Design and Evaluation of an Augmented Reality Head-mounted Display Interface for Human Robot Teams Collaborating in Physically Shared Manufacturing Tasks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We provide an experimental evaluation of a wearable augmented reality (AR) system we have developed for human-robot teams working on tasks requiring collaboration in shared physical workspace. Recent advances in AR technology have facilitated the development of more intuitive user interfaces for many human-robot interaction applications. While it has been anticipated that AR can provide a more intuitive interface to robot assistants helping human workers in various manufacturing scenarios, existing studies in robotics have been largely limited to teleoperation and programming. Industry 5.0 envisions cooperation between human and robot working in teams. Indeed, there exist many industrial tasks that can benefit from human-robot collaboration. A prime example is high-value composite manufacturing. Working with our industry partner towards this example application, we evaluated our AR interface design for shared physical workspace collaboration in human-robot teams. We conducted a multi-dimensional analysis of our interface using established metrics. Results from our user study (n = 26) show that, subjectively, the AR interface feels more novel and a standard joystick interface feels more dependable to users. However, the AR interface was found to reduce physical demand and task completion time, while increasing robot utilization. Furthermore, user’s freedom of choice to collaborate with the robot may also affect the perceived usability of the system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it