The rapid advancement of robotic technology is transforming the manufacturing industry, with collaborative robots (Cobots) increasingly deployed to improve productivity and reduce ergonomic risks. However, ensuring ergonomic compatibility between Cobots and human operators remains a critical challenge.
Objective
This study aims to evaluate the ergonomic impact of Cobot integration in industrial settings by developing a comprehensive assessment framework covering physical, cognitive, and organizational ergonomics.
Methods
An ergonomic evaluation framework was proposed and implemented using the interval-valued intuitionistic uncertain fuzzy (IVIUF) method to accommodate both quantitative data and qualitative judgments. The interval-valued intuitionistic uncertain linguistic weighted geometric (IVIULWG) aggregation operator was used to combine objective and subjective information with improved robustness and accuracy.
Results
The analysis revealed that dual-arm Cobots equipped with display interfaces exhibit superior ergonomic performance compared to other configurations. The IVIULWG approach effectively preserved and integrated both numerical measurements and linguistic assessments in the evaluation process.
Conclusions
The proposed methodology provides a scientifically rigorous and practical tool for the ergonomic evaluation of Cobots. These findings support more informed decisions in Cobot design and deployment, contributing to safer and more sustainable industrial operations.
HentoutAAouacheMMaoudjA,et al.Human–robot interaction in industrial collaborative robotics: a literature review of the decade 2008–2017. Adv Robot2019; 33: 764–799.
DjuricAMUrbanicRJRickliJL. A framework for collaborative robot (CoBot) integration in advanced manufacturing systems. SAE Int J Mater Manuf2016; 9: 2016-01-0337.
4.
KwanyaT. Working with robots as colleagues: Kenyan perspectives of ethical concerns on possible integration of co-bots in workplaces. In: Responsible AI in Africa: challenges and opportunities. Springer International Publishing Cham, 2023, pp. 65–99.
5.
BragançaSCostaECastellucciI,et al.A brief overview of the use of collaborative robots in industry 4.0: human role and safety. Occup Environ Saf Heal2019: 641–650.
BrinkmannA, et al.Providing physical relief for nurses by collaborative robotics. Sci Rep2022; 12: 8644.
8.
HerzogOMinaE. Collaborative robots can support young adults with disabilities in vocational education and training. In: Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2024, pp.540–544.
9.
PizońJCiochMKańskiŁ,et al.Cobots implementation in the era of Industry 5.0 using modern business and management solutions. 2022.
10.
WeckenborgCSpenglerTS. Assembly line balancing with collaborative robots under consideration of ergonomics: a cost-oriented approach. IFAC-PapersOnLine2019; 52: 1860–1865.
11.
KnudsenMKaivo-OjaJ. Collaborative robots: frontiers of current literature. J Intell Syst Theory Appl2020: 13–20.
12.
GeorgeASGeorgeASH. The cobot chronicles: evaluating the emergence, evolution, and impact of collaborative robots in next-generation manufacturing. Partners Univers Int Res J2023; 2: 89–116.
13.
BouilletKLemonnierSClancheF,et al.Does the introduction of a cobot change the productivity and posture of the operators in a collaborative task?PLoS One2023; 18: e0289787.
14.
BiZMLuoCMiaoZ, et al.Safety assurance mechanisms of collaborative robotic systems in manufacturing. Robot Comput Integr Manuf2021; 67: 102022.
15.
PaulikováAGyurák BabeľováZUbárováM. Analysis of the impact of human–cobot collaborative manufacturing implementation on the occupational health and safety and the quality requirements. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18: 1927.
16.
PalleschiAHamadMAbdolshahS, et al.Fast and safe trajectory planning: solving the cobot performance/safety trade-off in human-robot shared environments. IEEE Robot Autom Lett2021; 6: 5445–5452.
17.
VicentiniF. Terminology in safety of collaborative robotics. Robot Comput Integr Manuf2020; 63: 101921.
18.
LiuLGuoFZouZ,et al.Application, development and future opportunities of collaborative robots (cobots) in manufacturing: a literature review. Int J Human–Computer Interact2024; 40: 915–932.
19.
El ZaatariSMareiMLiW,et al.Cobot programming for collaborative industrial tasks: an overview. Rob Auton Syst2019; 116: 162–180.
20.
Padma SwatiNLGuptaSVKrishnamurthyV,et al.Low/No-code software development of Cobots using advanced graphical user interface. Intell Robot Cobots Ind 5.0 Appl2025: 85–106.
21.
JennesPDi MininA. Cobots in SMEs: implementation processes, challenges, and success factors. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Technology and Entrepreneurship (ICTE), 2023, pp.80–85.
22.
ZhangSLiSLiX, et al.A human-robot dynamic fusion safety algorithm for collaborative operations of cobots. J Intell Robot Syst2022; 104: 18.
