A Unified Interaction Control Framework for Safe Robotic Ultrasound Scanning with Human-Intention-Aware Compliance

Chen Chen; Gao Huang; Mingrui Yu; Senqiang Zhu; Shaqi Luo; Shiji Song; Xiangjie Yan; Xiang Li; Yongpeng Jiang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

A Unified Interaction Control Framework for Safe Robotic Ultrasound Scanning with Human-Intention-Aware Compliance

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single hierarchical compliance controller can distinguish human-intended guidance from accidental collision during robotic ultrasound scanning, following the doctor when intended and yielding in the robot's null space when not, all…

desk verdict A practically useful unified interaction framework for robotic ultrasound scanning; the real gap is that the theoretical passivity guarantee is borrowed from prior work and not actually proven for the implemented controller. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19545 v1 pith:GX52F5VF submitted 2024-11-29 cs.RO

Xiangjie Yan , Shaqi Luo , Yongpeng Jiang , Mingrui Yu , Chen Chen , Senqiang Zhu , Gao Huang , Shiji Song

show 1 more author

Xiang Li

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords roboticultrasoundscanninghuman-robotinteractionhierarchicalcompliancecontrolnull-spacepassivitysmoothmodetransitionhuman-intention-awareredundantmanipulator

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that one control law can handle every common physical interaction that arises while a robot performs an ultrasound scan, telling touches a doctor intends apart from bumps that are accidental and responding differently to each. If true, a robotic scanner can keep working safely when a doctor grabs the probe to guide it, and can also yield to accidental body collisions without breaking the ongoing scan, all without hard switching between separate controllers. The authors validate the claim in real carotid artery scanning experiments where the same unified controller moved smoothly through waiting, recovery, scanning, human-guiding, avoiding, and contacting modes. The central promise is that human-intention-aware compliance can be encoded in a single continuous controller rather than in a bank of switched modes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-level hierarchical compliance controller written in dynamically decoupled task coordinates, $v_1=\bar J_1\dot q$ and $v_2=\bar J_2\dot q$, where $\bar J_1=J_1$ and the null-space part is built from the dynamically consistent inverse so that the two task levels are inertially decoupled. This decoupling is what lets the secondary task, chosen here as a scalar elbow configuration, absorb collisions without exerting torque on the 6-DOF probe pose task. Five perception-based weighting factors $a_h,a_p,a_f,a_n,a_b\in[0,1]$ smooth all mode changes through $b(s)=1/(1+s^6)$; they continuously scale the stiffnesses $K_1=(1-a_h)(1-a_f)(1-a_p)K_{1g}$ and $K_2=(1-a_h)(1-a_n)K_{2g}$, turning one controller into human-guiding, avoiding, contacting, scanning, waiting, and recovery behaviors. The passivity argument that underwrites smoothness and safety is inherited, the paper argues, from the energy-tank construction of [31].

What would settle it

Instrument the robot with the energy tank of the cited passivity theorem and log the tank state while forcing the most abrupt transitions, such as grasp release, collision onset, and recovery re-contact. The claimed passivity is falsified if the tank energy ever goes below zero or if the measured passivity inequality $\int_0^T \tau_e^\top\dot q\,dt \ge -E_0$ is violated during any of those transitions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that intended and unintended human-robot interactions during ultrasound scanning can be folded into one hierarchical compliance controller whose task-space stiffness is modulated by five continuous perception-based weighting factors $a_h$, $a_p$, $a_f$, $a_n$, $a_b$ instead of by mode switching. When the probe is grasped ($a_h\approx 1$), both task levels relax and the robot follows the human; when an accidental collision is near or actually happening in the null space ($a_b$ or $a_n$ active), only the secondary-task stiffness $K_2=(1-a_h)(1-a_n)K_{2g}$ is reduced, so the redundant joints yield while the end-effector pose error and patient contact force stay nearly unchanged. Smooth weighting functions $b(s)=1/(1+s^6)$ interpolate the desired values and stiffnesses across all six working modes, and the paper argues that passivity carries over from the energy-tank construction of [31], giving the unified controller a theoretical safety guarantee.

