Robotics as a Tool for Training and Assessment of Surgical Skill
Technological advances have enabled new paradigms for skill training using virtual reality and robotics. We present three recent research advances in the field of virtual reality and human–robot interaction (HRI) for training. First, skill assessment in these systems is discussed, with an emphasis on the derivation of meaningful and objective quantitative performance metrics from motion data acquired through sensors on the robotic devices. We show how such quantitative measures derived for the robotic stroke rehabilitation domain correlate strongly with clinical measures of motor impairment. For virtual reality-based task training, we present task analysis and motion-based performance metrics for a manual control task. Lastly, we describe specific challenges in the surgical domain, with a focus on the development of tasks for skills assessment in surgical robotics.
KeywordsSkill training Robotics Virtual reality Human–robot interaction Surgical Skill Rehabilitation robotics Assessment Performance measures Manual Tasks Simulators
Portions of this work have been support in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (IIS-0448341 and IIS-0812569) and Mission Connect, a project of the TIRR Foundation.
- 2.Lintern G (1991) An informational perspective on skill transfer in human-machine systems. Hum Factors 33(3):251–266Google Scholar
- 3.Lintern G, Roscoe SN (1980) Visual cue augmentation in contact flight simulation. In: Roscoe SN (ed) Aviation psychology. Iowa State University Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
- 6.Li Y, Huegel JC, Patoglu V, O’Malley, MK (2009) Progressive shared control for training in virtual environments. EuroHaptics conference, 2009 and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. World Haptics, Third Joint, pp 332–337. doi: 10.1109/WHC.Google Scholar
- 7.Li Y, Patoglu V, O’Malley MK (2009) Negative efficacy of fixed gain error reducing shared control for training in virtual environments. ACM Trans Appl Percept 6(1):3-1–3-21Google Scholar
- 8.Huegel JC, O’Malley MK (2009) Visual versus haptic progressive guidance for training in a virtual dynamic task. EuroHaptics conference, 2009 and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. World Haptics, Third Joint, pp 399–400. doi: 10.1109/WHC.2009.4810914Google Scholar
- 13.Li Y, Patoglu V, O’Malley MK (2006) Shared control for training in virtual environments: learning through demonstration? In: Proceedings of EuroHaptics, pp 93–99. http://lsc.univ-evry.fr/∼eurohaptics/upload/cd/papers/f108.pdfGoogle Scholar
- 14.Morris D, Tan H, Barbagli F, Chang T, Salisbury K (2007) Haptic feedback enhances force skill learning. EuroHaptics Conference, and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. World Haptics 2007. Second Joint, pp 21–26. doi: 10.1109/WHC.2007.65Google Scholar
- 16.Israr A, Kapson H, Patoglu V, O’Malley MK (2009) Effects of magnitude and phase cues on human motor adaptation. EuroHaptics conference, 2009 and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. World Haptics. Third Joint, pp 344–349. doi: 10.1109/WHC.2009.4810870Google Scholar
- 17.Flash T, Hogan N (1985) The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci 5(7):1688–1703Google Scholar
- 22.Schanzer A, Steppacher R, Eslami M, Arous E, Messina L, Belkin M (2009) Vascular surgery training trends from 2001–2007: a substantial increase in total procedure volume is driven by escalating endovascular procedure volume and stable open procedure volume. J Vasc Surg 49(5):1339–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Lepor H (2009) Status of radical prostatectomy in 2009: is there medical evidence to justify the robotic approach? Rev Urol 11:61–70Google Scholar