23.
LiauYYRyuK. Genetic algorithm-based task allocation in multiple modes of human–robot collaboration systems with two cobots. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2022; 119: 7291–7309.
24.
KinastADoernerKFRinderle-MaS. Biased random-key genetic algorithm for cobot assignment in an assembly/disassembly job shop scheduling problem. Procedia Comput Sci2021; 180: 328–337.
25.
RiedelbauchDHöllerichNHenrichD. Benchmarking teamwork of humans and cobots—an overview of metrics, strategies, and tasks. IEEE Access2023; 11: 43648–43674.
CardosoAColimABichoE, et al.Ergonomics and human factors as a requirement to implement safer collaborative robotic workstations: A literature review. mdpi.com, 2021.
28.
CiccarelliM, et al.A system to improve the physical ergonomics in human-robot collaboration. Procedia Comput Sci2022; 200: 689–698.
29.
ColimA, et al.Lean manufacturing and ergonomics integration: defining productivity and wellbeing indicators in a human–robot workstation. Sustainability2021; 13: 1931.
30.
PalombaIGualtieriLRojasR, et al.Mechatronic re-design of a manual assembly workstation into a collaborative one for wire harness assemblies. Robotics2021; 10: 43.
31.
LorenziniMKimWDe MomiE,et al.A new overloading fatigue model for ergonomic risk assessment with application to human-robot collaboration. Proc - IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom2019; 2019-May: 1962–1968.
32.
SarterNSarterM. Neuroergonomics: opportunities and challenges of merging cognitive neuroscience with cognitive ergonomics. Theor Issues Ergon Sci2003; 4: 142–150.
33.
BednyGZBednyIS. Work activity studies within the framework of ergonomics, psychology, and economics. CRC Press, 2018.
34.
GualtieriLRauchEVidoniR. Emerging research fields in safety and ergonomics in industrial collaborative robotics: a systematic literature review. Robot Comput Integr Manuf2021; 67: 101998.
35.
CharalambousG. FletcherSWebbP. Development of a human factors roadmap for the successful implementation of industrial human-robot collaboration. In: Advances in Ergonomics of Manufacturing: Managing the Enterprise of the Future: Proceedings of the AHFE 2016 International Conference on Human Aspects of Advanced Manufacturing, Florida, USA, July 27–31, 2016, pp. 195–206. Walt Disney World®.
36.
PanchettiTPietrantoniLPuzzoG, et al.Assessing the relationship between cognitive workload, workstation design, user acceptance and trust in collaborative robots. Appl Sci2023; 13: 1720.
37.
CarissoliCNegriLBassiM, et al.Mental workload and human-robot interaction in collaborative tasks: a scoping review. Int J Hum–Comput Interact2024; 40: 6458–6477.
38.
BrunLWiolandL. Prevention of occupational risks related to the human-robot collaboration. In: Human Interaction, Emerging Technologies and Future Applications III: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies: Future Applications (IHIET 2020), Paris, France, August 27–29, 2020, pp.441–446.
39.
KimWPeternelLLorenziniM, et al.A human-robot collaboration framework for improving ergonomics during dexterous operation of power tools. Robot Comput Integr Manuf2021; 68: 102084.
40.
HopkoSKKhuranaRMehtaRK,et al.Effect of cognitive fatigue, operator sex, and robot assistance on task performance metrics, workload, and situation awareness in human-robot collaboration. IEEE Robot Autom Lett2021; 6: 3049–3056.
41.
KhedkarEBPawarPY. Review of literature on organizational ergonomics. Int J2015; 3: 454–458.
42.
PinheiroS, et al.Ergonomics and safety in the design of industrial collaborative robotics: a systematic literature review. Occup Environ Saf Heal III2021: 465–478.
43.
LambrechtsWKlaverJKoudijzerL,et al.Human factors influencing the implementation of Cobots in high volume distribution centres. mdpi.com, 2021.
44.
RossatoCPluchinoPCelliniN, et al.Facing with collaborative robots: the subjective experience in senior and younger workers. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw2021; 24: 349–356.
45.
ArgoteLGoodmanPSSchkadeD. The human side of robotics: how workers react to a robot. Sloan Manage Rev1983; 24: 31–41.
PaligaM. The relationships of human-cobot interaction fluency with job performance and job satisfaction among cobot operators—the moderating role of workload. Int J Environ Res Public Health2023; 20: 5111.
48.
WorkinehSAYamauraH. Effects of multiple working positions on user comfort: a study on multi-position ergonomic computer workstation. Procedia Manuf2015; 3: 4792–4799.
49.
HelanderM. A guide to human factors and ergonomics. CRC press, 2005.
50.
