Evaluation of haptic devices and end‐users: Novel performance metrics in<scp>tele‐robotic</scp>microsurgery
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
Abstract Background Here, we present performance evaluation methodology that distinguishes the performance of a haptic device from end‐user skill level in a tele‐robotic system. Methods A pick‐&‐place experiment was designed and eight participants micromanipulated cotton strips, similar to maneuvers performed during microsurgery. Using three nonredundant haptic devices: neuroArmPLUS HD , a custom developed master manipulator, and two commercially available products, sigma.7 and HD 2 , several features including the speed, effort, consistency, hand/gimbal agility, and force characteristics were measured and recorded for each participant and device. Results The participants showed variable skill level. For consistency, hand/gimbal agility and force characteristics, they performed significantly better when using neuroArmPLUS HD prototype. Based on the experimental data, performance metrics for both the device and the end‐users were established. Conclusions The integrated performance metrics allows independent evaluation of both the user and haptic device, thereby quantifying human‐machine interactions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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