Human-Robot Teaming Field Deployments: A Comparison Between Verbal and Non-verbal Communication

TL;DR

This study compares verbal and non-verbal communication methods of robotic crash carts in healthcare, finding verbal cues reduce mental workload but may slightly increase frustration, informing future human-robot teamwork strategies.

Contribution

It provides empirical evidence on the effectiveness of communication modalities in human-robot teams within healthcare settings, highlighting the impact on workload and user attitudes.

Findings

Verbal communication reduces mental demand compared to visual cues.

Frustration levels are slightly higher with robot collaboration than traditional carts.

Insights support optimizing robot communication for high-stakes environments.

Abstract

Healthcare workers (HCWs) encounter challenges in hospitals, such as retrieving medical supplies quickly from crash carts, which could potentially result in medical errors and delays in patient care. Robotic crash carts (RCCs) have shown promise in assisting healthcare teams during medical tasks through guided object searches and task reminders. Limited exploration has been done to determine what communication modalities are most effective and least disruptive to patient care in real-world settings. To address this gap, we conducted a between-subjects experiment comparing the RCC's verbal and non-verbal communication of object search with a standard crash cart in resuscitation scenarios to understand the impact of robot communication on workload and attitudes toward using robots in the workplace. Our findings indicate that verbal communication significantly reduced mental demand and effort compared to visual cues and with a traditional crash cart. Although frustration levels were slightly higher during collaborations with the robot compared to a traditional cart, these research insights provide valuable implications for human-robot teamwork in high-stakes environments.