Cooperative Teleoperation With Projection-Based Force Reflection for MIS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implementation of haptic feedback in minimally invasive surgical teleoperator systems may lead to improved performance in many common surgical procedures; however, most of the currently available surgical teleoperators do not provide force feedback, mainly because of the associated stability issues. In this paper, we study the effect of a special type of the force reflection algorithms, called projection-based force reflection (PBFR) algorithms, on the stability and performance of a dual-arm haptic-enabled teleoperator system for minimally invasive surgical applications. The performance of different algorithms is experimentally compared in the presence of negligible as well as nonnegligible communication delays. In particular, the teleoperator system's performance is experimentally evaluated in three common surgical tasks, which are knot tightening, pegboard transfer, and object manipulation. The results obtained indicate that, in almost all cases, the PBFR algorithms demonstrate statistically significant improvement of performance in comparison with the conventional direct force feedback.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it