Stress in manual and autonomous modes of collaboration with a cobot

Pollak, Anita; Paliga, Mateusz; Pulopulos, Matías M.; Kozusżnik, Barbara; Kożusznik, Małgorzata W.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106469

Cited by 48 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We can also speak about the ethics of technique: human intelligence connected with artificial intelligence by cobots and how it relates to cyber-physical systems. Indeed, the integration of robotic systems is not neutral for human health and well-being, for example (Pollak et al, 2020). In today's factories, we can identify several ethical trends influencing standardized workplace organization:…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human and Cobot Cooperation Ethics: The Process Management Concept of the Production Workplace

Chromjaková¹,

Trentesaux²,

Kwarteng³

2021

JOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The competitiveness of modern companies depends today on the ability to implement digitised technologies into production processes in human-friendly ways. The aim of this paper is to analyse ethical aspects of human-cobot cooperation in industrial production and to design a process standard aimed at ensuring an ethically stable cooperative workplace. The scientific contribution of this study lies in the identification and definition of standardized parameters of the ethics of the production process in the workplace. Based on the analysis of cooperative workplaces in 250 industrial companies, a code of ethics has been defined, i.e. a process standard that determines the navigation of the design by selected optimization criteria necessary for setting up a hybrid workplace defined as human and cobot (collaborative robot) with the support of digitised technologies. In the presented results and the final discussion attention is devoted to the need to radically change the philosophy of workplace standardization in the sense of equal access to workload settings by humans and robots. In the process of standardization, it is necessary to consider the difference in the standardization of human jobs and cobot jobs: the thinking process. In modern industrial companies the need has arisen to create working standards that take into account the adaptive ability of cobots and adapt the cobots’ workflow to human needs concerning performance and productivity. The presented results include recommendations for industrial companies to develop an ethical and stable production workplace based on an adequately defined form of cooperation.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human and Cobot Cooperation Ethics: The Process Management Concept of the Production Workplace

Chromjaková¹,

Trentesaux²,

Kwarteng³

2021

JOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, automating ADLs, as suggested in research, can have unintended consequences. Pollak et al conducted a study comparing manual and autonomous modes of collaboration with a collaborative robot (cobot) [21]. They found that using the manual mode in which the cobot would perform tasks only upon interaction with the participants decreased stress significantly.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adapt or Perish? Exploring the Effectiveness of Adaptive DoF Control Interaction Methods for Assistive Robot Arms

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robot arms are one of many assistive technologies used by people with motor impairments. Assistive robot arms can allow people to perform activities of daily living (ADL) involving grasping and manipulating objects in their environment without the assistance of caregivers. Suitable input devices (e.g., joysticks) mostly have two Degrees of Freedom (DoF), while most assistive robot arms have six or more. This results in time-consuming and cognitively demanding mode switches to change the mapping of DoFs to control the robot. One option to decrease the difficulty of controlling a high-DoF assistive robot arm using a low-DoF input device is to assign different combinations of movement-DoFs to the device’s input DoFs depending on the current situation (adaptive control). To explore this method of control, we designed two adaptive control methods for a realistic virtual 3D environment. We evaluated our methods against a commonly used non-adaptive control method that requires the user to switch controls manually. This was conducted in a simulated remote study that used Virtual Reality and involved 39 non-disabled participants. Our results show that the number of mode switches necessary to complete a simple pick-and-place task decreases significantly when using an adaptive control type. In contrast, the task completion time and workload stay the same. A thematic analysis of qualitative feedback of our participants suggests that a longer period of training could further improve the performance of adaptive control methods.

show abstract

“…We refer to the definition of stress provided by Folkman and Lazarus as "a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being" [144]. In pHRI, stress is determined by "the changes in the nature of the work (from physical to mental activities), the proximity of the robot to the human operator and the robot's movement, or the loss of control that can stem from the automation of robotic agents", as defined by Pollak et al in [43]. A related concept is that of robostress, defined by Vanni et al as "a human estimated or perceived stress when working with the interactive physical robots" [145].…”

Section: Stress (Or Strain)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Safety in Physical Human Robot Interaction -- A Survey

Rubagotti¹,

Tusseyeva²,

Baltabayeva³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review paper focuses on different aspects of perceived safety for a number of autonomous physical systems. This is a major aspect of robotics research, as more and more applications allow human and autonomous systems to share their space, with crucial implications both on safety and on its perception. The alternative terms used to express related concepts (e.g., psychological safety, trust, comfort, stress, fear, and anxiety) are listed and explained. Then, the available methods to assess perceived safety (i.e., questionnaires, physiological measurements, behavioral assessment, and direct input devices) are described. Six categories of autonomous systems are considered (industrial manipulators, mobile robots, mobile manipulators, humanoid robots, drones, and autonomous vehicles), providing an overview of the main themes related to perceived safety in the specific domain, a description of selected works, and an analysis of how motion and characteristics of the system influence the perception of safety. The survey also discusses experimental duration and location of the reviewed papers as well as identified trends over time.

show abstract

Stress in manual and autonomous modes of collaboration with a cobot

Cited by 48 publications

References 60 publications

Human and Cobot Cooperation Ethics: The Process Management Concept of the Production Workplace

Human and Cobot Cooperation Ethics: The Process Management Concept of the Production Workplace

Adapt or Perish? Exploring the Effectiveness of Adaptive DoF Control Interaction Methods for Assistive Robot Arms

Perceived Safety in Physical Human Robot Interaction -- A Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About