The purpose of this study is to identify the potential biomechanical and cognitive workload effects induced by human robot collaborative pollination task, how additional cues and reliability of the robot influence these effects and whether interacting with the robot influences the participant’s anxiety and attitude towards robots.
Background
Human–Robot Collaboration (HRC) could be used to alleviate pollinator shortages and robot performance issues. However, the effects of HRC for this setting have not been investigated.
Methods
Sixteen participants were recruited. Four HRC modes, no cue, with cue, unreliable, and manual control were included. Three categories of dependent variables were measured: (1) spine kinematics (L5/S1, L1/T12, and T1/C7), (2) pupillary activation data, and (3) subjective measures such as perceived workload, robot-related anxiety, and negative attitudes towards robotics.
Results
HRC reduced anxiety towards the cobot, decreased joint angles and angular velocity for the L5/S1 and L1/T12 joints, and reduced pupil dilation, with the “with cue” mode producing the lowest values. However, unreliability was detrimental to these gains. In addition, HRC resulted in a higher flexion angle for the neck (i.e., T1/C7).
Conclusion
HRC reduced the physical and mental workload during the simulated pollination task. Benefits of the additional cue were minimal compared to no cues. The increased joint angle in the neck and unreliability affecting lower and mid back joint angles and workload requires further investigation.
Application
These findings could be used to inform design decisions for HRC frameworks for agricultural applications that are cognizant of the different effects induced by HRC.
Barneo-AlcántaraM.Díaz-PérezM.Gómez-GalánM.Carreño-OrtegaÁ.Callejón-FerreÁ. J. (2021). Musculoskeletal disorders in agriculture: A review from web of science core collection. Agronomy, 11(10), 2017. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11102017
2.
BarreraW. B.TrinidadK. A. D.PresasJ. A. (2021). Hand pollination and natural pollination by carpenter bees (Xylocopa spp.) in Passiflora edulis Sims. f. flavicarpa Deg.(yellow passion fruit). Journal of Apicultural Research, 60(5), 845–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2020.1842580
3.
BecharA.EdanY. (2003). Human‐robot collaboration for improved target recognition of agricultural robots. Industrial Robot: An International Journal, 30(5), 432–436.
4.
BenosL.KokkotisC.TsatalasT.KarampinaE.TsaopoulosD.BochtisD. (2021). Biomechanical effects on lower extremities in human-robot collaborative agricultural tasks. Applied Sciences, 11(24), 11742. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112411742
5.
BerensteinR.EdanY. (2017). Automatic adjustable spraying device for site-specific agricultural application. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 15(2), 641–650. https://doi.org/10.1109/tase.2017.2656143
6.
BiondiF. N.SaberiB.GrafF.CortJ.PillaiP.BalasingamB. (2023). Distracted worker: Using pupil size and blink rate to detect cognitive load during manufacturing tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 106, 103867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103867
7.
ChenY.LuoY.YerebakanM. O.XiaS.BehdadS.HuB. (2022, November). Human workload and ergonomics during human-robot collaborative electronic waste disassembly. 2022 IEEE 3rd international conference on human-machine systems (ICHMS) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
8.
ChengZ.ZhangF. (2020). Flower end-to-end detection based on YOLOv4 using a mobile device. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 2020, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8870649
9.
CiccarelliM.PapettiA.ScocciaC.MenchiG.MostardaL.PalmieriG.GermaniM. (2022). A system to improve the physical ergonomics in Human-Robot Collaboration. Procedia Computer Science, 200, 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.267
10.
DavisK. G.KotowskiS. E. (2007). Understanding the ergonomic risk for musculoskeletal disorders in the United States agricultural sector. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 50(7), 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20479
11.
DevittS. (2018). Trustworthiness of autonomous systems. Foundations of trusted autonomy (Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, Volume 117), 161–184.
