Comparison of Multimodal Notifications During Telesurgery

  • Rachael L’OrsaEmail author
  • Kourosh Zareinia
  • Chris Macnab
  • Garnette Roy Sutherland
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8619)


This paper examines the utility of multimodal feedback during telesurgery to notify surgeons of excessive force application. Average puncture forces were characterized for varied thicknesses of an artificial membrane, and human operators then attempted to apply a maximum force to the membranes without causing a puncture via an experimental telesurgical apparatus. Operators were notified via different sensory modalities when the force exerted by the tool-tip exceeded a pre-established force margin, defined as a set percentage of the average puncture force. Various combinations of auditory and vibrotactile notifications both with and without force feedback were compared in order to investigate the relationship between feedback modality, force margin, and puncture force. Factor screening results identify multiple two-factor interactions as having statistically significant effects on both the maximum applied force and task completion time, warranting further investigation. Notifications of any type decreased both response variables for operators who relied on them.


Haptics Multimodal feedback Keyhole surgery Teleoperation Telesurgery 



The authors wish to thank Kiran Grant for his assistance with this work.


  1. 1.
    Reisch, R., Stadie, A., Kockro, R.A., Hopf, N.: The keyhole concept in neurosurgery. World Neurosurgery. (2012).
  2. 2.
    Ballantyne, G.: Telerobotic gastrointestinal surgery: phase 2 – safety and efficacy. Surg. End. 21(7), 1054–1062 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahlering, T.E., Skarecky, D., Lee, D., Clayman, R.V.: Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J. Urology. 170(5), 1738–1741 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lang, M.J., Greer, A.D., Sutherland, G.R.: Intra-operative robotics: NeuroArm. In: Necmettin Pamir, M., Seifert, V., Kiris, T. (eds.) Intraoperative Imaging Acta Neurochirurgica Supplementum, pp. 231–236. Springer, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cuss, A., Abbott, J.: Complications of laparoscopic surgery. Obstet. Gynaecol. Reprod. Med. 22(3), 59–62 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Okamura, A.M.: Haptic feedback in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery. Curr. Opin. Urol. 19(1), 102–107 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    L’Orsa, R., Zareinia, K., Gan, L.S., Macnab, C., Sutherland, G.: Potential tissue puncture notification during telesurgery. In: Oakley, I., Brewster, S. (eds.) HAID 2013. LNCS, vol. 7989, pp. 30–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spence, C., Ho, C.: Multisensory warning signals for event perception and safe driving. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 9(9), 523–554 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yusof, A.A., Kawamura, T., Yamada, H.: Evaluation of construction robot telegrasping force perception using visual, auditory and force feedback integration. J. Rob. Mecha. 24(6), 949–957 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachael L’Orsa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kourosh Zareinia
    • 2
  • Chris Macnab
    • 1
  • Garnette Roy Sutherland
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Project neuroArm, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations