Towards webcam-based tracking for interventional navigation
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
PURPOSE: Optical tracking is a commonly used tool in computer assisted surgery and surgical training; however, many current generation commercially available tracking systems are prohibitively large and expensive for certain applications. We developed an open source optical tracking system using the Intel RealSense SR300 webcam with integrated depth sensor. In this paper, we assess the accuracy of this tracking system. METHODS: The PLUS toolkit was extended to incorporate the ArUco marker detection and tracking library. The depth data obtained from the infrared sensor of the Intel RealSense SR300 was used to improve accuracy. We assessed the accuracy of the system by comparing this tracker to a high accuracy commercial optical tracker. RESULTS: The ArUco based optical tracking algorithm had median errors of 20.0mm and 4.1 degrees in a 200x200x200mm tracking volume. Our algorithm processing the depth data had a positional error of 17.3mm, and an orientation error of 7.1 degrees in the same tracking volume. In the direction perpendicular to the sensor, the optical only tracking had positional errors between 11% and 15%, compared to errors in depth of 1% or less. In tracking one marker relative to another, a fused transform from optical and depth data produced the best result of 1.39% error. CONCLUSION: The webcam based system does not yet have satisfactory accuracy for use in computer assisted surgery or surgical training.
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