Assessing Workers’ Mental Stress in Hand-over Activities during Human-robot Collaboration

Abstract

Human-robot collaboration (HRC) is an emerging research area that has gained tremendous attention from both academia and industry. Since some robot-related factors can elicit mental stress or have negative psychological effects on human workers, it is essential to understand these factors and maintain workers’ mental stress at a low level. Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) measures skin conductance and is known to be a physiological measurement that reflects short-term mental stress. Typically, skin conductance increases in response to greater mental stress. In this study, the mental stress caused by the hand-over activities of a collaborative robot was investigated using both GSR as an objective measurement and NASA-Task Load Index (TLX) as a subjective assessment. Several robot-related factors that may lead to mental stress were experimentally examined. GSR outcomes indicated that end effector approaching within workers’ view, low end effector speed, and constrained end effector trajectory led to a significantly lower skin conductance. Some aspects of the NASA-TLX also indicated that speed and trajectory significantly affected the scores. Yet, no significant differences were found between approaching directions regarding NASA-TLX scores.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Affanni

Bernardini

Piras

Rinaldo

Zontone

(2018). Driver’s stress detection using Skin Potential Response signals. Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement Confederation, 122(March), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.03.040

Arai

Kato

Fujita

(2010). Assessment of operator stress induced by robot collaboration in assembly. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 59(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2010.03.043

Bari

D. S.

Aldosky

H. Y. Y. Y.

Tronstad

Kalvøy

Martinsen

(2018). Electrodermal responses to discrete stimuli measured by skin conductance, skin potential, and skin susceptance. Skin Research and Technology, 24(1), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/srt.12397

Bethel

C. L.

Salomon

Murphy

R. R.

Burke

J. L.

(2007). Survey of psychophysiology measurements applied to human-robot interaction. Proceedings - IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 732–737. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415182

Codispoti

Bradley

M. M.

Lang

P. J.

(2001). Affective reactions to briefly presented pictures. Psychophysiology, 38(3), 474–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3830474

Dawson

M. E.

Schell

A. M.

Filion

D. L.

(2016). The electrodermal system. Handbook of Psychophysiology, Fourth Edition, 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107415782.010

Dehais

Sisbot

E. A.

Alami

Causse

(2011). Physiological and subjective evaluation of a human-robot object hand-over task. Applied Ergonomics, 42(6), 785–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.12.005

Dragan

A. D.

Bauman

Forlizzi

Srinivasa

S. S.

(2015). Effects of robot motion on human-robot collaboration. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2015-March, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696473

Fujita

Kato

Arai

(2010). Motion of Industrial Robot Manipulator. 361–366.

10.

Kokabe

Shibata

Yamamoto

(2008). Modeling of handing motion reflecting emotional state and its application to robots. Proceedings of the SICE Annual Conference, 495–501. https://doi.org/10.1109/SICE.2008.4654706

11.

Koppenborg

Nickel

Naber

Lungfiel

Huelke

(2017). Effects of movement speed and predictability in human–robot collaboration. Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing, 27(4), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20703

12.

Kulíc

Croft

(2007). Affective state estimation for human-robot interaction. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 23(5), 991–1000. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.904899

13.

Lutin

Hashimoto

de Raedt

van Hoof

(2021). Feature extraction for stress detection in electrodermal activity. BIOSIGNALS 2021 -14th International Conference on Bio-Inspired Systems and Signal Processing; Part of the 14th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies, BIOSTEC 2021, 4(Biostec), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010244601770185

14.

C. K. L. L.

Duffy

V. G.

Cheung

C. C.

(2009). Perception of safe robot idle time in virtual reality and real industrial environments. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(5), 807–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2009.01.003

15.

Paulhus

D. L.

Reid

D. B.

(1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 307.

16.

Sauppé

Mutlu

(2015). The social impact of a robot coworker in industrial settings. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2015-April, 3613–3622. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702181

17.

Unhelkar

V. V.

Siu

H. C.

Shah

J. A.

(2014). Comparative performance of human and mobile robotic assistants in collaborative fetch-and-deliver tasks. ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2559655

18.

Villani

Pini

Leali

Secchi

(2018). Survey on human–robot collaboration in industrial settings: Safety, intuitive interfaces and applications. Mechatronics, 55(February), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.02.009