Four Aspirations for Evaluating AI-Infused Technologies: A Narrative Review

As artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and other forms of advanced automation are increasingly considered for deployment in safety-critical industries, there is an urgent need for evaluation methods which reliably identify risks of deployment prior to people being harmed. In this narrative review, we discuss the benefits and drawbacks of 11 major methodological decisions underpinning evaluations of AI-infused technologies from the perspective of cognitive systems engineering (CSE) and naturalistic decision making (NDM). These methodological decisions are organized around four aspirations central to the perspective of CSE and NDM: evaluations of AI-infused technologies should be (1) integrated, (2) naturalistic, (3) grounded, and (4) pattern-centered. We use these aspirations to interpret common human-AI evaluation methods and discuss new evaluation challenges for emerging AI-infused technologies. This narrative review is meant to guide both current methods and future research toward safe and effective strategies for evaluating AI-infused technologies, especially in safety-critical settings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making
Published
2026-04-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434261443032
Primary Topic
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Four Aspirations for Evaluating AI-Infused Technologies: A Narrative Review

Dane A. Morey, Mohammadreza Jalaeian, Morgan Reynolds, Nicolette McGeorge et al.
Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
article

Four Aspirations for Evaluating AI-Infused Technologies: A Narrative Review

Dane A. Morey, Mohammadreza Jalaeian, Morgan Reynolds, Nicolette McGeorge, Michael F. Rayo, Hunter K. Oldham
article en

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and other forms of advanced automation are increasingly considered for deployment in safety-critical industries, there is an urgent need for evaluation methods which reliably identify risks of deployment prior to people being harmed. In this narrative review, we discuss the benefits and drawbacks of 11 major methodological decisions underpinning evaluations of AI-infused technologies from the perspective of cognitive systems engineering (CSE) and naturalistic decision making (NDM). These methodological decisions are organized around four aspirations central to the perspective of CSE and NDM: evaluations of AI-infused technologies should be (1) integrated, (2) naturalistic, (3) grounded, and (4) pattern-centered. We use these aspirations to interpret common human-AI evaluation methods and discuss new evaluation challenges for emerging AI-infused technologies. This narrative review is meant to guide both current methods and future research toward safe and effective strategies for evaluating AI-infused technologies, especially in safety-critical settings.

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making
United States Air Force Research Laboratory (US), Charles River Analytics (United States) (US), The Ohio State University (US)
Air Force Research Laboratory
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Four Aspirations for Evaluating AI-Infused Technologies: A Narrative Review — Dane A. Morey, Mohammadreza Jalaeian, et al. · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS