Advertisement

How to Assess Mental Workload Quick and Easy at Work: A Method Comparison

  • Sebastian Mach
  • Jan P. Gründling
  • Franziska Schmalfuß
  • Josef F. Krems
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 825)

Abstract

In context of Industry 4.0 and the ongoing digitalization, the industrial worker will still maintain a key role. Thereby, the needs and preferences of the workers shall be considered in real-time and the production process should automatically adapt to the worker. A suitable interface for human-automation interaction is needed to allow the worker to easily provide information regarding his/her physiological and psychological state. Using a smartwatch with implemented surveys for data assessment seems a promising solution. However, some studies found a significant difference when presenting the NASA-TLX on a monitor screen. The scores were higher than in the paper version. Thus, the first step should be to examine whether questionnaires presented on a smartwatch have the same outcome as presented on paper.

In a laboratory experiment, 29 participants performed a constant calculating task and, afterwards, filled out the NASA-TLX via paper or via smartwatch by using the bezel or the touchscreen.

The results show that the workload score in the paper version was significantly lower than the workload score in the smartwatch versions (bezel as well as touch). Nevertheless, the relative differences between the altered levels of difficulty of the arithmetic tasks could be equally well identified using the NASA-TLX scores assessed with the smartwatch version compared to the paper version.

In conclusion, the assessment via smartwatch can differentiate between different levels of mental workload and therefore qualifies for the application in the field. Especially for an industrial environment, the implementation of a smartwatch carries great potential.

Keywords

Industry 4.0 Smartwatch Workload NASA-TLX 

References

  1. 1.
    MacDougall W (2014) Industrie 4.0: smart manufacturing for the future. Germany Trade & InvestGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kagermann H, Wahlster W, Helbig J (2013) Securing the future of German manufacturing industry. Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0, final report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group, ForschungsunionGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mann S (1998) Humanistic computing: “WearComp” as a new framework and application for intelligent signal processing. Proc IEEE 86:2123–2151.  https://doi.org/10.1109/5.726784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ubrani J, Llamas R, Shirer M (2017) Growth in wearables shows no signs of wearing out with double-digit gains forecast through 2021, According to IDC (2017) Von IDC: the premier global market intelligence firm. https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS43058317
  5. 5.
    Mach S, Kastrau A, Schmalfuß F (2018) Information at hand – using wearable devices to display task information in the context of Industry 4.0 Stephanidis, C. In: Conference Proceedingcs HCI 2018, HCI International 2018-Posters’ Extended Abstracts (in press)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Swan M (2012) Sensor mania! The internet of things, wearable computing, objective metrics, and the quantified self 2.0. J Sens Actuator Netw 1:217–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmalfuß F, Mach S, Klüber K, Habelt B, Beggiato M, Körner A, Krems JF (2017) Potential of wearable devices for mental workload detection in different physiological activity conditions. In: de Waard D, Di Nocera F, Coelho D, Edworthy J, Brookhuis K, Ferlazzo F, Franke T, Toffetti A (eds) Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society Europe chapter. http://hfes-europe.org
  9. 9.
    Hill SG, Iavecchia HP, Byers JC, Bittner AC, Zaklade AL, Christ RE (1992) Comparison of four subjective workload rating scales. Hum Factors 34:429–439.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089203400405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schickler M, Pryss R, Reichert M, Heinzelmann M, Schobel J, Langguth B, Probst T, Schlee W (2016) Using wearables in the context of chronic disorders: results of a pre-study. In: 2016 IEEE 29th international symposium on computer-based medical systems (CBMS), pp 68–69.  https://doi.org/10.1109/CBMS.2016.40
  11. 11.
    Hart SG, Staveland LE (1998) Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol 52:139–183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tukey JW (1977) Exploratory data analysis, vol 2Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio Inc., Boston (2016). http://www.rstudio.com/
  14. 14.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, HilsdaleMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Richter JG, Becker A, Koch T, Nixdorf M, Willers R, Monser R, Schacher B, Alten R, Specker C, Schneider M (2008) Self-assessments of patients via Tablet PC in routine patient care: comparison with standardised paper questionnaires. (B. P. Ltd, Hrsg.) Ann Rheum Dis 1739–1741.  https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.090209

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chemnitz University of TechnologyChemnitzGermany

Personalised recommendations