Evaluation of Augmented Reality-based Intuitive Interface for Robot-Assisted Transesophageal Echocardiography: A User Study

Angela Peloso; Arianna Menciassi; Elena De Momi; Emiliano Votta; Matteo Di Mauro*; Sofia Breschi; Xiu Zhang*

arxiv: 2606.19971 · v1 · pith:STPPZUTLnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 💻 cs.RO

Evaluation of Augmented Reality-based Intuitive Interface for Robot-Assisted Transesophageal Echocardiography: A User Study

Xiu Zhang* , Matteo Di Mauro* , Sofia Breschi , Angela Peloso , Emiliano Votta , Arianna Menciassi , Elena De Momi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 16:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO

keywords augmented realityrobot-assisted TEEuser interface evaluationtransesophageal echocardiographytip-level controlspatial accuracyergonomic interface

0 comments

The pith

The 3D tip-level AR interface for robotic TEE reduces position errors to 3 mm median and halves orientation errors relative to 2D joint-level controls.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests three AR interfaces on a robotic TEE platform using electromagnetic tracking and a simulator. Thirty-six participants completed navigation tasks to match target echocardiographic views, with measures of position error, orientation error, time, and NASA-TLX workload. The 3D visualization lowered median position error from 13 mm to 3 mm and cut orientation error in half compared with the 2D interface. Adding tip-level control produced another 50 percent drop in orientation error and less variability across users. The combined 3D tip-level setup emerged as the most accurate and least demanding option.

Core claim

The 3D-TI configuration, which pairs immersive AR visualization with direct tip-level control rather than joint-angle commands, delivered the lowest position and orientation errors, shortest completion times, and lowest workload scores among the three tested interfaces.

What carries the argument

The 3D tip-level (3D-TI) interface, which overlays a virtual probe model in AR and lets the operator command the probe tip directly instead of individual joint angles.

If this is right

3D visualization alone cuts median position error from 13 mm to 3 mm and halves orientation error.
Tip-level control yields an additional 50 percent reduction in orientation error and lowers inter-user variability.
The 3D-TI setup produces the lowest NASA-TLX workload scores of the three options.
The results support adding AR visualization and tip-level control to future robotic TEE platforms for better accuracy and reduced operator fatigue.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The interface could shorten the learning curve for new TEE operators by making spatial relationships more visible.
Lower workload might allow longer procedures or reduce fatigue-related errors in combined fluoroscopy cases.
Real-time fusion of the AR view with live ultrasound images could be a direct next step to test.
The same visualization-plus-tip-control pattern might transfer to other robotic catheter or probe systems.

Load-bearing premise

Standardized tasks performed by 36 participants will produce the same performance gaps when expert operators work under clinical time pressure on real patient anatomy.

What would settle it

A follow-up trial with experienced cardiologists on actual patients that finds no reliable difference in probe placement accuracy or workload between 3D-TI and the other two interfaces would falsify the superiority claim.

read the original abstract

TransEsophageal Echocardiography (TEE) is essential for diagnosing and guiding Structural Heart Disease (SHD) interventions. However, manual TEE manipulation demands significant operator expertise, is physically demanding, and exposes clinicians to radiation when performed alongside fluoroscopy. Robotic-assisted TEE systems have been introduced to improve probe handling and reduce operator fatigue, yet the design of intuitive and effective user interfaces remains an open challenge. This study presents and evaluates a model-enhanced, Augmented Reality (AR)-based intuitive interface for robot-assisted TEE, designed to improve spatial awareness and control intuitiveness. A robotic TEE platform integrated with electromagnetic tracking and a virtual simulator was used to compare three user interfaces differing in visualization and interaction modalities: 2D jointlevel (2D-JI), 3D joint-level (3D-JI), and 3D tip-level (3D-TI). Thirty six participants performed standardized navigation tasks to reproduce target echocardiographic views, with performance assessed via position and orientation errors, completion time, and NASA-TLX workload scores. Results show that 3D visualization significantly improved spatial accuracy, reducing median position error from 13 mm to 3 mm and halving the orientation error compared with the 2D interface. Tip-level interaction yielded a further 50% reduction in orientation error and reduced interuser variability relative to joint-level control. Overall, the 3D-TI configuration, combining immersive visualization with direct tip-level control, proved the most effective and ergonomic interface, supporting the integration of AR-based visualization and intuitive control paradigms into next-generation robotic TEE systems to enhance operator performance and procedural safety.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The study shows a 3D tip-level AR interface cuts position error to 3 mm and halves orientation error versus 2D in a 36-person simulator test for robotic TEE, but clinical translation is unproven.

read the letter

The one thing to know is that this user study reports clear gains for the 3D tip-level interface over the other two variants in a simulator: median position error drops from 13 mm to 3 mm, orientation error is halved, and NASA-TLX scores improve. The second is that these numbers come from standardized navigation tasks on a robotic platform with electromagnetic tracking and AR visualization.

The work does a straightforward head-to-head comparison of 2D joint-level, 3D joint-level, and 3D tip-level control. That empirical check on three specific interface choices in the TEE context is new enough to be worth noting. The metrics are concrete and the setup integrates AR with the robot, which matches the practical problem of reducing fatigue and improving spatial accuracy during structural heart procedures.

The soft spots sit in the missing details and the generalization step. The abstract gives no statistical tests, error bars, participant demographics, or power analysis, so the data-to-claim link is hard to judge from what is shown. The 36 participants are not described as expert TEE operators, and the tasks stay inside a virtual simulator. The stress-test concern about whether the advantages survive real anatomy, time pressure, and expert users looks reasonable; nothing in the reported results directly addresses that translation. Minor issues include the usual simulator-to-clinic gap that most interface papers face.

This paper is for people working on robotic ultrasound interfaces or AR in image-guided procedures. A reader who needs data on tip-level versus joint-level control in TEE would find the comparison useful. It deserves a serious referee because the core empirical result is grounded in measured performance rather than theory alone, even if the methods section will need close scrutiny on statistics and participant selection.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents an AR-based intuitive interface for a robotic TEE platform integrated with electromagnetic tracking and a virtual simulator. It evaluates three configurations (2D joint-level, 3D joint-level, and 3D tip-level) via a user study in which 36 participants performed standardized navigation tasks to reproduce target echocardiographic views. Performance is assessed using position/orientation errors, completion time, and NASA-TLX scores, with the conclusion that the 3D tip-level interface yields the largest reductions in error and workload and therefore supports integration of AR visualization and tip-level control into next-generation robotic TEE systems.

Significance. If the reported quantitative improvements are statistically validated, the work supplies concrete empirical data on the benefits of immersive 3D visualization combined with direct tip control for robotic medical interfaces. The multi-metric evaluation (position error, orientation error, NASA-TLX) in a controlled simulator setting is a strength that can guide interface design for reduced operator fatigue and improved spatial accuracy in TEE procedures.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: the reported reductions (median position error from 13 mm to 3 mm, halved orientation error, further 50 % reduction with tip-level control) are stated without any statistical tests, p-values, confidence intervals, or measures of inter-participant variability, so the reliability of the claimed improvements cannot be assessed.
[Methods] Methods: the participant pool of 36 individuals is described only by count; no demographics, TEE or robotics expertise levels, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or power analysis are supplied, leaving the generalizability of the performance differences unclear.
[Abstract and Conclusion] Abstract and Conclusion: the claim that the 3D-TI results support integration into next-generation systems to enhance procedural safety rests on simulator data from non-expert participants and provides no direct evidence or discussion of translation to expert clinicians, real patient anatomy, or time-pressured clinical conditions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below, agreeing where revisions are needed to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: the reported reductions (median position error from 13 mm to 3 mm, halved orientation error, further 50 % reduction with tip-level control) are stated without any statistical tests, p-values, confidence intervals, or measures of inter-participant variability, so the reliability of the claimed improvements cannot be assessed.

Authors: We agree that statistical validation is required. The revised manuscript will add non-parametric statistical tests (e.g., Friedman test with post-hoc Wilcoxon), p-values, confidence intervals, and interquartile ranges or standard deviations for all error and workload metrics to allow proper evaluation of the reported improvements. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods] Methods: the participant pool of 36 individuals is described only by count; no demographics, TEE or robotics expertise levels, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or power analysis are supplied, leaving the generalizability of the performance differences unclear.

Authors: We accept this point. The revised Methods section will report participant demographics (age, gender, background), self-reported TEE and robotics expertise, explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a power analysis supporting the sample size of 36. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract and Conclusion] Abstract and Conclusion: the claim that the 3D-TI results support integration into next-generation systems to enhance procedural safety rests on simulator data from non-expert participants and provides no direct evidence or discussion of translation to expert clinicians, real patient anatomy, or time-pressured clinical conditions.

