"What Are You Doing?": Effects of Intermediate Feedback from Agentic LLM In-Car Assistants During Multi-Step Processing
Johannes Kirmayr, Raphael Paul Wennmacher, Khanh Huynh, Lukas Stappen, Elisabeth André, Florian Alt
Abstract
Agentic AI assistants that autonomously perform multi-step tasks raise open questions for user experience: how should such systems communicate progress and reasoning during extended operations, especially in attention-critical contexts such as driving? We investigate feedback timing and verbosity from agentic LLM-based in-car assistants through a controlled, mixed-methods study (N=45) comparing planned steps and intermediate results feedback against silent operation with final-only response. Using a dual-task paradigm with an in-car voice assistant, we found that intermediate feedback significantly improved perceived speed, trust, and user experience while reducing task load - effects that held across varying task complexities and interaction contexts. Interviews further revealed user preferences for an adaptive approach: high initial transparency to establish trust, followed by progressively reducing verbosity as systems prove reliable, with adjustments based on task stakes and situational context. We translate our empirical findings into design implications for feedback timing and verbosity in agentic in-car assistants, balancing transparency and efficiency.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 64c46755-47d7-4b57-a002-4b2101d09f05Builds on8
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use ToolsTimo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 5,989 citations
- How to Evaluate Trust in AI-Assisted Decision Making? A Survey of Empirical MethodologiesOleksandra Vereschak, Gilles Bailly, Baptiste CaramiauxCSCW 2021 · 227 citations
- Plan-Then-Execute: An Empirical Study of User Trust and Team Performance When Using LLM Agents As A Daily AssistantGaole He, Gianluca Demartini, Ujwal GadirajuCHI 2025 · 91 citations
- Cooking With Agents: Designing Context-aware Voice InteractionRazan Jaber, Sabrina Zhong, Sanna Kuoppamäki, Aida Hosseini et al.CHI 2024 · 36 citations
Related papers
- Sensemaking in Multi-Agent LLM Interfaces: How Users Interpret Transparency and Trustworthiness CuesSaumya Pareek, Jarod Govers, Naja Kathrine Kollerup, Emily Wong et al.CHI 2026 · 1 citation
- Agentic Audio Moderator vs Human Moderator in Think-Aloud Usability Testing: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial: Results from a Randomized Controlled TrialWangda Zhu, Guang Chen, Yao Wang, Pengcheng An et al.CHI 2026 · 1 citation
- Let Me Ask You This: How Can a Voice Assistant Elicit Explicit User Feedback?Ziang Xiao, Sarah Mennicken, Bernd Huber, Adam Shonkoff et al.CSCW 2021 · 11 citations
- Small Talk, Big Impact? LLM-based Conversational Agents to Mitigate Passive Fatigue in Conditional Automated DrivingLewis Cockram, Yueteng Yu, Jorge Pardo, Xiaomeng Li et al.CHI 2026 · 3 citations
- After Talking with 1,000 Personas: Learning Preference-Aligned Proactive Assistants from Large-Scale Simulated Persona InteractionsZiyi Xuan, Yiwen Wu, Zhaoyang Yan, Vinod Namboodiri et al.UbiComp 2026
