Evaluation of Communication and Human Response Latency for (Human) Teleoperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>We previously introduced a novel mixed reality (MR) teleguidance system, human teleoperation [1,2], in which a human (expert) leader and a human (novice) follower are tightly coupled through MR and haptics for applications such as tele-ultrasound. In this paper, a communication system suitable for human teleoperation is presented and characterized in various network conditions, over Ethernet, Wi-Fi, 4G LTE, and 5G. To study all types of latency in the system, the human response time is additionally characterized through step response tests with 11 volunteers. The step responses were obtained by tracking the position and force of the human hand in response to a change in the MR target.</p> <p>The round-trip communication latency is 40+/-10 ms over 5G, and down to 1+/-0.6 ms over Ethernet for typical throughputs. The human response time to a step change in position depends on the step magnitude, but is 485-535 ms, while the reaction time for forces is 150-200 ms. Both lags are decreased when tracking smooth motions. Thus, we demonstrate that the system is network agnostic and can achieve good teleoperation performance and secure, fast communication in appropriate network conditions. The presented tools and concepts are applicable to any high-performance teleoperation system, for example for remote surgery.</p>
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 | 0.004 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".