Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing Graphical Robot Aids for Interactive Co-working

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Advances in Ergonomics of Manufacturing: Managing the Enterprise of the Future

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 490))

Abstract

The shift towards more collaborative working between humans and robots increases the need for improved interfaces. Alongside robust measures to ensure safety and task performance, humans need to gain the confidence in robot co-operators to enable true collaboration. This research investigates how graphical signage can support human–robot co-working, with the intention of increased productivity. Participants are required to co-work with a KUKA iiwa lightweight manipulator on a manufacturing task. The three conditions in the experiment differ in the signage presented to the participants—signage relevant to the task, irrelevant to the task, or no signage. A change between three conditions is expected in anxiety and negative attitudes towards robots; error rate; response time; and participants’ complacency, suggested by facial expressions. In addition to understanding how graphical languages can support human–robot co-working, this study provides a basis for further collaborative research to explore human–robot co-working in more detail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Though care must be taken in designing signage to reduce ambiguity in interpretation [3].

References

  1. Ososky, S., Schuster, D., Phillips, E., Jentsch, F.G.: Building appropriate trust in human-robot teams. In: 2013 AAAI Spring Symposium Series (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chan, A.H.S., Ng, A.W.Y.: Investigation of guessability of industrial safety signs: effects of prospective-user factors and cognitive sign features. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 40, 689–697 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Frixione, M., Lombardi, A.: Street signs and Ikea instruction sheets: pragmatics and pictorial communication. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 6, 133–149 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tang, C.-H., Wu, W.-T., Lin, C.-Y.: Using virtual reality to determine how emergency signs facilitate way-finding. Appl. Ergon. 40, 722–730 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vilar, E., Rebelo, F., Noriega, P.: Indoor human wayfinding performance using vertical and horizontal signage in virtual reality: indoor human wayfinding and virtual reality. Hum. Fact. Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 24, 601–615 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bahar, G., Masliah, M., Wolff, R., Park, P.: Desktop reference for crash reduction factors (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Laughery, K.R.: Safety communications: warnings. Appl. Ergon. 37, 467–478 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen, R., Wang, X., Hou, L.: Augmented reality for collaborative assembly design in manufacturing sector. Virtual Technol. Bus. Ind. Appl. Innov. Synerg. Approaches. 105 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tufte, E.R.: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, Connecticut (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ben-Bassat, T., Shinar, D.: Ergonomic guidelines for traffic sign design increase sign comprehension. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 48, 182–195 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lamont, D., Kenyon, S., Lyons, G.: Dyslexia and mobility-related social exclusion: the role of travel information provision. J. Transp. Geogr. 26, 147–157 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mills, M.E., Sullivan, K.: The importance of information giving for patients newly diagnosed with cancer: a review of the literature. J. Clin. Nurs. 8, 631–642 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Little, P., Doward, M., Warner, G., Moore, M., Stephens, K., Senior, J., Kendrick, T.: Randomised controlled trial of effect of leaflets to empower patients in consultations in primary care. BMJ 328, 441 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ussher, J., Kirsten, L., Butow, P., Sandoval, M.: What do cancer support groups provide which other supportive relationships do not? The experience of peer support groups for people with cancer. Soc. Sci. Med. 62, 2565–2576 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lautizi, M., Laschinger, H.K.S., Ravazzolo, S.: Workplace empowerment, job satisfaction and job stress among Italian mental health nurses: an exploratory study. J. Nurs. Manag. 17, 446–452 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ozer, E.M., Bandura, A.: Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: a self-efficacy analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 472 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pearson, L.C., Moomaw, W.: The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educ. Res. Q. 29, 37 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mathews, A., Mackintosh, B.: A cognitive model of selective processing in anxiety. Cogn. Ther. Res. 22, 539–560 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kenworthy, J.B., Jones, J.: The roles of group importance and anxiety in predicting depersonalized ingroup trust. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 12, 227–239 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Balliet, D., Van Lange, P.A.M.: Trust, conflict, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 139, 1090–1112 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. King-Casas, B.: Getting to know you: reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange. Science 308, 78–83 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. van’t Wout, M., Sanfey, A.G.: Friend or foe: the effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making. Cognition. 108, 796–803 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cameron, D., Aitken, J.M., Collins, E.C., Boorman, L., Chua, A., Fernando, S., McAree, O., Martinez-Hernandez, U., Law, J.: Framing Factors: The Importance of Context and the Individual in Understanding Trust in Human-Robot Interaction (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hancock, P.A., Billings, D.R., Schaefer, K.E., Chen, J.Y.C., de Visser, E.J., Parasuraman, R.: A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 53, 517–527 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Thorvald, P., Lindblom, J.: Initial development of a cognitive load assessment Tool. In: The 5th AHFE International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, AHFE, pp. 223–232. 19–23 July 2014, Krakow, Poland (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Moreno-Jiménez, B., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Garrosa Hernández, E., Morante Benadero, M.A., et al.: Terminal versus non-terminal care in physician burnout: the role of decision-making processes and attitudes to death. Salud Ment. 31, 93–101 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stafford, R.Q., Broadbent, E., Jayawardena, C., Unger, U., Kuo, I.H., Igic, A., Wong, R., Kerse, N., Watson, C., MacDonald, B.A.: Improved robot attitudes and emotions at a retirement home after meeting a robot. In: RO-MAN, 2010 IEEE. pp. 82–87 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nomura, T., Shintani, T., Fujii, K., Hokabe, K.: Experimental investigation of relationships between anxiety, negative attitudes, and allowable distance of robots. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IASTED International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, pp. 13–18. ACTA Press, Chamonix, France. Citeseer (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Muir, B.M.: Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 27, 527–539 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. ISO 3864-1: Graphical Symbols—Safety Colours and Safety Signs—Part 1: Design Principles for Safety Signs and Safety Markings. Downloaded at 2016-01-08

