Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Dataset . 2024
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Dataset . 2024
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Dataset . 2024
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Usability data (Drapebot Robot Cell/Dallara)

Authors: Rehm, Matthias; Hald, Kasper;

Usability data (Drapebot Robot Cell/Dallara)

Abstract

In the Drapebot project, a worker collaborates with a large industrial manipulator in two tasks: collaborative transport of carbon fibre patches and collaborative draping. Data collection At Dallara, each participant was introduced to the robot work cell and received verbal instructions on how to perform the collaborative draping task. Each participant performed the task ten times. The ten tasks were performed with the same cut piece. Once the draping along the mould was complete, the participant would return the cut piece to the pick-up table before signaling the robot to continue by raising their hand (gesture condition). After 10 task repetitions, the participants filled out the questionnaire battery. Data organization The data consists of an Excel file with six sheets: 1. SUS: Results from Standard Usability Scale (Brooke et al. 1996) Column 1: Test site Column 2: participant ID Column 3: User interface type (Gesture) Column 4-13: SUS items Column 14: SUS score between 1-100 2. UMUX: Results from Usability Metric for User Experience (Finstad 2010) Column 1: Test site Column 2: participant ID Column 3: User interface type (Gesture) Column 4-7: UMUX items Column 8: UMUX score between 1-100 3. Trust: Results from Trust perception scale - HRI (Schaefer 2016) Column 1: Test site Column 2: participant ID Column 3: User interface type (Gesture) Column 4-17: Questionnaire items Column 8: Trust score between 1-100 4. Trust: Results from Trust in industrial human robot collaboration (Charalambous, et.al. 2016) Column 1: Test site Column 2: participant ID Column 3: User interface type (Gesture) Column 4-13: Questionnaire items Column 8: Trust score between 1-100 5. NASA TLX: Results from Task Load Index (Hart 1986) Column 1: Test site Column 2: participant ID Column 3-20: Questionnaire items Column 21: TLX score between 1-100 6. UTAUT: Results from Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al. 2003) Column 1: Test site Column 2: participant ID Column 3-33: Questionnaire items Column 34-41: Subcategory scores from 1-100 References: J. Brooke et al., “Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale,” Usability evaluation in industry, vol. 189, no. 194, pp. 4–7, 1996 G. Charalambous, S. Fletcher, and P. Webb, “The development of a scale to evaluate trust in industrial human-robot collaboration,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 8, pp. 193–209, 2016. S. G. Hart, “Nasa task load index (tlx),” 1986. K. Finstad, “The usability metric for user experience,” Interacting with computers, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 323–327, 2010 K. E. Schaefer, Measuring Trust in Human Robot Interactions: Development of the “Trust Perception Scale-HRI”. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2016, pp. 191–218. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS quarterly, pp. 425–478, 2003.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Funded by
Related to Research communities