Authors: We agree the language should be moderated. We will revise the abstract and conclusion to emphasize the simulator-based, non-expert nature of the study, add a limitations paragraph on translation gaps, and frame the integration statement as a direction for future work rather than a direct claim supported by this data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical user study reports measured performance with no derivations or fitted parameters

full rationale

The paper is a controlled user study (36 participants, standardized navigation tasks) that directly measures position/orientation errors, completion time, and NASA-TLX scores across three interface conditions. No equations, parameter estimation, uniqueness theorems, or derivation chain appear in the abstract or described methods; the central claim rests on observed statistical differences rather than any reduction to prior inputs by construction. This is the expected non-finding for a pure empirical evaluation paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the chosen navigation tasks and performance metrics are valid proxies for clinical TEE performance; no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities are introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5853 in / 1213 out tokens · 26868 ms · 2026-06-26T16:54:48.270496+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

5 extracted references

[1]

Transesophageal echocardiographic screening for structural heart interventions,

R. Ro, D. Bamira, S. Bernard, A. Vainrib, H. Ibrahim, C. Staniloae, M. R. Williams, and M. Saric, “Transesophageal echocardiographic screening for structural heart interventions,” Current Cardiology Re- ports, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 97-107, 2023

2023
[2]

Rec: ommended standards for the performance of transesophageal echocar- diographic screening for structural heart intervention: from the ameri- can society of echocardiography,

R. T. Hahn, M. Saric, F. F. Faletra, R. Garg, L. D. Gillam, K. Horton, O. K. Khalique, S. H. Little, G. B. Mackensen, J. Oh et al., “Rec: ommended standards for the performance of transesophageal echocar- diographic screening for structural heart intervention: from the ameri- can society of echocardiography,” Journal of the American Society of Echocardiog...

2022
[3]

Complications of transesophageal echocardiography: a review of injuries, risk factors, and management,

K. M. Patel, R. G. Desai, K. Trivedi, P. J. Neuburger, S. Krishnan, and C. P. Potestio, “Complications of transesophageal echocardiography: a review of injuries, risk factors, and management,” Journal of Cardio- thoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 3292-3302, 2022

2022
[4]

G. W. Stone, J. Lindenfeld, W. T. Abraham, S. Kar, D. S. Lim, J. M. Mishell, B. Whisenant, P. A. Grayburn, M. Rinaldi, S. R. Kapadia er al., “Transcatheter mitral-valve repair in patients with heart failure,’ New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 379, no. 24, pp. 2307-2318, 2018

2018
[5]

Evaluating the role of trans- esophageal echocardiography (tee) or intracardiac echocardiography (ice) in left atrial appendage occlusion: a meta-analysis,

K. Akella, G. Murtaza, M. Turagam, S. Sharma, B. Madoukh, A. Amin, R. Gopinathannair, and D. Lakkireddy, “Evaluating the role of trans- esophageal echocardiography (tee) or intracardiac echocardiography (ice) in left atrial appendage occlusion: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, vol. 60, pp. 41-48, 2021. (6] (7] [8] [9]...

2021

[1] [1]

Transesophageal echocardiographic screening for structural heart interventions,

R. Ro, D. Bamira, S. Bernard, A. Vainrib, H. Ibrahim, C. Staniloae, M. R. Williams, and M. Saric, “Transesophageal echocardiographic screening for structural heart interventions,” Current Cardiology Re- ports, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 97-107, 2023

2023

[2] [2]

Rec: ommended standards for the performance of transesophageal echocar- diographic screening for structural heart intervention: from the ameri- can society of echocardiography,

R. T. Hahn, M. Saric, F. F. Faletra, R. Garg, L. D. Gillam, K. Horton, O. K. Khalique, S. H. Little, G. B. Mackensen, J. Oh et al., “Rec: ommended standards for the performance of transesophageal echocar- diographic screening for structural heart intervention: from the ameri- can society of echocardiography,” Journal of the American Society of Echocardiog...

2022

[3] [3]

Complications of transesophageal echocardiography: a review of injuries, risk factors, and management,

K. M. Patel, R. G. Desai, K. Trivedi, P. J. Neuburger, S. Krishnan, and C. P. Potestio, “Complications of transesophageal echocardiography: a review of injuries, risk factors, and management,” Journal of Cardio- thoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 3292-3302, 2022

2022

[4] [4]

G. W. Stone, J. Lindenfeld, W. T. Abraham, S. Kar, D. S. Lim, J. M. Mishell, B. Whisenant, P. A. Grayburn, M. Rinaldi, S. R. Kapadia er al., “Transcatheter mitral-valve repair in patients with heart failure,’ New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 379, no. 24, pp. 2307-2318, 2018

2018

[5] [5]

Evaluating the role of trans- esophageal echocardiography (tee) or intracardiac echocardiography (ice) in left atrial appendage occlusion: a meta-analysis,

K. Akella, G. Murtaza, M. Turagam, S. Sharma, B. Madoukh, A. Amin, R. Gopinathannair, and D. Lakkireddy, “Evaluating the role of trans- esophageal echocardiography (tee) or intracardiac echocardiography (ice) in left atrial appendage occlusion: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, vol. 60, pp. 41-48, 2021. (6] (7] [8] [9]...

2021