Assessing the Relationship between Cognitive Workload, Workstation Design, User Acceptance and Trust in Collaborative Robots
Source abstract
Abstract
Collaborative robots are revolutionising the manufacturing industry and the way workers perform their tasks. When designing shared workspaces between robots and humans, human factors and ergonomics are often overlooked. This study assessed the relationship between cognitive workload, workstation design, user acceptance and trust in collaborative robots. We combined subjective and objective data to evaluate the cognitive workload during an assembly task in three different scenarios in which we manipulated various features of the workstation and interaction modalities. Our results showed that participants experienced a reduction in cognitive workload in each of the three trials, indicating an improvement in cognitive performance. Additionally, we found that user acceptance predicted perceived stress across the trials but did not significantly impact the cognitive workload. Trust was not found to moderate the relationship between cognitive workload and perceived stress. This study has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field of collaborative assembly systems by providing valuable insights and helping to bridge the gap between researchers and practitioners. This study can potentially impact companies looking to improve safety, productivity and efficiency.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Occupational Health and Safety Research · Ergonomics and Human Factors
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
Faculty of Science and Technology, Industrial Engineering and Automation (IEA), Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, 39100 Bolzano, Italy
Funding
European Commission, Horizon Europe project SESTOSENSO—Physical Intelligence for Smart and Safe Human–Robot Interaction
References (68)
Show source-provided references
1. Kadir, B.A., and Broberg, O. (2021). Human-centered design of work systems in the transition to industry 4.0. Appl. Ergon., 92.10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103334 ↗
2. Current status and advancement of cyber-physical systems in manufacturing10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.04.008 ↗
3. Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies10.1007/s10845-018-1433-8 ↗
4. Foundation for a classification of collaboration levels for human-robot cooperation in manufacturing
5. Lower-mobility parallel robots: Theory and applications10.1155/2010/927930 ↗
6. (2010). Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Human-Centered Design for Interactive Systems (Standard No. ISO/9241-210).
7. Collaborative Manufacturing with Physical Human-Robot Interaction10.1016/j.rcim.2015.12.007 ↗
8. Villani, V., Sabattini, L., Czerniak, J., Mertens, A., Vogel-Heuser, B., and Fantuzzi, C. (2017, January 12–15). Towards Modern Inclusive Factories: A Methodology for the Development of Smart Adaptive Human-Machine Interfaces. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, Limassol, Cyprus.10.1109/ETFA.2017.8247634 ↗
9. Messeri, C. (2023). Enhancing the Quality of Human-Robot Cooperation Through the Optimisation of Human Well-Being and Productivity, Springer. Special Topics in Information Technology. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology.10.1007/978-3-031-15374-7_2 ↗
10. Oliveira, R., Arriaga, P., Alves-Oliveira, P., Correia, F., Petisca, S., and Paiva, A. (2018, January 5–8). Friends or Foes?. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Chicago, IL, USA.10.1145/3171221.3171272 ↗
11. Weiss, A., Huber, A., Minichberger, J., and Ikeda, M. (2016). First application of robot teaching in an existing industry 4.0 environment: Does it really work?. Societies, 6.10.3390/soc6030020 ↗
12. Fink, J. (2012). International Conference on Social Robotics, Springer.
13. Design considerations for safe human-robot collaborative workplaces10.1016/j.procir.2015.08.014 ↗
14. Towards an evaluation framework of safety, trust, and operator experience in different demonstrators of human-robot collaboration
15. Baumgartner, M., Kopp, T., and Kinkel, S. (2022). Analysing Factory Workers’ Acceptance of Collaborative Robots: A Web-Based Tool for Company Representatives. Electronics, 11.10.3390/electronics11010145 ↗
16. Cardoso, A., Colim, A., Bicho, E., Braga, A.C., Menozzi, M., and Arezes, P. (2021). Ergonomics and Human Factors as a Requirement to Implement Safer Collaborative Robotic Workstations: A Literature Review. Safety, 7.10.3390/safety7040071 ↗
17. Human Factors Considerations and Metrics in Shared Space Human-Robot Collaboration: A Systematic Review10.3389/frobt.2022.799522 ↗
18. Effects of a cognitive ergonomics workplace intervention (CogErg) on cognitive strain and well-being: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. A study protocol10.1186/s40359-019-0349-1 ↗
19. How technology is changing work and organisations10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062352 ↗
20. Designing human-machine interaction concepts for machine tool controls regarding ergonomic requirements10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.236 ↗
21. Development of metric method and framework model of integrated complexity evaluations of production process for ergonomics workstations10.1080/00207543.2018.1519266 ↗
22. Sadrfaridpour, B., Burke, J., and Wang, Y. (2014). RSS 2014 Workshop on Human-Robot Collaboration for Industrial Manufacturing, Springer.
23. Wickens, C.D. (2017). Human Mental Workload: Models and Applications, Springer.
24. Development and evaluation of design guidelines for cognitive ergonomics in human-robot collaborative assembly systems10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103807 ↗
25. Wickens, C.D., Lee, J.D., Liu, Y., and Becker, S.E.G. (2004). An Introduction to Human Factors Engineering, Pearson Education.
