Immersive Human-in-the-Loop Control: Real-Time 3D Surface Meshing and Physics Simulation

Junaid Ahmad; Justin Valentine; Martin Jagersand; Sait Akturk

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Immersive Human-in-the-Loop Control: Real-Time 3D Surface Meshing and Physics Simulation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a local physics simulation of a reconstructed 3D mesh can replace the remote haptic force-feedback loop, giving teleoperators delay-free touch and vision.

desk verdict A credible integrated teleop prototype whose headline performance claim outruns the evidence: no operator study, and the haptic channel is a constant-force placeholder. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13752 v1 pith:LH4U3B6E submitted 2024-12-18 cs.RO

Sait Akturk , Justin Valentine , Junaid Ahmad , Martin Jagersand This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords TactiMeshteleoperatorinterfacepredictivehapticfeedbacksurfacereconstructionmonocularSLAMspacecarvingdigitaltwinGazebophysicssimulationvirtualrealityteleoperation

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 claims that teleoperation latency can be circumvented by moving haptic feedback out of the remote loop entirely. The TactiMesh Teleoperator Interface reconstructs the remote scene as an incremental 3D surface mesh using monocular SLAM and space carving, imports that mesh into the Gazebo physics simulator alongside a digital twin of the Barrett WAM arm, and computes contact forces locally as the operator moves the twin. Those locally computed forces are then delivered to the operator as haptic feedback, so the operator feels simulated contact immediately rather than waiting for the remote robot's force sensor to respond. A VR headset lets the operator choose a viewpoint inside the simulated scene independently of the arm-mounted camera. If the system behaves as described, teleoperation under high communication delay would feel immediate for both vision and touch, improving tasks such as search and rescue, inspection, and remote maintenance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the TactiMesh Teleoperator Interface (TTI), a pipeline that couples three components: incremental semi-dense monocular CARV surface reconstruction, a Gazebo physics world containing a digital twin of the Barrett WAM arm and the reconstructed surface mesh, and a VR headset whose head pose steers a virtual wide-angle camera. The mechanism that carries the argument is contact simulation in Gazebo's ODE engine: as the digital twin moves, collisions between the mesh and the twin produce contact normals and force values, and a custom model plugin converts those into haptic feedback at 250 FPS. Because the contact is computed locally, the feedback loop does not wait for the remote robot; the mesh's OBJ file (about 1.4 MB) is small enough to be updated as SLAM adds keyframes, and the textured mesh is streamed to the HMD over WebRTC at 30 FPS.

What would settle it

A controlled user study with an artificial communication delay added to the remote link: if operators using the local predictive haptic loop do not complete contact tasks faster or with fewer collisions than operators relying on direct remote force feedback, the central delay-elimination claim fails. Alternatively, measure the actual force at the WAM end effector during a contact task and compare it with the haptic command sent to the operator; if the two consistently diverge, the haptic display is not predictive of real forces.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own account, the central discovery is that a predictive physics-based twin can substitute for the remote haptic follower loop. The pipeline is: ORB-SLAM2 produces semi-dense points from a monocular camera; a semi-dense CARV method converts them into an incremental surface mesh; the mesh is exported as a compact OBJ file and loaded into Gazebo together with a digital twin of the WAM arm; the ODE physics engine detects contacts between the twin and the mesh and reports force/torque and friction values; and a custom Gazebo plugin feeds these values to the operator at 250 FPS. The paper reports that this configuration detects contact before physical collision using a 20 mm min depth parameter, and that the reconstructed mesh achieves 96.8% precision and 88.62% completeness on the EuRoC VR101 benchmark, with a 1.4 MB mesh file that loads into Gazebo in about 60 ms. The claimed result is that the operator receives haptic feedback whose timing depends on the local simulation, not on the network round trip to the follower robot.

Load-bearing premise

The operator's haptic sense is only as good as the simulated contact between the reconstructed surface mesh and the digital twin; the paper acknowledges in Section IV-C that it used constant force values rather than measured forces, so any mismatch between the reconstructed scene or ODE contact model and the real remote scene would make the predictive haptic feedback misleading.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Haptic feedback latency becomes independent of network round-trip time, since forces are computed in the local simulation and sent directly to the operator.
Operators can look around the remote scene from any viewpoint in the Gazebo world, decoupled from the fixed arm-mounted camera, which the paper argues improves spatial awareness and manipulation speed.
The surface mesh representation is lightweight enough (1.4 MB for a room-scale scene, 300-600 KB for a textured mesh) to update in real time without dense point-cloud bandwidth.
Compared with earlier CARV methods, the semi-dense approach improves precision and completeness while reducing vertex and face counts, making real-time meshing and simulation more tractable.
The architecture generalizes to any robot with a digital twin and any environment that can be reconstructed as a mesh, supporting search and rescue, inspection, and remote maintenance.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the authors use constant force values in the plugin rather than measured forces, the haptic signal is better understood as a contact event cue than as an accurate force display; a natural next step is to estimate forces from mesh geometry and joint torques.
The predictive haptic claim could be tested directly by inserting an artificial delay into the remote link and comparing operator performance with and without the local simulation loop.
If the reconstructed mesh misses objects or surfaces, the operator would feel nothing where a real obstacle exists; so the haptic safety guarantee is bounded by mesh completeness at the moment of contact.
The same local-twin architecture could be extended to render other contact-derived cues, such as vibration textures or proximity warnings, without changing the remote hardware.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Colleague,

The paper is a systems integration of incremental monocular space carving (from Lovi et al. and He et al.), a Gazebo digital twin with a WAM arm, and a VR headset with independent camera control. As a single pipeline it is new in the literature, and the engineering is mostly credible: the 250 Hz haptic plugin, the 60 ms mesh spawn, the WebRTC streaming at 30 FPS, and the EuRoC VR101 mesh numbers in Table I are concrete. The improvement in precision (96.8% vs 88.3%) and completeness (88.6% vs 77.2%) with far fewer faces than the prior group baselines is a real, if incremental, result. Credit for using an external benchmark and giving disk sizes and RTF numbers.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The central claim in the abstract—that predictive haptic and visual feedback improves manipulation speed—has no operator data behind it. No user study, no task completion times, no comparison against a baseline interface. The haptic channel itself is a constant-force collision flag, not a measured force: Section IV-C states they 'opted to use constant force values' because Gazebo force sensors were inaccurate. With a 20 mm min depth parameter, the operator gets a binary proximity cue before physical contact. That cannot support the 'eliminating any delays associated with the haptic follower robot' sentence in the conclusion. The stress-test note is right: the reconstruction results validate meshing, not the teleoperation benefit.

Minor but real: Table I has no error bars or repeated trials, and metric definitions are missing. Table II reports RTF values below 1.0, so 'real-time' for room-scale scenes means slower than wall-clock; the paper acknowledges RTF 1.00 is optimal, but then still claims real-time performance. The 'Ours' method is under-specified—the reader cannot tell exactly what differs from He et al. beyond 'line and plane data.' The related work mentions model-mediated teleoperation (Parti, Lovi predictive display) but does not compare against it. These are fixable with a revision.

Who is this for? Robotics teleoperation system builders, especially people working on predictive displays and physics-simulated haptics. As a systems architecture paper, it deserves a serious referee; the gaps are addressable but they are real. I would send it to review with the expectation of major revision: an operator study with a baseline, force validation, and a method description that isolates the new algorithmic contribution. Accepting the current version as-is would be a mistake.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents TactiMesh Teleoperator Interface (TTI), a teleoperation system that reconstructs a 3D surface mesh of a remote environment from a monocular RGB camera using ORB-SLAM2-based semi-dense CARV, integrates the mesh into a Gazebo physics simulation with a digital twin of a Barrett WAM arm, and provides predictive visual (VR via head-tracked camera) and haptic feedback based on simulated contacts. The authors compare their mesh reconstruction to two prior CARV methods on the EuRoC VR101 benchmark in terms of precision and completeness, and they report physics-simulator real-time factors for three methods. The central claims are that the system eliminates haptic delay and improves manipulation speed.

