Operators' Experience of Trust in Manual Assembly with a Collaborative Robot
Abstract
Advancements in human-robot collaboration (HRC) are major aspects of the future Industry 4.0. HRC entails humans that cooperatively work with fenceless robots in dynamic, changing, and rather unpredictable settings where they should assist and learn from each other and automatically respond to changes [1]. The envisioning of smart factories of the future results in new and additional challenges for how to evaluate various aspects of the collaboration between the human operator and the robot. The common practice in HRC is to focus on safety and performance-related issues, which are highly influenced by human factors (HF). Because of the prevailing orientation towards HF, HRC runs the risk of not considering the modern understandings of human cognition and technology-mediated activity in a socio-material context [2]. Previous research reveals that safety is a necessary but not sufficient condition for avoiding accidents between humans and robots.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Participants initially had confidence in the robot itself but were insecure about their own ability to collaborate because they could not predict the robot's intentions and instructions.
“Further, the participants initially had confidence in the robot itself, but were insecure of their own ability to collaborate due to their inability to predict the robot's intentions and instructions.”
From Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies (2020) · cites this paper as [59]
Nordqvist and Lindblom's operator experience framework for industrial robot trustworthiness uses ability, benevolence, integrity, perceived safety, time on task, and errors, with 12 UX goals.
“Nordqvist and Lindblom [59] analyze trustworthiness of industrial robots with an operators' experience framework.The evaluation framework consists of the factors ability, benevolence, integrity, perceived safety, time on task and errors, where in total 12 user experience (UX) goals were characterized, 2 for each component.”
From Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies (2020) · cites this paper as [59]
Major reasons for limited trust in industrial robot collaboration were communication problems that made participants uncertain about their own ability to collaborate, and these problems were strongly linked to interface design.
“Interestingly, major identified reasons for limited trust were communication problems during collaboration resulting in participant's uncertainty of their own ability to collaborate with the robot.The communication problems were strongly linked to the interface design.”
From Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies (2020) · cites this paper as [59]
Cites
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736 · see citing works
(2006) · doi:10.1080/01449290500330331 · Cited by 3,026 · see citing works
The UX Book: Process and Guidelines for Ensuring a Quality User Experience
Hartson, R., & Pyla, P. S. (2012) · Cited by 659 · see citing works
Working Together: A Review on Safe Human-Robot Collaboration in Industrial Environments
Robla-Gomez, S., Becerra, V. M., Llata, J. R., Gonzalez-Sarabia, E., Torre-Ferrero, C., & Perez-Oria, J. (2017) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2017.2773127 · Cited by 589 · see citing works
Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots
de Graaf, M. M. A., & Ben Allouch, S. (2013) · Robotics and Autonomous Systems · doi:10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007 · Cited by 499 · see citing works
A Survey of Methods for Safe Human-Robot Interaction
Lasota, P. A., Fong, T., & Shah, J. (2017) · Foundations and Trends in Robotics · doi:10.1561/2300000052 · Cited by 408 · see citing works
Design Considerations for Safe Human-robot Collaborative Workplaces
Michalos, G., Makris, S., Tsarouchi, P., Guasch, T., Kontovrakis, D., & Chryssolouris, G. (2015) · Procedia CIRP · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2015.08.014 · Cited by 318 · see citing works
Groom, V., & Nass, C. (2007) · Interaction Studies Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems · doi:10.1075/is.8.3.10gro · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Safety for Physical Human–Robot Interaction
Bicchi, A., Peshkin, M. A., & Colgate, J. E. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30301-5_58 · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Human–robot collaboration in industrial applications
Maurtua, I., Ibarguren, A., Kildal, J., Susperregi, L., & Sierra, B. (2017) · International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems · doi:10.1177/1729881417716010 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Gaudiello, I., Zibetti, E., Lefort, S., Chétouani, M., & Ivaldi, S. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.057 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
A Survey of Methods for Safe Human-Robot Interaction
Lasota, P. A., Fong, T., & Shah, J. (2017) · now publishers, Inc. eBooks · doi:10.1561/9781680832792 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Investigating joint attention mechanisms through spoken human–robot interaction
Staudte, M., & Crocker, M. W. (2011) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.005 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Defining user experience goals to guide the design of industrial systems
Kaasinen, E., Roto, V., Hakulinen, J., Heimonen, T., Jokinen, J., Karvonen, H., Keskinen, T., Koskinen, H. M. K., Lu, Y., Saariluoma, P. O., et al. (2015) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2015.1035335 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Nakamura, G., Shibanoki, T., Kurita, Y., Honda, Y., Masuda, A., Mizobe, F., Chin, T., & Tsuji, T. (2017) · International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems · doi:10.1177/1729881417728452 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
User experience: does it matter in complex systems?
