Human-AI Agent Interaction as a Neuroplastic Training Environment
Authors: Eranga Bandara, Ross Gore, Asanga Gunaratna, Ravi Mukkamala, Nihal Siriwardanagea, Gihan Siriwardanagea, Sachini Rajapakse, Isurunima Kularathna, +12 more
Abstract
Interaction with AI agents has become one of the most frequent activities of everyday digital life. Whether conversing with an assistant, working with a coding copilot, or generating images, the interaction follows a common iterative loop: a request is issued, a result returned, appraised, and the request revised. We observe that this loop is a high-frequency stream of contact events -- moments at which a result meets a person and a conditioned response may fire before deliberate appraisal -- making everyday agent interaction an unrecognised neuroplastic training environment. When a result disappoints, reactive patterns of impatience, perfectionism, frustration, and self-criticism are repeatedly evoked, and under activity-dependent synaptic plasticity each uninterrupted cycle deepens the underlying pathway through long-term potentiation. Ordinary agent use may thus quietly strengthen the very patterns it provokes. We propose that the same training environment can be engaged to the opposite effect. Treating conditioned reactive patterns as physical neurone paths -- activated through a pre-cognitive feeling tone that opens a brief regulatory gap -- we develop a framework in which, at that gap, in place of the reactive re-prompt, a person performs behind-the-scenes observation: watching the neural process operate so the cascade does not complete and long-term depression weakens the path rather than potentiation strengthening it. We characterise this practice through three layers of observation and two modes of application: a user-guided mode requiring no change to existing tools, and an agent-assisted mode in which an ordinary agent is lightly configured to support observation at the gap. We illustrate the framework through generative image prompting, showing how a single frustrating session is behaviourally nearly identical whether or not it is observed, yet neurologically opposite.
AI assistants in human-AI collaboration often correct suboptimal human actions through behavioral feedback (e.g., alerts or steering-wheel nudges in assistive driving). Such interventions can mitigate immediate errors, but long-term improvement requires addressing the underlying misconceptions that cause repeated mistakes. We introduce SENSEI, a framework that infers user misconceptions from interaction behavior and provides targeted, minimal yet sufficient suggestions to correct them. Our approach departs from action- or trajectory-level interventions by operating over a structured knowledge representation to localize and correct the sources of erroneous behavior. Across three long-horizon tasks with diverse misconceptions and corresponding behaviors, SENSEI demonstrates zero-shot compositional generalization, disentangling multiple overlapping misconceptions despite training only on single-misconception cases. A user study further shows that our method identifies real human misconceptions and provides effective guidance that improves long-horizon task performance, successfully correcting 90% of student misconceptions. Code and project page are available at https://misoshiruseijin.github.io/SENSEI/.
Neuroscience data are highly fragmented across labs, formats, and experimental paradigms, and reuse often requires substantial manual effort. A persistent roadblock to data reuse and integration is the need to decipher bespoke and diverse data formatting choices. Common data formats have been proposed in response, but the field continues to struggle with a fundamental tension: formats flexible enough to accommodate diverse experiments are rarely descriptive enough to be self-explanatory, and sufficiently descriptive formats demand detailed documentation and curation effort that few labs can sustain. Agentic AI is a natural candidate to solve this problem: LLMs read code and text faster and with sustained attention to the low-level details humans tend to skim over. To measure how well agentic AI performs on this task, we selected eight recent papers studying large-scale mouse neural population recordings that shared both data and code, spanning diverse recording modalities, behavioral paradigms, and dataset formats (e.g., NWB, specialized APIs, and general-purpose Python or MATLAB files). We provided agents with the data, code, and paper, and prompted them to load, understand, and reformat the data for a common downstream task: training a decoder from neural activity to task or behavioral variables. General-purpose coding agents commonly used by scientists performed well on each sub-task, but rarely strung together a fully error-free end-to-end solution. We characterize the types of mistakes agents made and the dataset properties that elicited them, and propose data-sharing best practices for the agentic-AI era. We further find that agents-as-judges are unreliable at catching errors, especially without ground-truth references, so interactive, human-in-the-loop coding remains necessary.
AI agents pose significant risks as they are granted increasing autonomy. A commonly proposed solution is human oversight and keeping a ''human in the loop'', but this is not a simple solution: Not only do current approaches to AI agent design impede effective human oversight, but the cognitive capacities required for it are also themselves degraded by extended use of AI systems. This position paper argues that current approaches to the development and deployment of AI agent systems do not support effective human oversight -- they contribute to its degradation. To address this, a top priority in the advancement of AI agents should be supporting the situated goals and cognitive requirements of effective human oversight, treating the human needs of overseers at the same level of importance as AI agent capability. To put this idea into practice, we connect work on automation and human-computer interaction to AI agent processes, outlining design-level affordances and organizational protocols that (1) support overseers in exercising critical judgement and (2) counteract the skill atrophy that arises from extended use of automation. We urge developers and deployers to adopt these or similar approaches. Without explicit support for the cognitive demands of effective human-agent interaction, AI agent systems will continue to passively incentivize the degradation of the very human skills they rely on.