Load-bearing premise

The safety guarantee depends on the paper's time-varying stiffness schedule satisfying the energy-tank passivity conditions of the cited theorem, but the paper states this follows 'similarly' without checking the conditions or supplying the proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A doctor can interrupt an autonomous ultrasound scan at any moment simply by grasping the probe, and the robot will follow instead of resisting.
Accidental contacts with the robot's body during a scan are absorbed in the redundant joints, so the ultrasound image and the patient contact force remain essentially undisturbed.
Continuous weighting factors replace hard switching, which is what avoids the jerky and potentially unstable behavior of switched controllers.
Because the design is passivity-based, the same controller could be moved to other torque-controlled redundant robots without reworking the safety argument.
The same weighting-factor structure can be driven by other perception sources, such as learned intention classifiers, instead of the fixed thresholds used in this implementation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same smooth-transition weighting scheme could generalize beyond ultrasound to other cooperative manipulation settings where one task must stay strictly prioritized, such as assistive dressing or surgical assistance.
The theoretical safety claim is only as strong as the unproved 'similarly' step in the passivity section, so an adopter should ask for the explicit energy-tank condition check before relying on it in clinical use.
Because the mode decision logic is threshold-based and serialized in the algorithm, a simultaneous intended grasp and unintended body contact would require either a richer fusion rule or a defined priority.
A larger quantitative user study measuring interaction forces in each mode could turn the demonstrated feasibility into a concrete safety specification for regulators.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. The genuinely new thing is the integration: they take the known hierarchical compliance controller from Ott/Dietrich/Michel and add perception-driven smooth weighting factors so that human-guiding, null-space avoidance, and post-collision null-space compliance all live in one controller with continuous transitions. Prior ultrasound work mostly handled single interaction types or hard-switched. That integration is real engineering work, and the experiments show it functioning on a 7-DOF arm during a carotid scan: the modes activate in the right situations, main-task tracking error stays small, and contact force stays around 10 N. Credit where due: the system is built and it works on the demonstrated scenarios.

The soft spot is the one the stress test flags. Section IV-C says passivity 'can be proven similarly' to Michel, Ott, and Lee [31], but it is not proven, and three specific things need checking. The stiffness schedule b(s)=1/(1+s^6) is only stated to be continuous; that doesn't imply it meets the tank conditions on how fast stiffness can change. The critical-damping law dij=2*sqrt(kij) with time-varying kij is known to generally violate passivity without additional tank energy or a modified D(t). And the mode transitions include reference jumps: x1d(t)=x1(t) when grasping, and x2d increments by ab*Delta in avoiding mode. Step changes in xd can inject energy; the tank argument in [31] doesn't obviously cover that. So the theoretical safety guarantee for the actual controller is open. That's a load-bearing gap for a paper whose headline property is 'smooth transitions with a theoretical safety guarantee.'

Other issues are minor by comparison: thresholds and scaling parameters aren't disclosed (rh, rb, rp, f0, tau0, Delta, etc.), so reproduction would require guesswork. The user study is 9 male volunteers – small and homogeneous, but secondary. 'All common interactions' is broader than what's demonstrated, though the three main modes are covered. No baseline comparison against hard switching or a single-mode controller, so the benefit over the alternative is asserted rather than measured.

The citation pattern is clean. The central stability result is delegated to [31], which is not their own work, and the only self-citation [33] is for a peripheral trajectory generator. No circularity problem.

Who is this for? Robotics researchers working on physical human-robot interaction, especially medical robotics. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should demand either a real passivity proof for the implemented time-varying schedule and reference jumps, or a clearly scoped stability claim (e.g., 'practically stable on demonstrated scenarios') instead of borrowing the theorem. I'd accept it for review with that expectation, and I'd want to see the parameters disclosed.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified interaction control framework for robotic ultrasound scanning, targeting physical human-robot interactions that are either intended (e.g., a doctor grasping the probe to guide it) or unintended (e.g., accidental collision with the robot body). The framework defines six working modes: Human-Guiding, Avoiding, Contacting, Scanning, Waiting, and Recovery. These modes are not switched discontinuously; instead, five weighting factors built from a smooth basis function b(s)=1/(1+s^6) modulate the stiffness of a hierarchical compliance controller. The main task (end-effector pose) and a secondary null-space task (joint 1 angle) are decoupled through dynamically consistent projections, and the controller is stated to remain passive across mode transitions. Real-world experiments on a 7-DOF Franka Panda with an ultrasound probe demonstrate the intended behaviors: smooth responses to human grasping, patient motion, avoidance of potential collisions, and compliant reaction to null-space contact, with a user study on nine volunteers. The central safety claim is that the unified controller with smooth transitions is passive, and the passivity proof is delegated to a previous energy-tank framework [31] rather than provided in the paper.