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., Kato, K.: Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interact. Stud. 7, 437–454 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., Kato, K.: Measurement of anxiety toward robots. In: The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN 2006, IEEE, pp. 372–377 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Willman, P.: Personality and domain-specific risk taking. J. Risk Res. 8, 157–176 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. MacDorman, K.F., Vasudevan, S.K., Ho, C.-C.: Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI Soc. 23, 485–510 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Galea, E., Xie, H., Lawrence, P.: Experimental and survey studies on the effectiveness of dynamic signage systems. Fire Saf. Sci. 11, 1129–1143 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lewinski, P., den Uyl, T.M., Butler, C.: Automated facial coding: validation of basic emotions and FACS AUs in FaceReader. J. Neurosci. Psychol. Econ. 7, 227–236 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Simpson, S.A., Wadsworth, E.J.K., Moss, S.C., Smith, A.P.: Minor injuries, cognitive failures and accidents at work: incidence and associated features. Occup. Med. 55, 99–108 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by EPSRC Centre for Innovative Manufacturing in Intelligent Automation Feasibility Study awarded to Dr James Law.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sheffield Robotics, The University of Sheffield, Pam Liversidge Building, Sir Frederick Mappin Building, Mappin Street, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK

    Iveta Eimontaite, David Cameron, Jonathan M. Aitken, Saeid Mokaram & James Law

  2. Art & Design Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, Cantor Building, 153 Arundel Street, Sheffield, S1 2NU, UK

    Ian Gwilt & Joe Rolph

Authors
  1. Iveta Eimontaite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian Gwilt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Cameron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jonathan M. Aitken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joe Rolph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Saeid Mokaram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. James Law
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iveta Eimontaite .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. RWTH Aachen University , Aachen, Germany

    Christopher Schlick

  2. Poznan University of Technology , Poznan, Poland

    Stefan Trzcieliński

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Eimontaite, I. et al. (2016). Assessing Graphical Robot Aids for Interactive Co-working. In: Schlick, C., Trzcieliński, S. (eds) Advances in Ergonomics of Manufacturing: Managing the Enterprise of the Future. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 490. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41697-7_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41697-7_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41696-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41697-7

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation