# Human Factors and Ergonomics in Industry 5.0--A Systematic Literature Review
## 3 Results
### Collaborative Robotics and Human-Machine Relations
Multicriteria decision support methods can enable the evaluation of the conversion of a manual assembly workstation into a collaborative human-robot work cell. This kind of approach can support SMEs in the self-evaluation and adoption of collaborative systems. Analysis of the current situation can be provided by data collection, direct practical tests, interviews, technical reports, and documentation. Following data elaboration through the application of the HRAA algorithm, the subsequent evaluation encompasses the technical, safety, ergonomic, qualitative, and economic feasibility of the conversion process. The allocation of activities is determined based on a combination of four hierarchical evaluation indexes: (1) Technical Evaluation Index (TEI): this evaluates whether an activity can be efficiently performed by a robot, taking into account technical limitations; (2) Safety and Ergonomic Evaluation Index (SEEI): this assesses whether an activity poses physical stress to the operator or is potentially hazardous for humans and/or the production environment; (3) Qualitative Evaluation Index (QEI): this gauges whether an activity necessitates improvements in process quality, focusing on standardization and reducing process instability or variability; and (4) Economic Evaluation Index (EEI): this evaluates whether an activity contributes economic value to the final customer through the reduction of non-value-adding activities and overall cost reduction [79]. Individual designs of collaborative workplaces enable better output in terms of both the productivity and efficiency of workers [80]. Another approach to job quality-related factors with relevance to human-robot collaboration is measuring the cognitive workload, collaboration fluency, levels of trust, acceptance, and satisfaction. Predictable robots can take into account operators' preferences. The research results have shown that a short distance between the user and robot and straight motion trajectories can lead to a high cognitive workload, increasing fear, surprise, and discomfort. The cognitive workload is also affected by workers' awareness of robots' speed of movement. In contrast, robotic collaboration has been shown in other research to improve the quality of results and reduce workload in complex tasks. At the same time, the acceptability of cobots between people with no previous experience and those who had just used them was also analyzed, with both groups showing high levels of trust and enjoyment [81]. The higher the trust, the better the teamwork, but also the more the operators' willingness to collaborate with the robot. Proactive human-robot collaboration can be achieved by bi-directional empathy and a holistic understanding [82]. The human-robot collaboration by the physical distance of collaboration can differ in four levels: (1) spatially separated workplaces divided into two zones, (2) spatially separated workplaces with an additional cooperation zone, (3) shared workspace and shared task, and (4) shared workspace with joint task and direct physical contact. The perceived proximity level influences human decisions. Moral decisions seem to be more utilitarian when a person is confronted with injury dilemmas than with life/death dilemmas, indicating a tendency to decide more rationally in non-life-threatening situations. A smaller spatial separation between humansand robots leads to more utilitarian decisions. As the cybersystem or cognitive system of the machine may have different levels of maturity and possibilities to act in an intelligent, context-specific, and adaptive way, (moral) decisions might be influenced through cognitive attributions [83]. This is why the design process demands multidisciplinary by the principles of user-centered design. The aspects of economic viability, guarantee of effective participation of operators, acceptability and useability of robotic cell by future users, technical feasibility, and safety should be examined [84].