Analyzing the Impact of Augmented Reality Head-Mounted Displays on Workers' Safety and Situational Awareness in Hazardous Industrial Settings

TL;DR

This study systematically evaluates how off-the-shelf AR-HMDs influence workers' safety and situational awareness in a high-risk industrial environment simulated as a maritime setting. It combines objective hazard-perception data from distributed sensors with subjective SSA measures (SUS, TLX, USP) while workers perform remote-guided tasks using three devices (XR10, Navigator 520, Pixel 6). The results show that the XR10 increases hazard activations and imposes greater cognitive load and lower perceived safety and usability than the other devices, with hazard identification unaffected by device type. The findings indicate that current AR-HMD technology is not yet ready for hazardous industrial deployment and highlight the need for adaptive interfaces and active safety features to preserve SSA.

Abstract

Augmented Reality Head-Mounted Displays (AR-HMDs) have proven effective to assist workers. However, they may degrade their Safety and Situational Awareness (SSA), particularly in complex and hazardous industrial settings. This paper analyzes, objectively and subjectively, the effects of AR-HMDs' on workers' SSA in a simulated hazardous industrial environment. Our evaluation was comprised of sixty participants performing various tasks in a simulated cargo ship room while receiving remote guidance through one of three devices: two off-the-shelf AR-HMDs (Trimble XR10 with HoloLens 2, RealWear Navigator 520), and a smartphone (Google Pixel 6). Several sensors were installed throughout the room to obtain quantitative measures of the participants' safe execution of the tasks, such as the frequency in which they hit the objects in the room or stepped over simulated holes or oil spills. The results reported that the Trimble XR10 led to statistically highest head-knockers and knee-knocker incidents compared to the Navigator 520 and the Pixel 6. Furthermore, the Trimble XR10 also led to significantly higher difficulties to cross hatch doors, lower perceived safety, comfort, perceived performance, and usability. Overall, participants wearing AR-HMDs failed to perceive more hazards, meaning that safety-preserving capabilities must be developed for AR-HMDs before introducing them into industrial hazardous settings confidently.

Figures (6)

• Figure 1: Tasks (T1-T5) and their associated locations (L1-L6).
• Figure 2: Description of hazards present in the room and their physical simulation, including sensors.
• Figure 3: Microsoft Teams interface to access the files (I1-I3) and first-person view visualization of the files (F1-F3).
• Figure 4: Sensor normalized number of incidents that reported statistically significant differences between the conditions. Overall, the Trimble XR10 led to significantly more sensor activations.
• Figure 5: Normalized User Device Perception scores reveal statistically significant differences between conditions. The Trimble XR10 showed lower scores in efficiency, productivity, performance, satisfaction, safety, and comfort, while the Navigator 520 facilitated better learning.