Significance. If the theoretical guarantee can be established, the paper addresses a genuine and important gap: existing robotic ultrasound systems typically handle a single interaction type or rely on hard switching, which jeopardizes safety in crowded clinical settings. The experimental results are a real strength: they show the modes activating as designed, the main-task tracking error remaining small, and the secondary-task modulation leaving the end-effector force and position largely unaffected during avoiding and contacting modes. The user study, although brief, adds credibility. The main weakness is that the published controller equations do not include an energy tank, and the passivity argument is asserted by reference to [31] without verifying the required conditions. Because passivity is the stated basis for the theoretical safety guarantee, this gap is load-bearing and needs to be closed before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section IV-C, Eq. (16)-(19)] The passivity guarantee is asserted, not demonstrated. The implemented controller in Eqs. (16)-(19) contains no energy tank, whereas reference [31], which is invoked, augments a hierarchical impedance controller with an energy tank specifically to preserve passivity under variable impedance and null-space projection. The paper states that passivity can be proven 'similarly' to [31], but does not prove it, nor does it state which theorem in [31] applies to the exact controller used here. Please either add the tank dynamics, prove passivity of the closed-loop system, and verify the tank energy bounds for the proposed K1(t), K2(t), and D(t); or explicitly narrow the safety claim to the experimentally demonstrated scenarios and remove the unconditional passivity statement.
[Section IV-B, after Eq. (27)] The damping assignment dij = 2*sqrt(kij) with time-varying kij is not by itself sufficient to guarantee passivity of a variable-impedance system. A purely algebraic critical-damping law generally requires an additional tank term or a modified damping matrix to compensate for the power injected by the time derivative of the stiffness, and no such modification appears in the controller. The smoothness of b(s)=1/(1+s^6) does not automatically imply satisfaction of the rate constraints needed by the energy-tank theorem in [31]. Please provide a proof, or a precise reference to a theorem whose hypotheses are verified for Eqs. (26)-(27).
[Table II and Section IV-B, Avoiding and Human-Guiding Modes] The desired task coordinates can jump during mode transitions, and the paper does not analyze the energy injected by such jumps. In Human-Guiding Mode, x1d(t) is set to the current pose x1(t); in Avoiding Mode, x2d is incremented by ab*Delta and later reset to the scanning value. These are not continuous reference trajectories, and the weighting factors smooth the stiffness but do not smooth the desired-coordinate steps. The passivity argument in [31] is not directly applicable to step changes in xd unless the energy tank absorbs the resulting power, which is not shown. This must be addressed because the safety claim depends on passivity across exactly these transitions.

minor comments (4)

[Section V-A, Fig. 5 caption] The phrase 'the probe was held by the doctor for maintainess' contains a typo; it should likely read 'for maintenance'.
[Section V-B, last paragraph] The user study is described only as 'satisfactory robustness' with no quantitative metrics, task-specific outcome measures, or exclusion criteria. A brief table or list of measured outcomes would make the claim more convincing.
[Section IV-B, Table II and Algorithm 1] The thresholds (aht, apt, aft, abt, ant) and scaling parameters (rh, rb, rp, f0, tau0, Delta) are free parameters, and the paper does not report how they were chosen or whether the experimental results are sensitive to them. A sentence on tuning and robustness would help reproducibility.
[Section III-B, Eq. (9)] The notation surrounding the definition of Z2 is slightly confusing: Eq. (9) defines Jbar2 in terms of Z2, and the following text then defines Z2 via the SVD of J1. Making the order of definitions explicit would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the passivity guarantee is delegated to the external energy-tank result [31], not to the authors' own prior work, and the only self-citation [33] supplies a peripheral trajectory generator.

