Development and Validation of a Mixed Reality Configuration of a Simulator for a Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Using the Workspace of a Haptic Device and Simulator Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most surgical simulators leverage virtual or bench models to simulate reality. This study proposes and validates a method for workspace configuration of a surgical simulator which utilizes a haptic device for interaction with a virtual model and a bench model to provide additional tactile feedback based on planned surgical manoeuvers. Numerical analyses were completed to determine the workspace and position of a haptic device, relative to the bench model, used in the surgical simulator, and the determined configuration was validated using device limitations and user data from surgical and nonsurgical users. For the validation, surgeons performed an identical surgery on a cadaver prior to using the simulator, and their trajectories were then compared to the determined workspace for the haptic device. The configuration of the simulator was determined appropriate through workspace analysis and the collected user trajectories. Statistical analyses suggest differences in trajectories between the participating surgeons which were not affected by the imposed haptic workspace. This study, therefore, demonstrates a method to optimally position a haptic device with respect to a bench model while meeting the manoeuverability needs of a surgical procedure. The validation method identified workspace position and user trajectory towards ideal configuration of a mixed reality simulator.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".