MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791219751 · doi:10.1109/lra.2018.2809512

Free Head Movement Eye Gaze Contingent Ultrasound Interfaces for the da Vinci Surgical System

2018· article· en· W2791219751 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhaoshuo Li, Irene Tong, Leo Metcalf, Craig Hennessey, Septimiu E. Salcudean

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGazeModality (human–computer interaction)Computer visionEye trackingEye movementComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEye tracking on the ISSPupilPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current practice of intraoperative ultrasound requires an assistant because the surgeon's hands are occupied with surgical tools or console instruments. This process can be tedious and prone to error. Eye gaze is a promising control modality that can help address this issue. In previous work, a novel feature-based retro-fit eye gaze tracker has been designed for the da Vinci surgical system. In this letter, leveraging the da Vinci research kit, three interfaces incorporate eye gaze, and voice recognition into the da Vinci surgical system for ultrasound control in one common framework. This letter aims to improve autonomous use of ultrasound for surgeons. Since eye gaze tracking is sensitive to head movement, a novel calibration procedure is also proposed to accommodate head motion by decomposing pupil movement into eye rotation and head motion. This ensures that the eye gaze tracking can be reliably used as a control modality. A user study (N = 20) has shown that the designed eye gaze tracker has a mean binocular accuracy of 1.98° with mean -0.92 mm horizontal and 16.83-mm vertical head movement. A preliminary user study (N = 9) has shown that eye gaze tracking for ultrasound control has the potential to improve the way surgeons interact with their instrumentation and increase surgical autonomy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207