full rationale

The central claimed derivation is the unified impedance controller with smooth mode transitions and its passivity-based safety guarantee. In Sec. IV-C the paper writes: 'In [31], the authors augmented the hierarchical impedance controller with the energy tank method and rigorously proved the passivity property with variable impedance parameters and null-space projection. In this paper, we designed a specific time-varying way of the impedance parameters, allowing passivity to be proven similarly.' This is an appeal to an external result by Michel, Ott, and Lee, not to a result imported from the present authors' own prior work. The claim that the particular schedules (26)-(27) satisfy the conditions of [31] is asserted rather than demonstrated, which is an unverified correctness and safety gap, not a circular reduction: the external theorem has independent content and does not include the target controller as an input. The only self-citation, [33], appears in Table II and Sec. IV-B as the source of the scanning trajectory generator for Scanning Mode ('x1d, x2d are given by the scanning trajectory generator in our previous work [33]'); this is a peripheral task-trajectory input, not the interaction-control or stability argument. The experimental validation consists of real-world carotid scanning trials reporting weighting factors, stiffness values, tracking errors, and contact forces, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. No step can be exhibited in which a claimed result is equivalent, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs; hence the appropriate finding is a low non-circularity score with the main caveat placed under correctness risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard hierarchical compliance control, an external passivity guarantee, a set of hand-tuned perception thresholds, and the assumption that the perception system correctly classifies intended versus unintended contact. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (9)

rh
Scaling distance from probe to hand in Eq. 22; determines human-guiding activation. Value not reported.
rb
Scaling distance from robot body to doctor body in Eq. 22; determines avoiding activation. Value not reported.
rp
Cylinder radius for neck region in Eq. 23; activates scanning proximity. Value not reported.
f0
Force threshold in Eq. 24 for contact maintenance factor af. Value not reported.
tau0
Null-space torque threshold in Eq. 25 for unintended contact factor an. Value not reported.
mode thresholds (aht, apt, aft, abt, ant)
User-defined thresholds in Algorithm 1 for mode switching. Values not reported.
Delta (secondary task step)
Fixed step length added to x2d in Avoiding Mode; sign and value not reported.
K1g, K2g
Maximum stiffness gains in Eqs. 26-27; values not reported.
b(s) exponent 6 = 6
Exponent in smooth transition function Eq. 21; chosen by hand.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Assumption 1: main and secondary tasks are independent and have no singularities (rank(J1)+rank(J2)=n).
Stated in Section III-A; required for the decoupled dynamics and the invertibility of the augmented Jacobian J-bar. Reasonable for the chosen 6D pose plus joint-1 configuration, but an assumption about the robot geometry.
domain assumption The energy-tank passivity theorem of [31] applies to the proposed time-varying impedance parameter schedule, guaranteeing passivity of the unified controller.
Section IV-C asserts passivity 'similarly' to [31] without verifying the required conditions (tank energy levels, projection operations, parameter variation bounds). This is load-bearing for the safety claim.
domain assumption The perception system (RGBD body tracking and F/T sensor) provides sufficiently accurate distances dh, db, dp and forces Efz, tau_n for reliable mode identification.
The mode decision logic in Section IV-B and Algorithm 1 assumes these signals are reliable; no accuracy analysis is provided.
domain assumption The scanning trajectory generator from the authors' prior work [33] produces valid reference trajectories.
Used for desired x1d and x2d in Scanning and Avoiding modes; treated as a black box.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Unified Interaction Control Framework for Safe Robotic Ultrasound Scanning with Human-Intention-Aware Compliance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GX52F5VF

@misc{pith2026241119545,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Unified Interaction Control Framework for Safe Robotic Ultrasound Scanning with Human-Intention-Aware Compliance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GX52F5VF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19545}
}

read the original abstract

The ultrasound scanning robot operates in environments where frequent human-robot interactions occur. Most existing control methods for ultrasound scanning address only one specific interaction situation or implement hard switches between controllers for different situations, which compromises both safety and efficiency. In this paper, we propose a unified interaction control framework for ultrasound scanning robots capable of handling all common interactions, distinguishing both human-intended and unintended types, and adapting with appropriate compliance. Specifically, the robot suspends or modulates its ongoing main task if the interaction is intended, e.g., when the doctor grasps the robot to lead the end effector actively. Furthermore, it can identify unintended interactions and avoid potential collision in the null space beforehand. Even if that collision has happened, it can become compliant with the collision in the null space and try to reduce its impact on the main task (where the scan is ongoing) kinematically and dynamically. The multiple situations are integrated into a unified controller with a smooth transition to deal with the interactions by exhibiting human-intention-aware compliance. Experimental results validate the framework's ability to cope with all common interactions including intended intervention and unintended collision in a collaborative carotid artery ultrasound scanning task.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19545 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The human-robot interactions considered in this work. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The structure of our proposed method, where multiple modes are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The experimental setup: (a) The hardware system consists of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Snapshots of experiment 1: (a) t = 11.5s. The probe was approaching the desired scanning area in the Recovery Mode; (b) t = 37s. The probe retreated while the patient tilted forward; (c) t = 55s. The probe was temporarily removed from the patient’s neck; (d) t = 68s. T…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Experiment 1 results, from top to bottom: the first three subfigures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Snapshots of experiment 2: (a) t = 2.5s. The robot was performing the scanning task. (b) t = 5.2s. The doctor wanted to put the coupling gel on the back of the robot. The robot detected the potential collision and entered Avoiding Mode. (c) t = 7.0s. The Avoiding Mode …

