Smart Manufacturing and the Operator’s Digital Double: Modeling Cognitive Load Through a Psychosocial Digital Twin
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56830/IJSIE202602Keywords:
Digital twin, Psychosocial Digital Twin (PDT), Cognitive load, Human–machine systems, Worker well-being, Smart manufacturing, Predictive simulation, Noninvasive sensors, Real-time monitoring, Industry 4.0, Cognitive ergonomics, Human-centric designAbstract
Digital twin technology, a virtual model that replicates real-world machines, has become a key component of modern manufacturing, enabling companies to predict problems before they occur and enhance operational efficiency. Yet, most of these systems are built around equipment, overlooking the human operators who play a crucial role in the production process. To address this gap, we propose the Psychosocial Digital Twin (PDT), a framework designed to create a real-time virtual model of a worker’s cognitive state. Unlike traditional monitoring tools, the PDT combines multiple data sources to track and predict stress and workload as they unfold.
To test this idea, we created a virtual factory environment using VR and conducted an experiment with 70 experienced factory workers. Participants were split into two groups: one used the new PDT system, while the other relied on conventional monitoring methods. The PDT combined information from several streams, including machine performance data (such as speed and error rates), environmental conditions (like noise and lighting), and non-invasive physiological measures (such as heart rate variability, electrodermal activity, and eyetracking). All of this was processed by an AI model that produced a Cognitive Load Index (CLI), a score showing the worker’s real-time mental stress levels. Supervisors in the PDT group could then run “what-if” simulations to test how proposed changes might affect workers before applying them on the floor.
Results demonstrate that the PDT enhanced both worker experience and operational stability. The system predicted stress events with 87.4% accuracy, reduced reported stressful episodes by 42%, and cut task-related errors by 28% compared with the control group. Supervisors also proactively altered or canceled 65% of stress-intensive tasks based on simulations.
Overall, the PDT represents a shift from reactive human factors analysis toward proactive, simulation-driven design. This study contributes to understanding human behavior in cyber-physical environments by modeling how cognitive load dynamically influences performance and decision-making in AI-augmented workplaces. By making workers’ wellbeing visible, measurable, and optimizable, this framework provides a scalable method for balancing productivity and safety, thereby enhancing performance in Industry 4.0 environments.
References
Aricò, P., Borghini, G., & Di Flumeri, G. (2023). Passive brain-computer interfaces for mental workload and vigilance assessment: A systematic review. Sensors, 23:3115. 10.3390/s23063115.
Boffet, A., Arsac, L. M., & Ibanez, V. (2025). Detection of Cognitive Load Modulation by EDA and HRV. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 25:2343. 10.3390/s25082343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s25082343
Borth, M., Gkion, M., & Weidner, R. (2022). A digital twin for real-time ergonomic analysis in human-robot collaboration. Procedia CIRP, 107:812-817.
10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.035. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.035
Cao, B., Liu, Z., Han, X., Zhou, S., Zhang, H., & Wang., H. (2024). Foresee and Act Ahead:
Task Prediction and Pre-Scheduling Enabled Efficient Robotic Warehousing. Arxiv.org.
Capulli, E., Druda, Y., & Palmese, F. (2025). Ethical and Legal Implications of Health Monitoring Wearable Devices: A Scoping Review. Social Science & Medicine, 370:117685. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117685. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117685
Di Stasi, L. L., Diaz-Piedra, C., & Rieiro, H. (2021). Eye-tracking metrics as indicators of mental fatigue: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 127:629-647. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.05.008.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., & Tov, W. (2009). New measures of well-being: Flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 39:247-266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_12
10.1007/s11205-009-9582-y.
Emmanouilidis, C., Montini, E., & Cutrona, V. (2024). Manufacturing workers fatigue: an exploratory study on predictive machine learning and cross-subject generalization with implications for work design. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 58:557-562.
10.1016/j.ifacol.2024.09.271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2024.09.271
Fairclough, S. H. (2022). Affective and physiological computing for human-computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 135:107386. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107386.
Grandjean, E. (1973). Fatigue in industry. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 36:175-186.
10.1136/oem.36.3.175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.36.3.175
Grieves, M., & Vickers, J. (2017). Digital twin: Mitigating unpredictable, undesirable emergent behavior in complex systems. Kahlen, F.-J. (ed): Springer, 85-113.
10.1007/978-3-319-38756-7_4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38756-7_4
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., & De Visser, E. J. (2021). Human-automation trust and workload: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 119:106716. 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106716. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106716
Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2021). A digital supply chain twin for managing disruption risks and resilience in the era of Industry 4.0. Production Planning & Control, 32:775-788. 10.1080/09537287.2020.1768450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1768450
Leng, J., Wang, D., & Shen, W. (2021). Digital-twins-based smart manufacturing system design in Industry 4.0: A review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 60:119-137. 10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.05.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.05.011
Nataliya, N., & Tan, J. (2024). No Simple Fix. How AI Harms Reflect Power and Jurisdiction in the Workplace, 422-432. 10.1145/3630106.3658915. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658915
Parasuraman, R., & Cosenzo, K. A. (2020). Adaptive human-automation interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 11:2130. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02130.
Strohmeier, S. (2020). Smart HRM: A conceptual framework for human resource management in the digital age. Human Resource Management Review, 30:100707. 10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100707. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100707
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12:257-285. 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
What is cognitive overload, and how can we avoid it? (2021). https://blog.simplitaught.com/what-is-cognitive-overload/.
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal mining. Human Relations, 4:3-38.
10.1177/001872675100400101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675100400101






