Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Eimontaite, I.; Gwilt, I.; Cameron, D.; Aitken, J.M.; Rolph, J.; Mokaram, S.; Law, J. (2016)
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Languages: English
Types: Other
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.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Ososky, S., Schuster, D., Phillips, E., Jentsch, F.G.: Building appropriate trust in human-robot teams. In: 2013 AAAI Spring Symposium Series (2013).
    • 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).
    • 3. Frixione, M., Lombardi, A.: Street Signs and Ikea Instruction Sheets: Pragmatics and Pictorial Communication. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 6, 133 149 (2015).
    • 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).
    • 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. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 24, 601 615 (2014).
    • 6. Bahar, G., Masliah, M., Wolff, R., Park, P.: Desktop reference for crash reduction factors. (2007).
    • 7. Laughery, K.R.: Safety communications: Warnings. Appl. Ergon. 37, 467 478 (2006).
    • 8. Chen, R., Wang, X., Hou, L.: Augmented Reality for Collaborative Assembly Design in Manufacturing Sector. Virtual Technol. Bus. Ind. Appl. Innov. Synerg. Approaches Innov. Synerg. Approaches. 105 (2010).
    • 9. Tufte, E.R.: The visual display of quantitative information. Graphics Press, Connecticut (1993).
    • 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).
    • 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).
    • 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).
    • 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 0 (2004).
    • 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).
    • 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).
    • 16. Ozer, E.M., Bandura, A.: Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: a self-efficacy analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 472 (1990).
    • 17. Pearson, L.C., Moomaw, W.: The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educ. Res. Q. 29, 37 (2005).
    • 18. Mathews, A., Mackintosh, B.: A cognitive model of selective processing in anxiety. Cogn. Ther. Res. 22, 539 560 (1998).
    • 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).
    • 20. Balliet, D., Van Lange, P.A.M.: Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A metaanalysis. Psychol. Bull. 139, 1090 1112 (2013).
    • 21. King-Casas, B.: Getting to Know You: Reputation and Trust in a TwoPerson Economic Exchange. Science. 308, 78 83 (2005).
    • 22. t, M., Sanfey, A.G.: Friend or foe: The effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making. Cognition. 108, 796 803 (2008).
    • 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.
    • 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).
    • 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, 19-23 July 2014, Krakow, Poland. pp. 223 232. AHFE (2014).
    • 26. Moreno-Jiménez, B., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Garrosa Hernández, E., Morante Benadero, M.A., others: Terminal versus non-terminal care in physician burnout: the role of decision-making processes and attitudes to death. Salud Ment. 31, 93 101 (2008).
    • 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. IEEE (2010).
    • 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, Chamonix, France. ACTA Press. pp. 13 18. Citeseer (2007).
    • 29. Muir, B.M.: Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 27, 527 539 (1987).
    • 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.
    • 31. Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., Kato, K.: Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interact. Stud. 7, 437 454 (2006).
    • 32. Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., Kato, K.: Measurement of anxiety toward robots. In: Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2006. ROMAN 2006. The 15th IEEE International Symposium on. pp. 372 377. IEEE (2006).
    • 33. Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fentonand domain-specific risk taking. J. Risk Res. 8, 157 176 (2005).
    • 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).
    • 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).
    • 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).
    • 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).
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article