Savioja, P., Liinasuo, M., & Koskinen, H. M. K. (2013) · Cognition Technology & Work · doi:10.1007/s10111-013-0271-x · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Applying Heuristic Evaluation to Human-Robot Interaction Systems
Clarkson, E. C., & Arkin, R. C. (2006) · Cited by 63 · see citing works
User Experience in Social Human-Robot Interaction
Alenljung, B., Lindblom, J., Andreasson, R., & Tom Ziemke, B. (2017) · International Journal of Ambient Computing and Intelligence · doi:10.4018/ijaci.2017040102 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Self-citationCurrent Challenges for UX Evaluation of Human-Robot Interaction
Lindblom, J., & Andreasson, R. (2016) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41697-7_24 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Self-citationThe USUS evaluation framework for user-centered HRI
Weiss, A., Bernhaupt, R., & Tscheligi, M. (2011) · Advances in interaction studies · doi:10.1075/ais.2.07wei · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Jessica, L., & Wang, W. (2018) · Advances in transdisciplinary engineering · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-902-7-145 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cobots in Industry 4.0: A Roadmap for Future Practice Studies on Human–Robot Collaboration
Weiss, A., Wortmeier, A.-K., & Kubicek, B. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2021.3092684 · Cited by 229 · see citing works
Human factors in cobot era: a review of modern production systems features
Faccio, M., Granata, I., Menini, A., Milanese, M., Rossato, C., Bottin, M., Minto, R., Pluchino, P., Gamberini, L., Boschetti, G., et al. (2022) · Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing · doi:10.1007/s10845-022-01953-w · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies
Tolmeijer, S., Weiss, A., Hanheide, M., Lindner, F., Powers, T. M., Dixon, C., & Tielman, M. L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3319502.3374793 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Foundation for a classification of collaboration levels for human-robot cooperation in manufacturing
Kolbeinsson, A., Lagerstedt, E., & Lindblom, J. (2019) · Production & Manufacturing Research · doi:10.1080/21693277.2019.1645628 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Self-citationLindblom, J., & Alenljung, B. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20154284 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Self-citationAlqahtani, F., Noman, M. A., Alabdulkarim, S. A., Al-harkan, I. M., Alhaag, M. H., & Alessa, F. M. (2023) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym15111967 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Alqahtani, F. M., & Noman, M. A. (2024) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems12110479 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
A focus on quantitative methods to assess human factors in collaborative robotics
de Nobile, A., Bibbo, D., Russo, M., & Conforto, S. (2024) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2024.103663 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Cooperative human–robot polishing for the task of patina growing on high-quality leather shoes
Méndez, J. B., González, A., Pérez-Vidal, C., Gracia, L., & Solanes, J. E. (2023) · The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · doi:10.1007/s00170-022-10620-6 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Development of a collaborative robotic system to polish leather surfaces
González, A., Pérez-Vidal, C., Méndez, J. B., Solanes, J. E., & Gracia, L. (2023) · International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing · doi:10.1080/0951192x.2023.2209874 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Trends on Human Factors in Industrial Human-Robot Collaboration: from Design to Implementation
Lucchese, A., Vuolo, E., & Digiesi, S. (2025) · IFAC-PapersOnLine · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2025.09.446 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Designing an AR Facial Expression System for Human-Robots Collaboration
Tong, Y., Zhang, Q., Munguia‐Galeano, F., & Ji, Z. (2023) · International Conference on Automation and Computing (ICAC) · doi:10.1109/icac57885.2023.10275175 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
AR and HRC Integration for Enhanced Pragmatic Quality
Tong, Y., Zhang, Q., Munguia‐Galeano, F., & Ji, Z. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT) · doi:10.1109/icit58233.2024.10540971 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nordqvist, M., & Lindblom, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Skövde (SE)
- ORCID
- Lindblom, Jessica
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2018-12-04
- Pages
- 341-343
- OpenAlex
- W2903950121
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.50
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Stiftelsen för Kunskaps- och Kompetensutveckling (20140220)
- Horizon 2020 (637107)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- human-robot collaboration, collaborative robots, manual assembly, trust, human operators, human factors, sociomateriality, human cognition, Industry 4.0, smart factory, human-robot interaction safety
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
