Quantifying attention shifts in augmented reality image‐guided neurosurgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image-guided surgery (IGS) has allowed for more minimally invasive procedures, leading to better patient outcomes, reduced risk of infection, less pain, shorter hospital stays and faster recoveries. One drawback that has emerged with IGS is that the surgeon must shift their attention from the patient to the monitor for guidance. Yet both cognitive and motor tasks are negatively affected with attention shifts. Augmented reality (AR), which merges the realworld surgical scene with preoperative virtual patient images and plans, has been proposed as a solution to this drawback. In this work, we studied the impact of two different types of AR IGS set-ups (mobile AR and desktop AR) and traditional navigation on attention shifts for the specific task of craniotomy planning. We found a significant difference in terms of the time taken to perform the task and attention shifts between traditional navigation, but no significant difference between the different AR set-ups. With mobile AR, however, users felt that the system was easier to use and that their performance was better. These results suggest that regardless of where the AR visualisation is shown to the surgeon, AR may reduce attention shifts, leading to more streamlined and focused procedures.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".