FaureV.LobjoisR.BenguiguiN. (2016). The effects of driving environment complexity and dual tasking on drivers’ mental workload and eye blink behavior. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 40, 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.04.007
14.
FethkeN. B.SchallM. C.Jr.ChenH.BranchC. A.MerlinoL. A. (2020). Biomechanical factors during common agricultural activities: Results of on-farm exposure assessments using direct measurement methods. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 17(2-3), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2020.1717502
15.
GrimstadL.ZakariaR.LeT. D.FromP. J. (2018, October). A novel autonomous robot for greenhouse applications. 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (pp. 1–9). IEEE.
16.
Guerra-SanzJ. M. (2008). Crop pollination in greenhouses. Bee pollination in agricultural ecosystems, 27–47.
17.
HajjajS. S. H.SahariK. S. M. (2016, December). Review of agriculture robotics: Practicality and feasibility. 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors (IRIS) (pp. 194–198). IEEE.
18.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). North-Holland.
HopkoS.WangJ.MehtaR. (2022). Human factors considerations and metrics in shared space human-robot collaboration: A systematic review. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9, 799522. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.799522
21.
HopkoS. K.KhuranaR.MehtaR. K.PagillaP. R. (2021). Effect of cognitive fatigue, operator sex, and robot assistance on task performance metrics, workload, and situation awareness in human-robot collaboration. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(2), 3049–3056. https://doi.org/10.1109/lra.2021.3062787
22.
HopkoS. K.MehtaR. K.PagillaP. R. (2023). Physiological and perceptual consequences of trust in collaborative robots: An empirical investigation of human and robot factors. Applied Ergonomics, 106, 103863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103863
23.
HorstmannA. C.KrämerN. C. (2019). Great expectations? Relation of previous experiences with social robots in real life or in the media and expectancies based on qualitative and quantitative assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 939. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00939
24.
KamilN. S. M.DawalS. Z. M. (2015). Effect of postural angle on back muscle activities in aging female workers performing computer tasks. Journal of physical therapy science, 27(6), 1967–1970.
25.
KharbS. S.BelokarR. M.KantS.SharmaM. (2021). Biomechanical evaluation of spinal loading using farm hand tools and handle design modifications for Haryana male farmers. Journal of the Institution of Engineers: Series A, 102(1), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-020-00481-1
26.
Khosro-AnjomF.RehalR. S.FathallahF. A.WilkenK. D.VougioukasS. G. (2014). Sensor-based stooped work monitoring in robot-aided strawberry harvesting. In 2014 Montreal, Quebec Canada July 13–July 16, 2014 (p. 1). American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
27.
LaiY. L.ChenP. L.YenP. L. (2020, June). A human-robot cooperative vehicle for tea plucking. 2020 7th International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT) (Vol. 1, pp. 217–222). IEEE.
28.
LedgerH. (2013) ‘The effect cognitive load has on eye blinking', The Plymouth Student Scientist, 6(1), p. 206–223.
29.
MakriniI. E.MerckaertK.WinterJ. D.LefeberD.VanderborghtB. (2019). Task allocation for improved ergonomics in human-robot collaborative assembly. Interaction Studies, 20(1), 102–133. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18018.mak
30.
MathesonE.MintoR.ZampieriE. G.FaccioM.RosatiG. (2019). Human–robot collaboration in manufacturing applications: A review. Robotics, 8(4), 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics8040100
NomuraT.SuzukiT.KandaT.KatoK. (2006b). Measurement of anxiety toward robots. ROMAN 2006-The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 372–377). IEEE.
33.
OhiN.LassakK.WatsonR.StraderJ.DuY.YangC.GuY. (2018, October). Design of an autonomous precision pollination robot. In 2018 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) (pp. 7711–7718). IEEE.
34.
OliveiraL. F.MoreiraA. P.SilvaM. F. (2021). Advances in agriculture robotics: A state-of-the-art review and challenges ahead. Robotics, 10(2), 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics10020052
35.