26. Calibrating Design Guidelines using Mental Workload and Reliability Analysis10.1177/0361198120928075 ↗
27. Longo, L. (2018). Experienced mental workload, perception of usability, their interaction and impact on task performance. PLoS ONE, 13.10.1371/journal.pone.0199661 ↗
28. Gaillard, A.W.K. (2008). Performance Under Stress, Ashgate.
29. Alsuraykh, N.H., Wilson, M.L., Tennent, P., and Sharples, S. (2019, January 20–23). How stress and mental workload are connected. Proceedings of the 13th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, Trento, Italy.10.1145/3329189.3329235 ↗
30. Overloaded and at Work: Investigating the Effect of Cognitive Workload on Assembly Task Performance10.1177/0018720820929928 ↗
31. Liu, J.C., Li, K.A., Yeh, S.L., and Chien, S.Y. (2022). Assessing Perceptual Load and Cognitive Load by Fixation-Related Information of Eye Movements. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22031187 ↗
32. Lazarus, R.S., and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping, Springer.
33. A variational approach to minimum-jerk trajectories for psychological safety in collaborative assembly stations10.1109/LRA.2019.2893018 ↗
34. Assessment of operator stress induced by robot collaboration in assembly10.1016/j.cirp.2010.03.043 ↗
35. Lagomarsino, M., Lorenzini, M., Balatti, P., Momi, E.D., and Ajoudani, A. (IEEE Trans. Cogn. Dev. Syst., 2022). Pick the Right Co-Worker: Online Assessment of Cognitive Ergonomics in Human-Robot Collaborative Assembly, IEEE Trans. Cogn. Dev. Syst., online ahead of print.10.1109/TCDS.2022.3182811 ↗
36. Bortot, D., Born, M., and Bengler, K. (2013, January 3–6). Directly or on detours? How should industrial robots approximate humans?. Proceedings of the 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Tokyo, Japan.10.1109/HRI.2013.6483515 ↗
37. Effects of movement speed and predictability in human–robot collaboration10.1002/hfm.20703 ↗
38. Dillion, A. (2001). Encyclopedia of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Taylor and Francis.
39. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology10.2307/249008 ↗
40. Kuz, S., Mayer, M.P., Müller, S., and Schlick, C.M. (2013). Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management, Springer.
41. Mayer, M.P., Kuz, S., and Schlick, C.M. (2013). Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management, Springer.
42. The coordination of arm movements: An experimentally confirmed mathematical model10.1523/JNEUROSCI.05-07-01688.1985 ↗
43. Kokabe, M., Shibata, S., and Yamamoto, T. (2008, January 20–22). Modeling of handling motion reflecting emotional state and its application to robots. Proceedings of the 2008 SICE Annual Conference, Chofu, Japan.
44. Safe assembly cell layout through risk assessment–an application with hand guided industrial robot10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.160 ↗
45. The development and evaluation of Robot Light Skin: A novel robot signalling system to improve communication in industrial human–robot collaboration10.1016/j.rcim.2018.08.005 ↗
46. Towards a theory of longitudinal trust calibration in human–robot teams10.1007/s12369-019-00596-x ↗
47. Kuz, S., Schlick, C., Lindgaard, G., and Moore, D. (2015, January 9–14). Anthropomorphic motion control for safe and efficient human-robot cooperation in assembly system. Proceedings of the 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne, Australia.
48. Petruck, H., Faber, M., Giese, H., Geibel, M., Mostert, S., Usai, M., Mertens, A., and Brandl, C. (2018). Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Springer.
49. A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction10.1177/0018720811417254 ↗
50. De Marchi, M., Gualtieri, L., Rojas, R.A., Rauch, E., and Cividini, F. (2021, January 10). Integration of an Artificial Intelligence Based 3D Perception Device into a Human-Robot Collaborative Workstation for Learning Factories. Proceedings of the Conference on Learning Factories (CLF), Graz, Austria.10.2139/ssrn.3863966 ↗
51. Kassner, M., Patera, W., and Bulling, A. (2014). Pupil: An open source platform for pervasive eye tracking and mobile gaze-based interaction. arXiv.10.1145/2638728.2641695 ↗
52. A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics10.1016/S0968-090X(96)00025-3 ↗
53. Revisiting the Factor Structure of the System Usability Scale
54. NASA (1986). National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (TLX): Computerised Version.
55. Validation of a Short Stress State Questionnaire10.1177/154193120404801107 ↗
56. The development of a scale to evaluate trust in industrial human-robot collaboration10.1007/s12369-015-0333-8 ↗
57. Hayes, A.F. (2017). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, Guilford.
58. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [2nd ed.].
59. Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 ↗
60. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 ↗
61. Blended interaction: Understanding natural human–computer interaction in post-WIMP interactive spaces10.1007/s00779-013-0725-4 ↗
62. Haider, J.D., Pohl, M., and Fröhlich, P. (2013, January 16–18). Defining Visual User Interface Design Recommendations for Highway Traffic Management Centres. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Information Visualisation, London, UK.10.1109/IV.2013.27 ↗
63. Cross-modal links in attention between audition, vision, and touch: Implications for interface design
64. Schlienger, C., Conversy, S., Chatty, S., Anquetil, M., and Mertz, C. (2007). IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Springer.
65. Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies10.1177/109467050024001 ↗
66. Integrating technology readiness into technology acceptance: The TRAM model10.1002/mar.20177 ↗
67. Trust in and adoption of online recommendation agents
68. Petzoldt, C., Niermann, D., Maack, E., Sontopski, M., Vur, B., and Freitag, M. (2022). Implementation and Evaluation of Dynamic Task Allocation for Human–Robot Collaboration in Assembly. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app122412645 ↗