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Experiment 2 results, from top to bottom: the position error of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[31]

Safety-aware hierarchical passivity- based variable compliance control for redundant manipulators,

Y . Michel, C. Ott, and D. Lee, “Safety-aware hierarchical passivity- based variable compliance control for redundant manipulators,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3899–3916, 2022

2022
[33]

Multi-Modal Interaction Control of Ultrasound Scanning Robots with Safe Human Guidance and Contact Recovery

X. Yan, Y . Jiang, G. Wu, C. Chen, G. Huang, and X. Li, “Multi-modal interaction control of ultrasound scanning robots with safe human guidance and contact recovery,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05685 , 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[1]

Cardiac sonography training

hopkins medicine, “Cardiac sonography training.” Website, 2022. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heart_vascular_institute/education/ cardiac-sonography/

work page 2022
[2]

Towards mri-based autonomous robotic us acquisi- tions: a first feasibility study,

C. Hennersperger, B. Fuerst, S. Virga, O. Zettinig, B. Frisch, T. Neff, and N. Navab, “Towards mri-based autonomous robotic us acquisi- tions: a first feasibility study,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 538–548, 2016

work page 2016
[3]

Dual-robot ultrasound-guided needle placement: closing the planning-imaging-action loop,

R. Kojcev, B. Fuerst, O. Zettinig, J. Fotouhi, S. C. Lee, B. Frisch, R. Taylor, E. Sinibaldi, and N. Navab, “Dual-robot ultrasound-guided needle placement: closing the planning-imaging-action loop,” Interna- tional journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery , vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1173–1181, 2016

work page 2016
[4]

Confidence-driven control of an ultrasound probe,

P. Chatelain, A. Krupa, and N. Navab, “Confidence-driven control of an ultrasound probe,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1410–1424, 2017

2017
[5]

Cardiac Copilot: Automatic Probe Guidance for Echocardiography with World Model

H. Jiang, Z. Sun, N. Jia, M. Li, Y . Sun, S. Luo, S. Song, and G. Huang, “Cardiac copilot: Automatic probe guidance for echocardiography with world model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13165 , 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[6]

An overview of systems and techniques for autonomous robotic ultrasound acquisitions,

K. Li, Y . Xu, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “An overview of systems and techniques for autonomous robotic ultrasound acquisitions,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 510– 524, 2021

2021

Show all 35 references

[7]

Out-of-plane corrections for autonomous robotic breast ultrasound acquisitions,

M. K. Welleweerd, A. G. de Groot, V . Groenhuis, F. J. Siepel, and S. Stramigioli, “Out-of-plane corrections for autonomous robotic breast ultrasound acquisitions,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 12515–12521, IEEE, 2021

2021
[8]

Impedance control on arbitrary surfaces for ultrasound scanning using discrete differential geometry,

M. Dyck, A. Sachtler, J. Klodmann, and A. Albu-Schäffer, “Impedance control on arbitrary surfaces for ultrasound scanning using discrete differential geometry,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7738–7746, 2022

2022
[9]

Image- guided navigation of a robotic ultrasound probe for autonomous spinal sonography using a shadow-aware dual-agent framework,

K. Li, Y . Xu, J. Wang, D. Ni, L. Liu, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Image- guided navigation of a robotic ultrasound probe for autonomous spinal sonography using a shadow-aware dual-agent framework,”IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 130– 144, 2021

2021
[10]

Vesnet- rl: Simulation-based reinforcement learning for real-world us probe navigation,