OsborneA.BlakeC.FullenB. M.MeredithD.PhelanJ.McNamaraJ.CunninghamC. (2012). Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among farmers: A systematic review. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 55(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.21033
36.
ParkE.ChoM.KiC. S. (2009). Correct use of repeated measures analysis of variance. The Korean journal of laboratory medicine, 29(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2009.29.1.1
37.
PaulichM.SchepersM.RudigkeitN.BellusciG. (2018). Xsens MTw Awinda: Miniature wireless inertial-magnetic motion tracker for highly accurate 3D kinematic applications (pp. 1–9). Xsens: Enschede.
38.
RamahiA. A.FathallahF. A. (2006, October). Ergonomic evaluation of manual weeding practice and development of an ergonomic solution. In Ergonomic evaluation of manual weeding practice and development of an ergonomic solution (Vol. 50, pp. 1421–1425). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605001335
39.
RanavoloA.ChiniG.DraicchioF.SilvettiA.VarrecchiaT.FioriL.TatarelliA.RosenP. H.WischniewskiS.AlbrechtP.VogtL.BianchiM.AvertaG.CherubiniA.FritzscheL.SartoriM.VanderborghtB.GovaertsR.AjoudaniA. (2022). Human-robot collaboration (HRC) technologies for reducing work-related musculoskeletal diseases in industry 4.0. InProceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2021).
40.
Sa’diyahN.MaksumM.MulyatiG. T. (2021, March). Reducing MSDs and physical workload of manual-harvesting peasan. IOP conference series: Earth and environmental science (Vol. 686, p. 012005). IOP Publishing.
41.
SchimmelpfennigD. (2016). Farm Profits and Adoption of Precision Agriculture, ERR-217, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, October 2016.
42.
SilversteinB. A.BaoS. S.RussellS.StewartK. (2012). Water and coffee: A systems approach to improving coffee harvesting work in Nicaragua. Human Factors, 54(6), 925–939. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812461272
43.
StraderJ.NguyenJ.TatschC.DuY.LassakK.BuzzoB.GuY. (2019, November). Flower interaction subsystem for a precision pollination robot. 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (pp. 5534–5541). IEEE.
44.
TsaiY. F.ViirreE.StrychaczC.ChaseB.JungT. P. (2007). Task performance and eye activity: Predicting behavior relating to cognitive workload. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, 78(5 Suppl), B176–B185.
WolfeJ. M.OlivaA.HorowitzT. S.ButcherS. J.BompasA. (2002). Segmentation of objects from backgrounds in visual search tasks. Vision Research, 42(28), 2985–3004. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(02)00388-7
47.
WurzA.GrassI.TscharntkeT. (2021). Hand pollination of global crops–A systematic review. Basic and Applied Ecology, 56, 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2021.08.008
48.
XieZ.LuL.WangH.SuB.LiuY.XuX. (2023) (In this issue). Improving workers’ musculoskeletal health during human-robot collaboration through reinforcement learning. Human Factors, 66(6), 1754–1769. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208231177574
49.
ZangemeisterW. H.StarkL. (1982). Types of gaze movement: Variable interactions of eye and head movements. Experimental Neurology, 77(3), 563–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4886(82)90228-x
50.
ZhouH.OuJ.MengP.TongJ.YeH.LiZ. (2023). Reasearch on kiwi fruit flower recognition for efficient pollination based on an improved YOLOv5 algorithm. Horticulturae, 9(3), 400. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030400
51.
ZimmermanD. W.ZumboB. D. (2014). The relative power of parametric and nonparametric statistical methods. A handbook for data analysis in the behaviorial sciences (pp. 481–517). Psychology Press.
52.
ZolotasM.LuoR.BazziS.SahaD.MabuluK.KloecklK.PadırT. (2022, August). Productive inconvenience: Facilitating posture variability by stimulating robot-to-human handovers. 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 122–128). IEEE.
