Development of a Neuroergonomic Assessment for the Evaluation of Mental Workload in an Industrial Human–Robot Interaction Assembly Task: A Comparative Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The disruptive deployment of collaborative robots, named cobots, in Industry 5.0 has brought attention to the safety and ergonomic aspects of industrial human–robot interaction (HRI) tasks. In particular, the study of the operator’s mental workload in HRI activities has been the research object of a new branch of ergonomics, called neuroergonomics, to improve the operator’s wellbeing and the efficiency of the system. This study shows the development of a combinative assessment for the evaluation of mental workload in a comparative analysis of two assembly task scenarios, without and with robot interaction. The evaluation of mental workload is achieved through a combination of subjective (NASA TLX) and real-time objective measurements. This latter measurement is found using an innovative electroencephalogram (EEG) device and the characterization of the cognitive workload through the brainwave power ratio β/α, defined after the pre-processing phase of EEG data. Finally, observational analyses are considered regarding the task performance of the two scenarios. The statistical analyses show how significantly the mental workload diminution and a higher level of performance, as the number of components assembled correctly by the participants, are achieved in the scenario with the robot.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".