1887
Volume 25, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381

Abstract

Abstract

Research about explanation processes is gaining relevance because of the increased popularity of artificial systems required to explain their function or outcome. Following an interactive approach, not only explainers, but also explainees contribute to successful interactions. However, little is known about how explainees actively guide explanation processes and how their involvement relates to learning. We explored the occurrence and type of explainees’ questions in 20 adult — adult explanation dialogues about unknown present and absent objects. Crucially, we related the question types to the explainees’ subsequent recall of the unknown object labels. We found that explainees asked different types of questions, especially about the object’s label and facts. Questions about the object’s function were asked more when objects were present. In addition, requests for labelling were linked to better recall. The results contribute to designing explainable AI that aims to provide relevant and adaptive explanations and to further experimental approaches to study explanations.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/is.23019.fis
2025-02-07
2026-03-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/is.23019.fis.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/is.23019.fis&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Besold, T. R., & Uckelman, S. L.
    (2018) The what, the why, and the how of artificial explanations in automated decision-making. arXiv:1808.07074 [cs.AI].
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chi, M. T., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G.
    (2008) Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive science, 32(2), 301–341. 10.1080/03640210701863396
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701863396 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chi, M.
    (2009) Active-Constructive-Interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11, 73–105. 10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2008.01005.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Derks, P. L., & Dunman, J. E.
    (1974) The effect of repetition of objects and object names on free recall. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 3(4), 289–292. 10.3758/BF03333472
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333472 [Google Scholar]
  5. ELAN (Version 6.2) [Computer software]
    ELAN (Version 6.2) [Computer software] (2021) Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Language Archive. Retrieved fromhttps://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan
  6. Gu, Y., Donnellan, E., Grzyb, B., Brekelmans, G., Murgiano, M., Brieke, R., Perniss, P. & Vigliocco, G.
    (2025) The ECOLANG Multimodal Corpus of adult-child and adult-adult Language. Scientific Data. 10.1038/s41597‑025‑04405‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-04405-1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Klein, J.
    (2009) Erklären-Was, Erklären-Wie, Erklären-Warum. Typologie und Komplexität zentraler Akte der Welterschließung. InR. Vogt (Ed.), Erklären. Gesprächsanalytische und fachdidaktische Perspektiven. Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Le Bigot, L., Bretier, P., & Terrier, P.
    (2008) Detecting and exploiting user familiarity in natural language human-computer dialogue. InK. Asai (Ed.), Human computer interaction: New developments (pp.369–382). Intech Open Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Miller, T.
    (2019) Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence, 2671, 1–38. 10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. Rohlfing, K. J., Cimiano, P., Scharlau, I., Matzner, T., Buhl, H. M.
    … (2021) Explanation as a social practice: Toward a conceptual framework for the social design of AI systems. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 13(3), 717–728. 10.1109/TCDS.2020.3044366
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TCDS.2020.3044366 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ruggeri, A., & Lombrozo, T.
    (2015) Children adapt their questions to achieve efficient search. Cognition, 1431, 203–216. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., Landau, B., Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & Samuelson, L.
    (2002) Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychological science, 13(1), 13–19. 10.1111/1467‑9280.00403
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00403 [Google Scholar]
  13. Sokol, K., & Flach, P.
    (2020) One explanation does not fit all. KI-Künstliche Intelligenz, 34(2), 235–250. 10.1007/s13218‑020‑00637‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-020-00637-y [Google Scholar]
  14. Stukenbrock, A.
    (2014) Pointing to an ‘empty’ space: Deixis am Phantasma in face-to-face interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 741, 70–93. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Tare, M., French, J., Frazier, B. N., Diamond, J., & Evans, E. M.
    (2011) Explanatory parent–child conversation predominates at an evolution exhibit. Science Education, 95(4), 720–744. 10.1002/sce.20433
    https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20433 [Google Scholar]
  16. Vigliocco, G., Motamedi, Y., Murgiano, M., Wonnacott, E., Marshall, C. R., Milan Maillo, I.,
    (2019) Onomatopoeias, gestures, actions and words in the input to children: How do caregivers use multimodal cues in their communication to children?Paper presented at the41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Montreal, QB.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/is.23019.fis
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/is.23019.fis
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error