Application of a Redundant Haptic Interface in Enhancing Soft-Tissue Stiffness Discrimination
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
Haptic-enabled teleoperated surgical systems have the potential to enhance the accuracy and performance of surgical interventions. The user interface of such a system can provide haptic feedback to the surgeon to more intuitively perform surgical tasks. In this letter, we study the added benefits of redundant manipulators as haptic interfaces for teleoperated surgical systems. First, we introduce the intrinsic benefits of employing a redundant haptic interface, namely, reduced apparent inertia and increased manipulability (one result of which is reduced friction forces). Next, we demonstrate that the haptic interface redundancy can further reduce its apparent inertia and friction via appropriately manipulating the extra degrees of freedom of the interface. This will consequently enhance the haptic feedback resolution (sensitivity) for the user. Finally, a psychophysical experiment is performed to validate the improved force perception for the user in a virtual soft-tissue palpation task. We conduct a set of perceptual experiments to evaluate how a redundant and non-redundant user interface affects the perception of the virtual stiffness. Experimental results demonstrate that the redundancy in the haptic user interface helps to enhance tissue stiffness discrimination ability of the user by reducing the distortions caused by the kinematics and dynamics of the user interface.
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