Advertisement

The Benefits of Haptic Feedback in Telesurgery and Other Teleoperation Systems: A Meta-Analysis

  • Bernhard WeberEmail author
  • Clara Eichberger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9177)

Abstract

A quantitative review of empirical studies investigating the effects of haptic feedback in teleoperation or virtual reality systems is provided. Several meta-analyses were conducted based on results of 58 studies with 1104 subjects from the medical and other teleoperation domains, revealing positive, substantial effects of kinesthetic force feedback on task performance (Hedges’ g = 0.62–0.75) and force regulation (g = 0.64–0.78) and positive, but small effects on task completion time (g = 0.22). Vibrotactile substitution of force feedback results in significantly lower effects on task performance (g = .21). Yet, exaggerated force production can be avoided effectively. Finally, we found evidence that the magnitude of the force feedback effects are moderated by task characteristics like force regulation demands and complexity.

Keywords

Haptics Force feedback Vibrotactile Sensory substitution Teleoperation Telemanipulation Telerobotics Telesurgery Virtual reality Simulation 

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, R.J., Klowden, D., Hannaford, B.: Virtual training for a manual assembly task. Haptics-e 2(2), 1–7 (2001). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arata, J., Takahashi, H., Yasunaka, S., Onda, K., Tanaka, K., Sugita, N., Hashizume, M., et al.: Impact of network time-delay and force feedback on tele-surgery. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 3(3–4), 371–378 (2008). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arsenault, R., Ware, C.: Eye-hand co-ordination with force feedback. In: Proceedings of the Sigchi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 408–414. ACM, April 2000. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauernschmitt, R., Gaertner, C., Braun, E.U., Mayer, H., Knoll, A., Schreiber, U., Lange, R.: Improving the quality of robotic heart surgery: evaluation in a new experimental system. In: Proceedings of the 4th Russian-Bavarian Conference on Biomedical Engineering at Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (Technical University), Zelenograd, Moscow, Russia, July 8/9 2008, p. 137–140 (2008). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blake, J., Gurocak, H.B.: Haptic glove with MR brakes for virtual reality. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 14(5), 606–615 (2009). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P., Rothstein, H.R.: Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Wiley, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braun, E.U., Mayer, H., Knoll, A., Lange, R., Bauernschmitt, R.: The must-have in robotic heart surgery: haptic feedback. In: Bozovic, V. (ed.) Medical Robotics, pp. 9–20. I-Tech Education and Publishing, Vienna (2008). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Braun, E.U., Gaertner, C., Mayer, H., Knoll, A., Lange, R., Bauernschmitt, R.: Haptic aided roboting for heart surgeons. In: Proceedings of the 4th European Conference of the International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering, pp. 1695–1696. Springer, Berlin (2009). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chamaret, D., Ullah, S., Richard, P., Naud, M.: Integration and evaluation of haptic feedbacks: from CAD models to virtual prototyping. Int. J. Interact. Design Manufact. (IJIDeM) 4(2), 87–94 (2010). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng, L.T., Kazman, R., Robinson, J.: Vibrotactile feedback in delicate virtual reality operations. In: Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 243–251. ACM, February 1997. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Psychology Press, Mountain View (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cutler, N., Balicki, M., Finkelstein, M., Wang, J., Gehlbach, P., McGready, J., Handa, J.T.: Auditory force feedback substitution improves surgical precision during simulated ophthalmic surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 54(2), 1316–1324 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Debus, T., Becker, T., Dupont, P., Jang, T.J., Howe, R.: Multichannel vibrotactile display for sensory substitution during teleoperation. In: Proceedings of SPIE–The International Society for Optical Engineering, vol. 4570, pp. 42–49, October 2001. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deml, B.: Telepräsenzsysteme - Gestaltung der Mensch-System Schnittstelle, Dissertation thesis, University of the Armed Forces (2004). http://edok01.tib.uni-hannover.de/edoks/e01dd01/482342803l.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2014. (This study included in the meta-analysis)
  15. 15.
    Dennerlein, J.T., Yang, M.C.: Haptic force-feedback devices for the office computer: performance and musculoskeletal loading issues. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 43(2), 278–286 (2001). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Edwards, G.W.: Performance and usability of force feedback and auditory substitutions in a virtual environment manipulation task (Master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia, USA) (2000). http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12212000-094328/. (This study included in the meta-analysis)
  17. 17.
