Humanistic Engineering: Why Hybrid Human–AI Cognition Creates a Structural Demand for the Humanities

Pier Luigi Sacco

Engineering ›› : 202609006

PDF (826KB)
Engineering ›› :202609006 DOI: 10.1016/j.eng.2026.09.006
research-article
Humanistic Engineering: Why Hybrid Human–AI Cognition Creates a Structural Demand for the Humanities
Author information +
History +
PDF (826KB)

Abstract

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Pier Luigi Sacco. Humanistic Engineering: Why Hybrid Human–AI Cognition Creates a Structural Demand for the Humanities. Engineering 202609006 DOI:10.1016/j.eng.2026.09.006

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]

Malmqvist J, Lundqvist U, Rosén A, Edström K, Gupta R, Leong H, et al. The CDIO syllabus 3.0: an updated statement of goals. In: Proceedings of the 18th International CDIO Conference; 2022 Jun 12—15; Reykjavik, Iceland. Reykjavik: Reykjavik University; 2022. p. 18-36.
[2]

Sahoo P, Singh AK, Saha S, Jain V, Mondal S, Chadha A . A systematic survey of prompt engineering in large language models: techniques and applications. 2024. arXiv:2402.07927v2.
[3]

Cain W. Prompting change: exploring prompt engineering in large language model AI and its potential to transform education. TechTrends 2024; 68(1): 47-57.
[4]

Bukach CM, Gauthier I, Tarr MJ . Beyond faces and modularity: the power of an expertise framework. Trends Cogn Sci 2006; 10(4): 159-66.
[5]

Naghshineh S, Hafler JP, Miller AR, Blanco MA, Lipsitz SR, Dubroff RP, et al. Formal art observation training improves medical students’ visual diagnostic skills. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23(7): 991— 7.
[6]

Gurwin J, Revere KE, Niepold S, Bassett B, Mitchell R, Davidson S, et al. A randomized controlled study of art observation training to improve medical student ophthalmology skills. Ophthalmology 2018; 125(1): 8-14.
[7]

Mukunda N, Moghbeli N, Rizzo A, Niepold S, Bassett B, DeLisser HM . Visual art instruction in medical education: a narrative review. Med Educ Online 2019; 24(1): 1558657.
[8]

Goldstone RL, Landy DH, Son JY . The education of perception. Top Cogn Sci 2010; 2(2): 265-84.
[9]

Parasuraman R, Manzey DH . Complacency and bias in human use of automation: an attentional integration. Hum Factors 2010; 52(3): 381-410.
[10]

Lee JD, See KA . Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 2004; 46(1): 50-80.
[11]

Arrieta AB, Díaz‑Rodríguez N, Del Ser J, Bennetot A, Tabik S, Barbado A, et al. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Inf Fusion 2020; 58: 82-115.
[12]

Sacco PL, Bialowolski P, Weziak‑Bialowolska D . Culture and creativity, skills building, and growth: what have we missed? Humanit Soc Sci Commun 2025; 12(1): 236.
[13]

Fancourt D, Stringaris A, Sacco PL . Mechanisms underpinning the mental health benefits of arts engagement. Nat Rev Psychol 2026; 5(4): 290-302.
[14]

Clark A . Surfing uncertainty: prediction, action, and the embodied mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.
[15]

Friston K. The free‑energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nat Rev Neurosci 2010; 11(2): 127-38.
[16]

Van de Cruys S, Wagemans J . Putting reward in art: a tentative prediction error account of visual art. i‑Perception 2011; 2: 1035-62.
[17]

Zunshine L. Why we read fiction: theory of mind and the novel. Columbus: Ohio State University Press; 2006.
[18]

Goldschmidt G . The backtalk of self‑generated sketches. Des Issues 2003; 19(1): 72-88.
[19]

Fan JE, Bainbridge WA, Chamberlain R, Wammes JD . Drawing as a versatile cognitive tool. Nat Rev Psychol 2023; 2(9): 556-68.
PDF (826KB)

0

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail
Sections
Recommended

/

〈 〉