Comfort Design in Human Robot Cooperative Tasks

  • Alireza ChangiziEmail author
  • Morteza Dianatfar
  • Minna Lanz
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 876)


Proper design of workplaces improves task quality, engagement, and productivity of people in fulfilling their daily job. In human-robot cooperation (HRC) assignments, a human gives flexibility to the system with having the pre-developed skills. Moreover, using robots brings the possibility to support human for boring, repetitive, and heavy tasks. In this work, we introduce and experiment a set of factors used to design an HRC environment and modify these factors to provide optimized comfort for diverse people working beside an industrial robot. The factors are divided into two groups (1) general, which is same for all users; (2) user-specific, which defers for various human. The paper aims to analyze the human physical and mental performance and comfort change in two experiments. During the case study, robot assists human to perform part of a truck engine assembly job.


Comfort zone Human factors Human robot cooperation Collaboration 



Authors would like to thank Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation and Technology Industries of Finland Centennial Foundation for the support of UNITY (2016-2019) project and the Academy of Finland for the project ‘Competitive funding to strengthen university research profiles’, decision number 310325.


  1. 1.
    Krüger, J., Lien, T.K., Verl, A.: Cooperation of human and machines in assembly lines. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 58, 628–646 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Robla-Gomez, S., Becerra, V.M., Llata, J.R., Gonzalez-Sarabia, E., Torre-Ferrero, C., Perez-Oria, J.: Working together: a review on safe human-robot collaboration in industrial environments. IEEE Access 5, 26754–26773 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caputo, F., Di Gironimo, G., Marzano, A.: Ergonomic optimization of a manufacturing system work cell in a virtual environment. Acta Polytech. 46, 21–27 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wykowska, A., Chaminade, T., Cheng, G.: Embodied artificial agents for understanding human social cognition. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 371, 20150375 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Macfarlane, G.J., Thomas, E., Papageorgiou, A.C., Croft, P.R., Jayson, M.I.V., Silman, A.J.: Employment and physical work activities as predictors of future low back pain. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976) 22, 1143–1149 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zander, J.E., King, P.M., Ezenwa, B.N.: Influence of flooring conditions on lower leg volume following prolonged standing. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 34, 279–288 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tissot, F., Messing, K., Stock, S.: Studying the relationship between low back pain and working postures among those who stand and those who sit most of the working day. Ergonomics 52, 1402–1418 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Changizi, A., Lanz, M.: The comfort zone concept in a human-robot cooperative task. In: Ratchev, S.M. (ed.) Proceedings of the Precision Assembly Technologies and Systems, Chamonix, France (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L.: Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sheldon, K.M., Elliot, A.J., Kim, Y., Kasser, T.: What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 325 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Motmans, R.: DINBelg 2005 - anthropometry table.
  12. 12.
    Molenbroek, J.: DINED- Anthropometry in design.
  13. 13.
    Sanders, M.S., McCormick, E.J.: Human Factors in Engineering and Design. McGraw-Hill, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith, M.W., Sharit, J., Czaja, S.J.: Aging, motor control, and the performance of computer mouse tasks. Hum. Factors 41, 389–396 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, K.Z.H., Lindenberger, U., Freund, A.M., Baltes, P.B.: Walking while memorizing: age-related differences in compensatory behavior. Psychol. Sci. 12, 230–237 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mattsson, S., Fast-Berglund, Å., Åkerman, M.: Assessing operator wellbeing through physiological measurements in real-time—towards industrial application. Technologies 5, 61 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, D., Landström, A., Mattsson, S., Karlsson, M.: How changes in cognitive automation can affect operator performance and productivity. In: The Sixth Swedish Production Symposium (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mather, M., Carstensen, L.L.: Aging and motivated cognition: the positivity effect in attention and memory. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 496–502 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grolnick, W.S., Ryan, R.M.: Autonomy in children’s learning: an experimental and individual difference investigation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52, 890 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Groves, R.M., Fowler Jr., F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R.: Survey Methodology. John Wiley & Sons, New York (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harvey, C., Stanton, N.A.D., Young, M.S.: Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics: Designing for Human Use. CRC Press, London (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fozard, J.L., Gordon-Salant, S.: Sensory and perceptual changes with aging. In: Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, vol. 5 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alireza Changizi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Morteza Dianatfar
    • 1
  • Minna Lanz
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering SciencesTampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations