## 4 Results
### Anomaly Resolution during the Forming Process  
#### 4.3.1 Regular Process Monitoring  
During sub-task 2, \"kinematic configuration\", the operators' goal is to control the fit between the implemented curve progression of the machine tool and the work piece; therefore, the machine tool attached to the robot takes a path that is supposed to be parallel to the work piece without actual work piece contact. The primary information gathered is regarding whether the size of the gap between the work piece and machine tool remains the same throughout the process (see Table 2). If there are deviations, the path of the machine tool is not congruent to the work pieces' geometry and may need to be adjusted. In order to evaluate the consistency of the gap, both operators focused primarily on the work piece and the machine tool. Operator 1 clearly monitored the path of the machine tool (see Figure 5), which is evident by two thirds of the relevant fixations that were directed towards it.  
Operator 2 divided their attention between the work piece and machine tool while also showing a significant proportion of fixations towards operator 1, who was responsible for controlling the robot (see Table 2).  
The goal of the sub-task 4, \"empty run(s)\", is to prevent collisions of the robot with the work table or the clamping device during the forming process; therefore, the path of the machine tool attached to the robot is tested with its actual starting coordinates but without the clamped work piece. During the first empty run, both operators focused on the machine tool, the clamping device, and the work table, with a strong emphasis on the elements of the set-up that might be in the path of the machine tool (i.e., clamping device and work table; see Table 2). As problems were detected, the first empty run was interrupted in order to subsequently adjust the clamping device. A second empty run was then conducted to examine the improvement of the clamping device set-up. In addition to the focus on the elements with collision potential, operator 2 showed a large fixation proportion on operator 1. Video data showed that this is due to an ongoing discussion of the problem (i.e., collision potential with the clamping device). Operator 1 engaged in the discussion without losing sight of the set-up, whereas operator 2 did not expect further problems, allowing for continuative discussions regarding future projects.  
The sub-task 7, i.e., the actual forming of the work piece, is led by the goal to achieve the predefined target geometry of the work piece. Therefore, operator 2 focused on the physical forces that are applied to the work piece by the machine tool (see Table 2). However, as the trajectory of the machine tool was already implemented and tested, operator 1 also attended to previously identified potential problems, as collisions decrease the quality of the forming result and may even harm the clamping device. Therefore, operator 1 executed a large proportion of fixations to the clamping device, which allowed operator 1 to adjust the speed of the robot/machine tool according to anticipated collision potential.  
Figure 5: Eye movements anticipating the trajectory of the machine tool (green) based on its current position (yellow).