Sonification as a reliable alternative to conventional visual surgical navigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the undeniable advantages of image-guided surgical assistance systems in terms of accuracy, such systems have not yet fully met surgeons' needs or expectations regarding usability, time efficiency, and their integration into the surgical workflow. On the other hand, perceptual studies have shown that presenting independent but causally correlated information via multimodal feedback involving different sensory modalities can improve task performance. This article investigates an alternative method for computer-assisted surgical navigation, introduces a novel four-DOF sonification methodology for navigated pedicle screw placement, and discusses advanced solutions based on multisensory feedback. The proposed method comprises a novel four-DOF sonification solution for alignment tasks in four degrees of freedom based on frequency modulation synthesis. We compared the resulting accuracy and execution time of the proposed sonification method with visual navigation, which is currently considered the state of the art. We conducted a phantom study in which 17 surgeons executed the pedicle screw placement task in the lumbar spine, guided by either the proposed sonification-based or the traditional visual navigation method. The results demonstrated that the proposed method is as accurate as the state of the art while decreasing the surgeon's need to focus on visual navigation displays instead of the natural focus on surgical tools and targeted anatomy during task execution.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".