HUMAN-MACHINE COLLABORATION UNDER PRESSURE: TRUST DYNAMICS IN AI-GUIDED TRAUMA IMAGING IN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31435/ijitss.3(51).2026.6621Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Emergency Medicine, Trust Dynamics, Automation Bias, Algorithmic Aversion, eFAST ProtocolAbstract
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) has the potential to revolutionize rapid diagnostic decision-making in Emergency Departments (EDs). However, the socio-psychological dynamics of human-machine collaboration in life-or-death scenarios remain poorly understood. This study investigates how extreme acute stress affects the trust and reliance of ED physicians and paramedics on AI-guided imaging during the Extended Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (eFAST) protocol. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach within high-fidelity simulated multi-organ trauma scenarios, we measured cognitive load, physiological stress markers, and algorithmic adherence among 45 emergency medical professionals. The findings reveal a bimodal distribution of trust under pressure: high cognitive load precipitated either severe "automation bias" (blindly accepting AI diagnostic overlays despite clinical discrepancies) or profound "algorithmic aversion" (completely ignoring the AI to rely solely on manual heuristics). The study highlights that trust in AI is not a static attribute but a highly dynamic cognitive resource depleted by stress. These results emphasize the urgent need for socio-technical redesigns in medical AI interfaces and the implementation of stress-inoculation training to ensure safe human-AI synergy in time-critical medical environments.
References
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033
Elish, M. C. (2019). Moral crumple zones: Cautionary tales in human-robot interaction. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 5, 40–60. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2019.260
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886
Price, W. N., Gerke, S., & Cohen, I. G. (2019). Potential liability for physicians using artificial intelligence. JAMA, 322(18), 1765–1766. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.15064
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a "Big Five" in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405277134
Scalea, T. M., Rodriguez, A., Chiu, W. C., Brenneman, F. D., Fallon, W. F., Kato, K., ... & Bass, S. M. (1999). Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST): Results from an international consensus conference. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 46(3), 466–472.
Topol, E. J. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
INACSL Standards Committee. (2021). Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best PracticeTM: Simulation Design. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 58, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.009
Shaffer, F., & Ginsberg, J. P. (2017). An overview of heart rate variability metrics and norms. Frontiers in Public Health, 5, 258. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00258
World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Amann, J., Blasimme, A., Vayena, E., Frey, D., & Madai, V. I. (2020). Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: A multidisciplinary perspective. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 20(1), 310. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01332-6
Arnsten, A. F. T. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2648
Holzinger, A., Langs, G., Denk, H., Zatloukal, K., & Müller, H. (2019). Causability and explainability of artificial intelligence in medicine. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 9(4), e1312. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1312
Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S., & Parasuraman, R. (2015). Engineering psychology and human performance (4th ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315665177
Epstein, E. G., & Delgado, S. (2010). Understanding and addressing moral distress. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 15(3), Manuscript 1. https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol15No03Man01
Froomkin, A. M., Kerr, I., & Pineau, J. (2019). When AIs outperform doctors: Confronting the challenges of a tort-induced over-reliance on machine learning. Arizona Law Review, 61, 33–99.
Maliha, G., Gerke, S., Cohen, I. G., & Parikh, R. B. (2021). Artificial intelligence and liability in medicine: Balancing safety and innovation. The Milbank Quarterly, 99(3), 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12504
Groom, V., & Nass, C. (2007). Can robots be teammates? Benchmarks in human–robot teams. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.8.3.10gro
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a "Big Five" in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405277134
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Castaldo, R., Melillo, P., Bracale, U., Caserta, M., Petretta, M., & Pecchia, L. (2015). Acute mental stress assessment via short term HRV analysis in healthy adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 18, 370–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2015.02.012
Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., & Wyatt, J. C. (2012). Automation bias: A systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19(1), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089
Croskerry, P. (2009). A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. Academic Medicine, 84(8), 1022–1028. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ace703
Fairclough, S. H. (2009). Fundamentals of physiological computing. Interacting with Computers, 21(1-2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.10.011
Klein, G. A. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. MIT Press.
Meichenbaum, D. (2017). Stress inoculation training: A preventative and treatment approach. In The evolution of cognitive behavior therapy (pp. 117–140). Routledge.
Carayon, P. (2006). Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems in healthcare. Applied Ergonomics, 37(4), 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.011
Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D., & Leveson, N. (2006). Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing.
Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jakub Klepacz, Radosław Swędrak, Zuzanna Dobrakowska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles are published in open-access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Hence, authors retain copyright to the content of the articles.
CC BY 4.0 License allows content to be copied, adapted, displayed, distributed, re-published or otherwise re-used for any purpose including for adaptation and commercial use provided the content is attributed.