VillaroucoVSoaresMCostaAPL,et al.Evaluation of a work space based on an ergonomic design methodology of the built environment. Theor Issues Ergon Sci2012; 13: 203–224.
51.
IvarssonAEekF. The relationship between physical workload and quality within line-based assembly. Ergonomics2016; 59: 913–923.
52.
ColimAFariaCCunhaJ, et al.Physical ergonomic improvement and safe design of an assembly workstation through collaborative robotics. mdpi.com, 2021.
53.
ChintadaAVU. Improvement of productivity by implementing occupational ergonomics. J Ind Prod Eng2022; 39: 59–72.
54.
PattenCJDKircherAÖstlundJ,et al.Using mobile telephones: cognitive workload and attention resource allocation. Accid Anal Prev2004; 36: 341–350.
55.
NeyigapulaBS. Human-AI Collaborative Decision-making: A Cognitive Ergonomics Approach. 2023.
56.
YoungMSBrookhuisKAWickensCD,et al.State of science: mental workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics2015; 58: 1–17.
57.
DhillonBSFashandiARMLiuKL. Robot systems reliability and safety: a review. J Qual Maint Eng2002; 8: 170–212.
58.
AdamidesG, et al.HRI Usability evaluation of interaction modes for a teleoperated agricultural robotic sprayer. Appl Ergon2017; 62: 237–246.
59.
ParsonsKC. Environmental ergonomics: a review of principles, methods and models. Appl Ergon2000; 31: 581–594.
60.
StopaM. Assessment of navigators’ ergonomic awareness and working conditions on navigation bridges. Int Shipbuild Prog2024; Preprint: 1–19.
61.
AgustinaMMutiaFNoor AziziN. The influence of workstations and ergonomic work postures on employee job satisfaction in the academic library. Int J Inf Sci Manag2024; 22: 93–105.
62.
BarattaACiminoALongoF, et al.Task allocation in human-robot collaboration: a simulation-based approach to optimize operator’s productivity and ergonomics. Procedia Comput Sci2024; 232: 688–697.
63.
KubickiSGuerrieroASchwartzL, et al.Assessment of synchronous interactive devices for BIM project coordination: prospective ergonomics approach. Autom Constr2019; 101: 160–178.
64.
ChimJMYChenTL. Prediction of work from home and musculoskeletal discomfort: an investigation of ergonomic factors in work arrangements and home workstation setups using the COVID-19 experience. Int J Environ Res Public Health2023; 20: 3050.
65.
ShaftiALazpitaBUElhageO,et al.Analysis of comfort and ergonomics for clinical work environments. In: 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2016, pp. 1894–1897.
66.
ZadehLA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control1965; 8: 338–353.
67.
AtanassovKT. On intuitionistic fuzzy sets theory, vol. 283. Springer, 2012.
68.
LiuPJinF. Methods for aggregating intuitionistic uncertain linguistic variables and their application to group decision making. Inf Sci (Ny)2012; 205: 58–71.
69.
KanSGuoFLiS. An approach to evaluating the knowledge management performance with interval-valued intuitionistic uncertain linguistic information. J Intell Fuzzy Syst2016; 30: 1557–1565.
70.
TsarouchiP, et al.Robotized assembly process using dual arm robot. Procedia CIrP2014; 23: 47–52.
71.
MakrisSMakrisS. Cooperative manipulation—the case of dual arm robots. Coop Robot Flex Manuf2021: 123–132.
72.
PetaKWiśniewskiMKotarskiM,et al.Comparison of a single-and dual-arm collaborative robots used for precision assembly. 2024.
73.
SmithC, et al.Dual arm manipulation—A survey. Rob Auton Syst2012; 60: 1340–1353.
74.
KrügerJSchreckGSurdilovicD. Dual arm robot for flexible and cooperative assembly. CIRP Ann2011; 60: 5–8.
75.
ParkK-TParkC-HShinY-J. Performance evaluation of industrial dual-arm robot. In: 2008 International Conference on Smart Manufacturing Application, 2008, pp. 437–440.
76.
LiuLZouZGreeneRL. The effects of type and form of collaborative robots in manufacturing on trustworthiness, risk perceived, and acceptance. Int J Hum–Comput Interact2024; 40: 2697–2710.
77.
OnnaschLHildebrandtCL. Impact of anthropomorphic robot design on trust and attention in industrial human-robot interaction. ACM Trans Hum-Robot Interact2021; 11: 1–24.
78.
RodríguezCSuárezR. Combining motion planning and task assignment for a dual-arm system. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2016, pp. 4238–4243.
79.
YuXZhangSSunL, et al.Cooperative control of dual-arm robots in different human-robot collaborative tasks. Assem Autom2020; 40: 95–104.
