ArticlePloS one2023
Does the introduction of a cobot change the productivity and posture of the operators in a collaborative task?
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating collaborative robots in manufacturing, logistics, and agriculture: Expert perspectives on technical, safety, and human factors.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are the main occupational diseases and are pathologies of multifactorial origin, with posture being one of them. This creates new human-robot collaboration situations that can modify operator behaviors and performance in their task. These changes raise questions about human-robot team performance and operator health. This study aims to understand the consequences of introducing a cobot on work performance, operator posture, and the quality of interactions. It also aims to evaluate the impact of two levels of difficulty in a dual task on these measures. For this purpose, thirty-four participants performed an assembly task in collaboration with a co-worker, either a human or a cobot with two articulated arms. In addition to this motor task, the participants had to perform an auditory task with two levels of difficulty (dual task). They were equipped with seventeen motion capture sensors. The collaborative work was filmed with a camera, and the actions of the participants and co-worker were coded based on the dichotomy of idle and activity. Interactions were coded based on time out, cooperation, and collaboration. The results showed that performance (number of products manufactured) was lower when the participant collaborated with a cobot rather than a human, with also less collaboration and activity time. However, RULA scores were lower-indicating a reduced risk of musculoskeletal disorders-during collaboration with a cobot compared to a human. Despite a decrease in production and a loss of fluidity, likely due to the characteristics of the cobot, working in collaboration with a cobot makes the task safer in terms of the risk of musculoskeletal disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.