Evaluation of Increasing Camera Baseline on Depth Perception in Surgical Robotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we evaluate the effect of increasing camera baselines on depth perception in robot-assisted surgery. Restricted by the diameter of the surgical trocar through which they are inserted, current clinical stereo endoscopes have a fixed baseline of 5.5 mm. To overcome this restriction, we propose using a stereoscopic "pickup" camera with a side-firing design that allows for larger baselines. We conducted a user study with baselines of 10 mm, 15 mm, 20 mm, and 30 mm to evaluate the effect of increasing baseline on depth perception when used with the da Vinci surgical system. Subjects (N=28) were recruited and asked to rank differently sized poles, mounted at a distance of 200 mm from the cameras, according to their increasing order of height when viewed under different baseline conditions. The results showed that subjects performed better as the baseline was increased with the best performance at a 20 mm baseline. This preliminary proof-of-concept study shows that there is opportunity to improve depth perception in robot-assisted surgical systems with a change in endoscope design philosophy. In this paper, we present this change with our side-firing "pickup" camera and its flexible baseline design. Ultimately, this serves as the first step towards an adaptive baseline camera design that maximizes depth perception in surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".