  Adversarial images highlight how vulnerable modern image classifiers are to
perturbations outside of their training set. Human oversight might mitigate
this weakness, but depends on humans understanding the AI well enough to
predict when it is likely to make a mistake. In previous work we have found
that humans tend to assume that the AI's decision process mirrors their own.
Here we evaluate if methods from explainable AI can disrupt this assumption to
help participants predict AI classifications for adversarial and standard
images. We find that both saliency maps and examples facilitate catching AI
errors, but their effects are not additive, and saliency maps are more
effective than examples.