Y . Bi, Z. Jiang, Y . Gao, T. Wendler, A. Karlas, and N. Navab, “Vesnet- rl: Simulation-based reinforcement learning for real-world us probe navigation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2022

2022
[11]

Ultrasound-guided assistive robots for scoliosis assess- ment with optimization-based control and variable impedance,

A. Duan, M. Victorova, J. Zhao, Y . Sun, Y . Zheng, and D. Navarro- Alarcon, “Ultrasound-guided assistive robots for scoliosis assess- ment with optimization-based control and variable impedance,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 8106–8113, 2022

2022
[12]

Au- tonomous ultrasound scanning using bayesian optimization and hybrid force control,

R. Goel, F. Abhimanyu, K. Patel, J. Galeotti, and H. Choset, “Au- tonomous ultrasound scanning using bayesian optimization and hybrid force control,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 8396–8402, IEEE, 2022

2022
[13]

Optimization-based variable impedance control of robotic manipula- tor for medical contact tasks,

J. Fu, I. Burzo, E. Iovene, J. Zhao, G. Ferrigno, and E. De Momi, “Optimization-based variable impedance control of robotic manipula- tor for medical contact tasks,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2024

2024
[14]

Co-robotic ultrasound imaging: A cooperative force con- trol approach,

R. Finocchi, F. Aalamifar, T. Y . Fang, R. H. Taylor, and E. M. Boctor, “Co-robotic ultrasound imaging: A cooperative force con- trol approach,” in Medical Imaging 2017: Image-Guided Procedures, Robotic Interventions, and Modeling , vol. 10135, pp. 270–280, SPIE, 2017

2017
[15]

Automatic force-compliant robotic ultrasound screening of abdominal aortic aneurysms,

S. Virga, O. Zettinig, M. Esposito, K. Pfister, B. Frisch, T. Neff, N. Navab, and C. Hennersperger, “Automatic force-compliant robotic ultrasound screening of abdominal aortic aneurysms,” in 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 5...

2016
[16]

Iec/tr 60601-4-1

ISO and IEC, “Iec/tr 60601-4-1.” https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iec:tr:60601:-4-1:ed-1:v1:en,
[17]

Autonomy in physical human-robot interaction: A brief survey,

M. Selvaggio, M. Cognetti, S. Nikolaidis, S. Ivaldi, and B. Siciliano, “Autonomy in physical human-robot interaction: A brief survey,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2021

2021
[18]

Implementation of an automatic scanning and detection algorithm for the carotid artery by an assisted-robotic measurement system,

R. Nakadate, J. Solis, A. Takanishi, E. Minagawa, M. Sugawara, and K. Niki, “Implementation of an automatic scanning and detection algorithm for the carotid artery by an assisted-robotic measurement system,” in 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and S...

2010
[19]

A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,

O. Khatib, “A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,” IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 43–53, 1987

1987
[20]

Oper- ational space control: A theoretical and empirical comparison,

J. Nakanishi, R. Cory, M. Mistry, J. Peters, and S. Schaal, “Oper- ational space control: A theoretical and empirical comparison,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 737– 757, 2008

2008
[21]

The hierarchical operational space formulation: Stability analysis for the regulation case,

A. Dietrich, C. Ott, and J. Park, “The hierarchical operational space formulation: Stability analysis for the regulation case,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1120–1127, 2018

2018
[22]

Resolving the problem of non-integrability of nullspace velocities for compliance control of redundant manipulators by using semi-definite lyapunov functions,

C. Ott, A. Kugi, and Y . Nakamura, “Resolving the problem of non-integrability of nullspace velocities for compliance control of redundant manipulators by using semi-definite lyapunov functions,” in 2008 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation , pp. 1999–2004,...

2008
[23]

Prioritized multi-task compliance control of redundant manipulators,

C. Ott, A. Dietrich, and A. Albu-Schäffer, “Prioritized multi-task compliance control of redundant manipulators,” Automatica, vol. 53, pp. 416–423, 2015

2015
[24]

Multi- priority control in redundant robotic systems,

H. Sadeghian, L. Villani, M. Keshmiri, and B. Siciliano, “Multi- priority control in redundant robotic systems,” in 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3752– 3757, IEEE, 2011

2011
[25]

Extended impedance control of redundant manipulators based on weighted decomposition of joint space,