    Farkhatdinov, I., Ryu, J.-H.: A study on the role of force feedback for teleoperation of industrial overhead crane. In: Ferre, M. (ed.) EuroHaptics 2008. LNCS, vol. 5024, pp. 796–805. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garbaya, S., Zaldivar-Colado, U.: The affect of contact force sensations on user performance in virtual assembly tasks. Virtual Reality 11(4), 287–299 (2007). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gerovich, O., Marayong, P., Okamura, A.M.: The effect of visual and haptic feedback on computer-assisted needle insertion. Comput. Aided Surg. 9(6), 243–249 (2004). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gupta, R., Sheridan, T., Whitney, D.: Experiments using multimodal virtual environments in design for assembly analysis. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 6(3), 318–338 (1997). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gwilliam, J.C., Mahvash, M., Vagvolgyi, B., Vacharat, A., Yuh, D.D., Okamura, A.M.: Effects of haptic and graphical force feedback on teleoperated palpation. In: ICRA 2009, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 677–682. IEEE, May 2009. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hacinecipoglu, A., Konukseven, E.I., Koku, A.B.: Evaluation of haptic feedback cues on vehicle teleoperation performance in an obstacle avoidance scenario. In: World Haptics Conference (WHC), pp. 689–694. IEEE, April 2013. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hale, K.S., Stanney, K.M.: Deriving haptic design guidelines from human physiological, psychophysical, and neurological foundations. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 24(2), 33–39 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hannaford, B., Wood, L., McAffee, D.A., Zak, H.: Performance evaluation of a six-axis generalized force-reflecting teleoperator. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 21(3), 620–633 (1991). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hedges, L., Olkin, I.: Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Academic Press, San Diego (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hurmuzlu, Y., Ephanov, A., Stoianovici, D.: Effect of a pneumatically driven haptic interface on the perceptional capabilities of human operators. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 7(3), 290–307 (1998). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kazi, A.: Operator performance in surgical telemanipulation. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 10(5), 495–510 (2001). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee, S., Kim, G.J.: Effects of haptic feedback, stereoscopy, and image resolution on performance and presence in remote navigation. Int. J. Hum Comput. Stud. 66(10), 701–717 (2008). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee, S., Sukhatme, G., Kim, J., Park, C.M.: Haptic control of a mobile robot: a user study. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, vol. 3, pp. 2867–2874. IEEE (2002). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lindeman, R.W., Sibert, J.L., Hahn, J.K.: Towards usable VR: an empirical study of user interfaces for immersive virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 64–71. ACM, May 1999. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mahvash, M., Gwilliam, J., Agarwal, R., Vagvolgyi, B., Su, L.M., Yuh, D.D., Okamura, A.M.: Force-feedback surgical teleoperator: controller design and palpation experiments. In: Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, Haptics 2008, pp. 465–471. IEEE, March 2008. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Massimino, M.J.: Sensory substitution for force feedback in space teleoperation (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (1992). http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/12033/31318142.pdf. (This study included in the meta-analysis)
  33. 33.
    Moody, L., Baber, C., Arvanitis, T.N.: Objective surgical performance evaluation based on haptic feedback. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 85, 304–310 (2002). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nam, C.S., Shu, J., Chung, D.: The roles of sensory modalities in collaborative virtual environments (CVEs). Comput. Hum. Behav. 24(4), 1404–1417 (2008). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nitsch, V.: Haptic Human-Machine Interaction in Teleoperation Systems and its Implications for the Design and Effective Use of Haptic Interfaces (Doctoral dissertation, Universität der Bundeswehr München) (2012). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nitsch, V., Färber, B.: A meta-analysis of the effects of haptic interfaces on task performance with teleoperation systems. IEEE Trans. Haptics 6(4), 387–398 (2013)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Oakley, I., McGee, M.R., Brewster, S., Gray, P.: Putting the feel in ‘look and feel’. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 415–422. ACM, April 2000. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Panait, L., Akkary, E., Bell, R.L., Roberts, K.E., Dudrick, S.J., Duffy, A.J.: The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic simulation training. J. Surg. Res. 156(2), 312–316 (2009). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paul, L., Cartiaux, O., Docquier, P.L., Banse, X.: Ergonomic evaluation of 3D plane positioning using a mouse and a haptic device. Int. J. Med. Robot. Comput. Assist. Surg. 5(4), 435–443 (2009). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pawar, V.M., Steed, A.: Evaluating the influence of haptic force-feedback on 3D selection tasks using natural egocentric gestures. In: IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, VR 2009, pp. 11–18. IEEE, March 2009. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Peon, A.R., Prattichizzo, D.: Reaction times to constraint violation in haptics: comparing vibration, visual and audio stimuli. In: World Haptics Conference (WHC), pp. 657–661. IEEE, April 2013. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Petzold, B., Zaeh, M., Faerber, B., Deml, B., Egermeier, H., Schilp, J., Clarke, S.: A study on visual, auditory, and haptic feedback for assembly tasks. Presence 13(1), 16–21 (2004). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pillarisetti, A., Pekarev, M., Brooks, A.D., Desai, J.P.: Evaluating the role of force feedback for biomanipulation tasks. In: Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, pp. 11–18. IEEE, March 2006. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Radi, M., Nitsch, V.: Telepresence in industrial applications: implementation issues for assembly tasks. Presence 19(5), 415–429 (2010). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Reinhart, G., Reiter, A.: An investigation of haptic feedback effects in telepresent microassembly. Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. 5(5), 581–586 (2011). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Reiter, A., Nitsch, V., Reinhart, G., Färber, B.: Effects of visual and haptic feedback on telepresent micro assembly tasks. In: 3rd International Conference on Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and Virtual Production CARV 2009, Munich (2009). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Richard, P., Coiffet, P., Kheddar, A., England, R.: Human performance evaluation of two handle haptic devices in a dextrous virtual telemanipulation task. In: 1999 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 1999, Proceedings, vol. 3, pp. 1543–1548. IEEE (1999). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Salkini, M.W., Doarn, C.R., Kiehl, N., Broderick, T.J., Donovan, J.F., Gaitonde, K.: The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic training using the LapMentor II. J. Endourol. 24(1), 99–102 (2010). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sallnäs, E.-L.: Improved precision in mediated collaborative manipulation of objects by haptic force feedback. In: Brewster, S., Murray-Smith, R. (eds.) Haptic HCI 2000. LNCS, vol. 2058, pp. 69–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sallnäs, E.L., Zhai, S.: Collaboration meets fitts’ law: passing virtual objects with and without haptic force feedback. In: INTERACT (2003). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Santos-Carreras, L., Beira, R., Sengül, A., Gassert, R., Bleuler, H.: Influence of force and torque feedback on operator performance in a VR-based suturing task. Appl. Bion. Biomech. 7(3), 217–230 (2010). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Seibold, U.: An Advanced Force Feedback Tool Design for Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgery. Dissertation thesis, Technical University Munich (2013). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sheridan, T.B.: Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stepp, C.E.: Matsuoka, Y.: Relative to direct haptic feedback, remote vibrotactile feedback improves but slows object manipulation. In: 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 2089–2092. IEEE, August 2010. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Talasaz, A., Trejos, A.L., Patel, R.V.: Effect of force feedback on performance of robotics-assisted suturing. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), pp. 823–828. IEEE, June 2012. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tejeiro, C., Stepp, C.E., Malhotra, M., Rombokas, E., Matsuoka, Y.: Comparison of remote pressure and vibrotactile feedback for prosthetic hand control. In: 2012 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), pp. 521–525. IEEE, June 2012. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tholey, G.: A teleoperative haptic feedback framework for computer-aided minimally invasive surgery (Doctoral dissertation, Drexel University) (2007). (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Viciana-Abad, R., Reyes-Lecuona, A., Rosa-Pujazón, A., Pérez-Lorenzo, J.M.: The influence of different sensory cues as selection feedback and co-location in presence and task performance. Multimedia Tools Appl. 68(3), 623–639 (2014). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vo, D.M., Vance, J.M., Marasinghe, M.G.: Assessment of haptics-based interaction for assembly tasks in virtual reality. In: EuroHaptics Conference, 2009 and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, World Haptics 2009, Third Joint , pp. 494–499. IEEE, March 2009. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wagner, C.R., Howe, R.D.: Force feedback benefit depends on experience in multiple degree of freedom robotic surgery task. IEEE Trans. Rob. 23(6), 1235–1240 (2007). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wagner, C.R., Stylopoulos, N., Howe, R.D.: The role of force feedback in surgery: analysis of blunt dissection. In: Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, pp. 73–79, March 2002. (This study included in the meta-analysis)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Weber, B., Schneider, S.: The effects of force feedback on surgical task performance: a meta-analytical integration. In: Auvray, M., Duriez, C. (eds.) EuroHaptics 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8619, pp. 150–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wiebe, E.N., Minogue, J., Jones, M.G., Cowley, J., Krebs, D.: Haptic feedback and students’ learning about levers: Unraveling the effect of simulated touch. Comput. Educ. 53(3), 667–676 (2009). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wildenbeest, J.G., Abbink, D.A., Heemskerk, C.J., van der Helm, F.C., Boessenkool, H.: The impact of haptic feedback quality on the performance of teleoperated assembly tasks. IEEE Trans. Haptics 6(2), 242–252 (2013). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Yiasemidou, M., Glassman, D., Vasas, P., Badiani, S., Patel, B.: Faster simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomy with haptic feedback technology. Open Access Surg. 4, 39–44 (2011). (This study included in the meta-analysis)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Aerospace CenterOberpfaffenhofenGermany
  2. 2.Ludwigs-Maximilians-UniversitätMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations