Effect of force feedback from each DOF on the motion accuracy of a surgical tool in performing a robot-assisted tracing task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In robot-assisted surgery, it may be important to provide force feedback to the hand of the surgeon. Here we examine how force feedback from each degree of freedom (DOF) on a hand controller affects the motion accuracy of a surgical tool. We studied the motion accuracy of a needle-shaped tool in performing a robot-assisted tracing task. On a virtual simulation of the tool and neuroArm robot, human participants manipulated a hand controller to move the tool attached to the end-effector of the robot. They used the tool to trace a line on pipes (mimicking blood vessels) along 3 orthogonal directions, corresponding to 3 DOF on the hand controller. We observed that force feedback from each DOF on the hand controller had a significant effect on the motion accuracy of the tool during tracing. Varying force conditions yielded insignificant difference in motion accuracy. These results indicate a need of revising the hand controller for achieving improved motion accuracy in performing robot-assisted tasks.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".