Y . Oh, W. Chung, and Y . Youm, “Extended impedance control of redundant manipulators based on weighted decomposition of joint space,” Journal of Robotic Systems, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 231–258, 1998

1998
[26]

Task-space control of robot manipulators with null-space compliance,

H. Sadeghian, L. Villani, M. Keshmiri, and B. Siciliano, “Task-space control of robot manipulators with null-space compliance,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 493–506, 2013

2013
[27]

Passive interaction control with dynam- ical systems,

K. Kronander and A. Billard, “Passive interaction control with dynam- ical systems,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 106–113, 2015

2015
[28]

Unified passivity-based cartesian force/impedance control for rigid and flexible joint robots via task- energy tanks,

C. Schindlbeck and S. Haddadin, “Unified passivity-based cartesian force/impedance control for rigid and flexible joint robots via task- energy tanks,” in 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp. 440–447, IEEE, 2015

2015
[29]

A variable admittance control strategy for stable phys- ical human–robot interaction,

F. Ferraguti, C. Talignani Landi, L. Sabattini, M. Bonfè, C. Fantuzzi, and C. Secchi, “A variable admittance control strategy for stable phys- ical human–robot interaction,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 747–765, 2019

2019
[30]

Passive hierarchical impedance control via energy tanks,

A. Dietrich, X. Wu, K. Bussmann, C. Ott, A. Albu-Schäffer, and S. Stramigioli, “Passive hierarchical impedance control via energy tanks,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 522– 529, 2016

2016
[32]

An overview of null space projections for redundant, torque-controlled robots,

A. Dietrich, C. Ott, and A. Albu-Schäffer, “An overview of null space projections for redundant, torque-controlled robots,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 1385–1400, 2015

2015
[34]

Fully automatic three- dimensional ultrasound imaging based on conventional b-scan,

Q. Huang, B. Wu, J. Lan, and X. Li, “Fully automatic three- dimensional ultrasound imaging based on conventional b-scan,” IEEE transactions on biomedical circuits and systems , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 426–436, 2018

2018
[2017]

Accessed: 2024-01-08

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [31]

Safety-aware hierarchical passivity- based variable compliance control for redundant manipulators,

Y . Michel, C. Ott, and D. Lee, “Safety-aware hierarchical passivity- based variable compliance control for redundant manipulators,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3899–3916, 2022

2022

[2] [33]

Multi-Modal Interaction Control of Ultrasound Scanning Robots with Safe Human Guidance and Contact Recovery

X. Yan, Y . Jiang, G. Wu, C. Chen, G. Huang, and X. Li, “Multi-modal interaction control of ultrasound scanning robots with safe human guidance and contact recovery,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05685 , 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[3] [1]

Cardiac sonography training

hopkins medicine, “Cardiac sonography training.” Website, 2022. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heart_vascular_institute/education/ cardiac-sonography/

work page 2022

[4] [2]

Towards mri-based autonomous robotic us acquisi- tions: a first feasibility study,

C. Hennersperger, B. Fuerst, S. Virga, O. Zettinig, B. Frisch, T. Neff, and N. Navab, “Towards mri-based autonomous robotic us acquisi- tions: a first feasibility study,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 538–548, 2016

work page 2016

[5] [3]

Dual-robot ultrasound-guided needle placement: closing the planning-imaging-action loop,

R. Kojcev, B. Fuerst, O. Zettinig, J. Fotouhi, S. C. Lee, B. Frisch, R. Taylor, E. Sinibaldi, and N. Navab, “Dual-robot ultrasound-guided needle placement: closing the planning-imaging-action loop,” Interna- tional journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery , vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1173–1181, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [4]

Confidence-driven control of an ultrasound probe,

P. Chatelain, A. Krupa, and N. Navab, “Confidence-driven control of an ultrasound probe,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1410–1424, 2017

2017

[7] [5]

Cardiac Copilot: Automatic Probe Guidance for Echocardiography with World Model

H. Jiang, Z. Sun, N. Jia, M. Li, Y . Sun, S. Luo, S. Song, and G. Huang, “Cardiac copilot: Automatic probe guidance for echocardiography with world model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13165 , 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[8] [6]

An overview of systems and techniques for autonomous robotic ultrasound acquisitions,

K. Li, Y . Xu, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “An overview of systems and techniques for autonomous robotic ultrasound acquisitions,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 510– 524, 2021

2021