional training or complex heuristics. Leveraging normalized Pointwise Mutual Information (nPMI), we systematically identify specialized experts, termed ''cognitive experts'' that orchestrate meta-level reasoning operations characterized by tokens like ''''. Empirical evaluations with leading MoE-based LRMs (DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen3-235B) on rigorous quantitative and scientific reasoning benchmarks demonstrate noticeable and consistent improvements in reasoning accuracy, cognitive efficiency, and cross-domain generalization. Crucially, our lightweight approach substantially outperforms prevalent reasoning-steering techniques, such as prompt design and decoding constraints, while preserving the model's general instruction-following skills. These results highlight reinforcing cognitive experts as a promising, practical, and interpretable direction to enhance cognitive efficiency within advanced reasoning models.

Imagine for a moment you are a child in 1941, sitting the common entrance exam for public schools with nothing but a pencil and paper. You read the following: "Write, for no more than a quarter of an hour, about a British author." Today, most of us wouldn't need 15 minutes to ponder such a question. We'd get the answer instantly by turning to AI tools such as Google Gemini, ChatGPT or Siri. Offloading cognitive effort to artificial intelligence has become second nature, but with mounting evidence that human intelligence is declining, some experts fear this impulse is driving the trend.

This paper presents a methodology combining multimodal semantic analysis with an eye-tracking experimental protocol to investigate the cognitive effort involved in understanding the communication of future scenarios. To demonstrate the methodology, we conduct a pilot study examining how visual fixation patterns vary during the evaluation of valence and counterfactuality in fictional ad pieces describing futuristic scenarios, using a portable eye tracker. Participants eye movements are recorded while evaluating the stimuli and describing them to a conversation partner. Gaze patterns are analyzed alongside semantic representations of the stimuli and participants descriptions, constructed from a frame semantic annotation of both linguistic and visual modalities. Preliminary results show that far-future and pessimistic scenarios are associated with longer fixations and more erratic saccades, supporting the hypothesis that fractures in the base spaces underlying the interpretation of future scenarios increase cognitive load for comprehenders.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are already as persuasive as humans. However, we know very little about how they do it. This paper investigates the persuasion strategies of LLMs, comparing them with human-generated arguments. Using a dataset of 1,251 participants in an experiment, we compare the persuasion strategies of LLM-generated and human-generated arguments through measures of cognitive effort (lexical and grammatical complexity) and moral-emotional language (sentiment and morality). Our results indicate that LLMs produce arguments that require higher cognitive effort, exhibiting more complex grammatical and lexical structures than human counterparts. Additionally, LLMs demonstrate a significant propensity to engage more deeply with moral language, utilizing both positive and negative moral foundations more frequently than humans. In contrast with previous research, no significant difference was found in the emotional content produced by LLMs and humans. The fact that we show that there is no equivalence in process despite equivalence in outcome, contributes to the emergent knowledge regarding AI and persuasion, highlighting the dual potential of LLMs to both enhance and undermine informational integrity through persuasion strategies.

In settings where users are both time-pressured and need high accuracy, such as doctors working in Emergency Rooms, we want to provide AI assistance that both increases accuracy and reduces time. However, different types of AI assistance have different benefits: some reduce time taken while increasing overreliance on AI, while others do the opposite. We therefore want to adapt what AI assistance we show depending on various properties (of the question and of the user) in order to best tradeoff our two objectives. We introduce a study where users have to prescribe medicines to aliens, and use it to explore the potential for adapting AI assistance. We find evidence that it is beneficial to adapt our AI assistance depending on the question, leading to good tradeoffs between time taken and accuracy. Future work would consider machine-learning algorithms (such as reinforcement learning) to automatically adapt quickly.