Wang, Y; Xiao, B; Mueller, S T and Yi, W (2026) Task–taxon–task framework for modeling and predicting the cognitive impact of collaborative robots on worker performance in modular construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(4): 04026033, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Human-robot collaboration (HRC) is transforming modular construction (MC) by improving productivity, efficiency, and safety. While extensive research has focused on the technical design, programming, and implementation of collaborative robots (cobots) in MC, their cognitive impacts on human workers remain largely unexplored. Neglecting these human-centered factors can lead to tangible operational and ethical risks. This study aims to develop and validate an interpretable and scalable framework for modeling and predicting the cognitive impacts of cobots on human workers. The proposed framework integrates cognitive task analysis, a customized task–taxon–task (T3) methodology, and linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) to systematically quantify and predict the worker performance changes induced by cobots. To validate its applicability, a practical protocol was developed and tested through an experimental case study involving a wooden wall panel manufacturing task. The results demonstrate the developed LMM achieved an average predictive accuracy of 87.5%, confirming the framework's effectiveness in quantifying cobot-induced cognitive impacts. The findings highlight attention and spatial perception as key cognitive demands in HRC and identify spatial proximity as a significant factor influencing cognitive load. This research contributes to the body of knowledge by introducing an interpretable, cognitively based modeling framework for predicting human performance in HRC settings, demonstrating its potential for generalization across diverse prefabrication and modular tasks. The study offers practical insights for construction professionals through a validated, structured protocol that supports worker-centered task design, performance forecasting, and safe robot integration in MC environments. These findings establish a theoretical foundation for cognition-aware HRC task scheduling and dynamic assessments, supporting the broader adoption of robotics in the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cognitive performance; human-robot cooperation; prefabricated construction; robotics; work performance prediction |
| Index terms: | accuracy, body of knowledge, cooperation, programming, integration, modular construction, methodology, task scheduling, collaboration, cognition, productivity, case study, forecasting, efficiency, work performance, implementation, modelling, prefabrication, construction industry, effectiveness, robotics, task analysis, construction professional, human-performance |
| Subjects: | building construction, cognitive psychology, research methods, automation and robotics, psychology, operations management, operations research, contractual arrangements, knowledge management, analytical methods, programming, scope management, human factors and perception, organizational analysis, industry analysis, management, performance management, professional development, prediction and forecasting, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy, Time Control, Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Procurement, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here