Locating End-Effector Tips in Robotic Micromanipulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In robotic micromanipulation, end-effector tips must be first located under microscopy imaging before manipulation is performed. The tip of micromanipulation tools is typically a few micrometers in size and highly delicate. In all existing micromanipulation systems, the process of locating the end-effector tip is conducted by a skilled operator, and the automation of this task has not been attempted. This paper presents a technique to automatically locate end-effector tips. The technique consists of programmed sweeping patterns, motion history image end-effector detection, active contour to estimate end-effector positions, autofocusing and quad-tree search to locate an end-effector tip, and, finally, visual servoing to position the tip to the center of the field of view. Two types of micromanipulation tools (micropipette that represents single-ended tools and microgripper that represents multiended tools) were used in experiments for testing. Quantitative results are reported in the speed and success rate of the autolocating technique, based on over 500 trials. Furthermore, the effect of factors such as imaging mode and image processing parameter selections was also quantitatively discussed. Guidelines are provided for the implementation of the technique in order to achieve high efficiency and success rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".