MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417245897 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.06677

Setup-Invariant Augmented Reality for Teaching by Demonstration with Surgical Robots

2025· preprint· en· W4417245897 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alexandre Banks, Richard Cook, Septimiu E. Salcudean

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIntuitive SurgicalJohns Hopkins UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsAugmented realityRobotHuman–robot interactionRoboticsWork (physics)Expert system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Augmented reality (AR) is an effective tool in robotic surgery education as it combines exploratory learning with three-dimensional guidance. However, existing AR systems require expert supervision and do not account for differences in the mentor and mentee robot configurations. To enable novices to train outside the operating room while receiving expert-informed guidance, we present dV-STEAR: an open-source system that plays back task-aligned expert demonstrations without assuming identical setup joint positions between expert and novice. Pose estimation was rigorously quantified, showing a registration error of 3.86 (SD=2.01)mm. In a user study (N=24), dV-STEAR significantly improved novice performance on tasks from the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery. In a single-handed ring-over-wire task, dV-STEAR increased completion speed (p=0.03) and reduced collision time (p=0.01) compared to dry-lab training alone. During a pick-and-place task, it improved success rates (p=0.004). Across both tasks, participants using dV-STEAR exhibited significantly more balanced hand use and reported lower frustration levels. This work presents a novel educational tool implemented on the da Vinci Research Kit, demonstrates its effectiveness in teaching novices, and builds the foundation for further AR integration into robot-assisted 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207