Despite the growing promise of artificial intelligence (AI) in supporting decision-making across domains, fostering appropriate human reliance on AI remains a critical challenge. In this paper, we investigate the utility of exploring distance-based uncertainty scores for task delegation to AI and describe how these scores can be visualized through embedding representations for human-AI decision-making. After developing an AI-based system for physical stroke rehabilitation assessment, we conducted a study with 19 health professionals and 10 students in medicine/health to understand the effect of exploring distance-based uncertainty scores on users' reliance on AI. Our findings showed that distance-based uncertainty scores outperformed traditional probability-based uncertainty scores in identifying uncertain cases. In addition, after exploring confidence scores for task delegation and reviewing embedding-based visualizations of distance-based uncertainty scores, participants achieved an 8.20% higher rate of correct decisions, a 7.15% higher rate of changing their decisions to correct ones, and a 7.14% lower rate of incorrect changes after reviewing AI outputs than those reviewing probability-based uncertainty scores ($p<0.01$). Our findings highlight the potential of distance-based uncertainty scores to enhance decision accuracy and appropriate reliance on AI while discussing ongoing challenges for human-AI collaborative decision-making.

A growing research explores the usage of AI explanations on user's decision phases for human-AI collaborative decision-making. However, previous studies found the issues of overreliance on `wrong' AI outputs. In this paper, we propose interactive example-based explanations to improve health professionals' onboarding with AI for their better reliance on AI during AI-assisted decision-making. We implemented an AI-based decision support system that utilizes a neural network to assess the quality of post-stroke survivors' exercises and interactive example-based explanations that systematically surface the nearest neighborhoods of a test/task sample from the training set of the AI model to assist users' onboarding with the AI model. To investigate the effect of interactive example-based explanations, we conducted a study with domain experts, health professionals to evaluate their performance and reliance on AI. Our interactive example-based explanations during onboarding assisted health professionals in having a better reliance on AI and making a higher ratio of making `right' decisions and a lower ratio of `wrong' decisions than providing only feature-based explanations during the decision-support phase. Our study discusses new challenges of assisting user's onboarding with AI for human-AI collaborative decision-making.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being considered to assist human decision-making in high-stake domains (e.g. health). However, researchers have discussed an issue that humans can over-rely on wrong suggestions of the AI model instead of achieving human AI complementary performance. In this work, we utilized salient feature explanations along with what-if, counterfactual explanations to make humans review AI suggestions more analytically to reduce overreliance on AI and explored the effect of these explanations on trust and reliance on AI during clinical decision-making. We conducted an experiment with seven therapists and ten laypersons on the task of assessing post-stroke survivors' quality of motion, and analyzed their performance, agreement level on the task, and reliance on AI without and with two types of AI explanations. Our results showed that the AI model with both salient features and counterfactual explanations assisted therapists and laypersons to improve their performance and agreement level on the task when `right' AI outputs are presented. While both therapists and laypersons over-relied on `wrong' AI outputs, counterfactual explanations assisted both therapists and laypersons to reduce their over-reliance on `wrong' AI outputs by 21\% compared to salient feature explanations. Specifically, laypersons had higher performance degrades by 18.0 f1-score with salient feature explanations and 14.0 f1-score with counterfactual explanations than therapists with performance degrades of 8.6 and 2.8 f1-scores respectively. Our work discusses the potential of counterfactual explanations to better estimate the accuracy of an AI model and reduce over-reliance on `wrong' AI outputs and implications for improving human-AI collaborative decision-making.

Explainable artificial intelligence (AI) techniques are increasingly being explored to provide insights into why AI and machine learning (ML) models provide a certain outcome in various applications. However, there has been limited exploration of explainable AI techniques on time-series data, especially in the healthcare context. In this paper, we describe a threshold-based method that utilizes a weakly supervised model and a gradient-based explainable AI technique (i.e. saliency map) and explore its feasibility to identify salient frames of time-series data. Using the dataset from 15 post-stroke survivors performing three upper-limb exercises and labels on whether a compensatory motion is observed or not, we implemented a feed-forward neural network model and utilized gradients of each input on model outcomes to identify salient frames that involve compensatory motions. According to the evaluation using frame-level annotations, our approach achieved a recall of 0.96 and an F2-score of 0.91. Our results demonstrated the potential of a gradient-based explainable AI technique (e.g. saliency map) for time-series data, such as highlighting the frames of a video that therapists should focus on reviewing and reducing the efforts on frame-level labeling for model training.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic coaches promise the improved engagement of patients on rehabilitation exercises through social interaction. While previous work explored the potential of automatically monitoring exercises for AI and robotic coaches, the deployment of these systems remains a challenge. Previous work described the lack of involving stakeholders to design such functionalities as one of the major causes. In this paper, we present our efforts on eliciting the detailed design specifications on how AI and robotic coaches could interact with and guide patient's exercises in an effective and acceptable way with four therapists and five post-stroke survivors. Through iterative questionnaires and interviews, we found that both post-stroke survivors and therapists appreciated the potential benefits of AI and robotic coaches to achieve more systematic management and improve their self-efficacy and motivation on rehabilitation therapy. In addition, our evaluation sheds light on several practical concerns (e.g. a possible difficulty with the interaction for people with cognitive impairment, system failures, etc.). We discuss the value of early involvement of stakeholders and interactive techniques that complement system failures, but also support a personalized therapy session for the better deployment of AI and robotic exercise coaches.