Effect of force feedback on performance of robotics-assisted suturing
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
This paper is aimed at exploring the effect of force feedback on the performance of a knot-tightening task in robotics-assisted minimally invasive surgery (RAMIS). In this work, we evaluate performance during the knot-tightening task in three scenarios: without force feedback, with visual force feedback and with direct force reflection on the subject's hand. Different performance measures have been implemented: quality of the knot, amount and consistency of the tightening force applied on the suture, user's control of the instrument, tissue damage, and task completion time. Seven subjects participated in this study and were asked to tighten the second throw of surgical knots using a dual arm teleoperation system that is capable of force reflection in 7 Degrees of Freedom (DOFs), 6-DOF rigid body motion plus the gripper. The results show that visual force feedback allows superior performance in the quality of the suture knots with high consistency in the tightening force, while direct force feedback can significantly improve the user's control of the instrument.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it