Human-Robot Cooperation: Link Between Acceptance and Modes of Cooperation Chosen by Operator with a Robot

  • Adrian CouventEmail author
  • Christophe Debain
  • Nicolas Tricot
  • Fabien Coutarel
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1026)


Considering current developments, robotics allows users to choose the cooperation mode that facilitates the goals of each member of a team. This choice will influence the robot acceptance. In order to evaluate this, an indicator is proposed to evaluate the cooperation and applied during an experiment. At first glance, operators do not favour a cooperation mode. However, the robot autonomy level is linked with the evolution of the acceptance.


User-centred systems Human-systems integration Systems engineering Human-Machine systems Usability and user experience 



This research was financed by the French government IDEX-ISITE initiative 16-IDEX-0001 (CAP 20-25 with the support of the regional council Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes and the support with the European Union via the program FEDER).


  1. 1.
    Pacaux-Lemoine, M.-P., Simon, P., Popieul, J.-C.: Human-machine cooperation principles to support driving automation systems design. Presented at the Fast Zero 2015, Gothenburg, Sweden, p. 9 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoc, J.-M., Chauvin, C.: Cooperative implications of the allocation of functions to humans and machines. Working document (2011).
  3. 3.
    Beer, J.M., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A.: Toward a psychological framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. Human Factors and Aging Laboratory, Atlanta, Technical report HFA-TR-1204 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beer, J.M., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A.: Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 3(2), 74–99 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goodrich, M.A., Schultz, A.C.: Human-robot Interaction: a survey. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1(3), 203–275 (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lotz, V., Himmel, S., Ziefle, M.: You’re my mate – acceptance factors for human-robot collaboration in industry. Presented at the International Conference on Competitive Manufacturing, Stellenbosch, South Africa, p. 10 (2019)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beer, J.M., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T.L., Rogers, W.A.: Understanding robot acceptance. Human Factors and Aging Laboratory, Atlanta, Technical report HFA-TR-1103 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nordhoff, S., de Winter, J., Kyriakidis, M., van Arem, B., Happee, R.: Acceptance of driverless vehicles: results from a large cross-national questionnaire study. J. Adv. Transp. 2018, 1–22 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bobillier Chaumon, M.-E.: L’acceptation située des technologies dans et par l’activité: premiers étayages pour une clinique de l’usage. Psychol. du Travail et des Organ. 22(1), 4–21 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quiguer, S.: Acceptabilité, acceptation et appropriation des Systèmes de Transport Intelligents: élaboration d’un canevas de co-conception multidimensionnelle orientée par l’activité. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Rennes 2 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bröhl, C., Nelles, J., Brandl, C., Mertens, A., Schlick, C.M.: TAM reloaded: a technology acceptance model for human-robot cooperation in production Systems. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI International 2016 – Posters’ Extended Abstracts, vol. 617, pp. 97–103. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36, 157–178 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Damian, D., Hernandez-Arieta, A., Lungarella, M., Pfeifer, R.: An automated metrics set for mutual adaptation between human and robotic device. Presented at the IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, ICORR, pp. 139–146 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian Couvent
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christophe Debain
    • 1
  • Nicolas Tricot
    • 1
  • Fabien Coutarel
    • 2
  1. 1.Université Clermont Auvergne, IRSTEA, UR, TSCF, Centre de Clermont FerrandAubièreFrance
  2. 2.Université Clermont Auvergne, ACTéClermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations