Challenges in developing a magnetic resonance–compatible haptic hand-controller for neurosurgical training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A haptic device is an actuated human-machine interface utilized by an operator to dynamically interact with a remote environment. This interaction could be virtual (virtual reality) or physical such as using a robotic arm. To date, different mechanisms have been considered to actuate the haptic device to reflect force feedback from the remote environment. In a low-force environment or limited working envelope, the control of some actuation mechanisms such as hydraulic and pneumatic may be problematic. In the development of a haptic device, challenges include limited space, high accuracy or resolution, limitations in kinematic and dynamic solutions, points of singularity, dexterity as well as control system development/design. Furthermore, the haptic interface designed to operate in a magnetic resonance imaging environment adds additional challenges related to electromagnetic interference, static/variable magnetic fields, and the use of magnetic resonance-compatible materials. Such a device would allow functional magnetic resonance imaging to obtain information on the subject's brain activity while performing a task. When used for surgical trainees, functional magnetic resonance imaging could provide an assessment of surgical skills. In this application, the trainee, located supine within the magnet bore while observing the task environment on a graphical user interface, uses a low-force magnetic resonance-compatible haptic device to perform virtual surgical tasks in a limited space. In the quest to develop such a device, this review reports the multiple challenges faced and their potential solutions. The review also investigates efforts toward prototyping such devices and classifies the main components of a magnetic resonance-compatible device including actuation and sensory systems and materials used.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".