AI-assisted gait analysis holds promise for improving Parkinson's Disease (PD) care, but current clinical dashboards lack transparency and offer no meaningful way for clinicians to interrogate or contest AI decisions. To address this issue, we present Motion2Meaning, a clinician-centered framework that advances Contestable AI through a tightly integrated interface designed for interpretability, oversight, and procedural recourse. Our approach leverages vertical Ground Reaction Force (vGRF) time-series data from wearable sensors as an objective biomarker of PD motor states. The system comprises three key components: a Gait Data Visualization Interface (GDVI), a one-dimensional Convolutional Neural Network (1D-CNN) that predicts Hoehn & Yahr severity stages, and a Contestable Interpretation Interface (CII) that combines our novel Cross-Modal Explanation Discrepancy (XMED) safeguard with a contestable Large Language Model (LLM). Our 1D-CNN achieves 89.0% F1-score on the public PhysioNet gait dataset. XMED successfully identifies model unreliability by detecting a five-fold increase in explanation discrepancies in incorrect predictions (7.45%) compared to correct ones (1.56%), while our LLM-powered interface enables clinicians to validate correct predictions and successfully contest a portion of the model's errors. A human-centered evaluation of this contestable interface reveals a crucial trade-off between the LLM's factual grounding and its readability and responsiveness to clinical feedback. This work demonstrates the feasibility of combining wearable sensor analysis with Explainable AI (XAI) and contestable LLMs to create a transparent, auditable system for PD gait interpretation that maintains clinical oversight while leveraging advanced AI capabilities. Our implementation is publicly available at: https://github.com/hungdothanh/motion2meaning.

This workshop will grow and consolidate a community of interdisciplinary CSCW researchers focusing on the topic of contestable AI. As an outcome of the workshop, we will synthesize the most pressing opportunities and challenges for contestability along AI value chains in the form of a research roadmap. This roadmap will help shape and inspire imminent work in this field. Considering the length and depth of AI value chains, it will especially spur discussions around the contestability of AI systems along various sites of such chains. The workshop will serve as a platform for dialogue and demonstrations of concrete, successful, and unsuccessful examples of AI systems that (could or should) have been contested, to identify requirements, obstacles, and opportunities for designing and deploying contestable AI in various contexts. This will be held primarily as an in-person workshop, with some hybrid accommodation. The day will consist of individual presentations and group activities to stimulate ideation and inspire broad reflections on the field of contestable AI. Our aim is to facilitate interdisciplinary dialogue by bringing together researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to foster the design and deployment of contestable AI.

In 2019, prominent IT figures lashed out against Apple receiving 10 times higher credit scores than their partners. In a series of Twitter posts David Heinemeier Hansson rallied against Apple, claiming that the program was sexist. Hanson, who is the creator of Ruby on Rails, filed the same financials as his wife, but apparently the algorithm thinks he deserved a 20-times higher credit limit than his wife. The Tweet sparked a series of replies, including one from Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. Wozniak explained that the same things had happened to him and his partner, and that is was "Hard to get to a human for a correction though".