Significance. If validated, a predictive visual/haptic interface that lets an operator view the remote scene independently of the arm camera and receive immediate simulated contact feedback would be a useful contribution to teleoperation for search and rescue, inspection, and remote maintenance. The use of an external benchmark (EuRoC) and direct comparison to prior CARV methods are strengths. However, the significance as claimed is currently limited by the absence of operator-performance experiments and by the haptic signal simplifications; the manuscript does not yet support the delay-free haptic claim.

major comments (4)

[Section IV-C and Section V] The core claim that TTI 'eliminates any delays associated with the haptic follower robot' is not supported by the haptic implementation described. The authors state that they 'opted to use constant force values defined in the plugin' after Gazebo force sensors had 'occasional inaccuracies,' and that 'collision without contact' with a 20 mm min depth parameter triggers feedback before physical contact. With a constant force, the haptic channel communicates only that a collision was detected, not the magnitude or direction of the contact, and the 20 mm threshold makes it a proximity cue. No experiment measures the fidelity of this haptic signal against real contact forces or against the forces the operator would feel through the remote robot. This gap directly affects the central claim and needs either a force-validation study or a substantial revision of the claim.
[Table II] The real-time factor results contradict the real-time claim. The paper reports RTF with optimization of 0.29 (Lovi), 0.471 (He), and 0.52 (Ours), and defines RTF = 1.00 as optimal. Values below 1.00 mean the physics simulation runs slower than wall-clock time, so the simulated haptic and visual feedback is delayed relative to the operator's motion. The manuscript should report end-to-end latency from operator motion to displayed and haptic feedback, and it should demonstrate RTF >= 1 for the integrated system or explicitly qualify the 'real-time' and 'eliminating delays' claims.
[Table I] The precision and completeness comparison is reported as single numbers with no error bars, number of trials, or metric definitions. Because the two baselines (Lovi et al. and He et al.) come from the same research group and the 'Ours' algorithm is not fully specified (e.g., the 50-keyframe neighborhood and mesh simplification steps), the reader cannot determine whether the 96.8% and 88.62% results are statistically meaningful. The authors should define precision and completeness, report variance over repeated runs or dataset sequences, and specify the exact mesh generation parameters.
[Abstract and Section V] The claimed benefit that the predictive display 'improves manipulation speed' is not tested. No human-in-the-loop experiment measures task completion time, success rate, or operator workload for TTI against a baseline without predictive haptics (e.g., direct video or delayed force feedback). Without such data, the abstract's statement that the system 'significantly improves tele-operation' is an assertion rather than a result.

minor comments (6)

[Section V] The sentence in the conclusion contains a duplicated comma: 'operator's motions,,' should be 'operator's motions.'
[Abstract] There is a missing space in 'SLAM)in'; it should read 'SLAM) in tandem.'
[Figure 2 caption] The phrase 'WAM arm robot arm' is redundant; it should be 'WAM robot arm' or 'WAM arm.'
[Section IV-A] The fixed parameter of 50 neighboring keyframes for semi-dense point generation is stated without sensitivity analysis; a brief discussion of how this parameter affects precision, completeness, and runtime would strengthen the comparison.
[Section IV-C] The statement that Gazebo force sensors had 'occasional inaccuracies' is vague; specifying the observed failure mode or citing a known issue would help the reader assess the decision to use constant force values.
[Reference [35]] Reference [35] is listed as 'Gazebo documentation index' with no URL; a complete citation with a link or DOI should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the quantitative mesh comparison is grounded in an external benchmark, and the haptic constant-force choice is a stated limitation rather than a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are a real-time surface mesh via semi-dense monocular CARV, predictive visual/haptic feedback via a Gazebo digital twin, and improved teleoperation. The only quantitative result with a derivation-like structure is Table I, where the proposed reconstruction is compared against Lovi et al. [10] and He et al. [19] on the external EuRoC MAV Vicon Room 101 benchmark, using precision, completeness, vertex count, and face count. Nothing in the paper shows those metrics being fitted or defined in terms of the headline result; the method description ('The semi-dense module significantly enhances precision by incorporating line and plane data, effectively eliminating outlier points and simplifying the surface mesh') is a stated algorithmic choice, not an equation equating input and output. The haptic module in Section IV-C says 'we opted to use constant force values defined in the plugin to ensure consistent haptic feedback,' which is presented as a workaround for inaccurate Gazebo force sensors rather than as a model-derived prediction of contact force; this limits force fidelity but is not a circular step. The self-citations to Lovi et al. and He et al. are prior same-lab work, but they are not used to forbid alternatives or to import a uniqueness theorem; they provide the reconstruction baseline and the predictive-display concept. No equation, fitted parameter, or definition reduces any claimed result to its own input. Consequently, no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, forces, particles, or dimensions. Its contributions are an integration of existing components: ORB-SLAM2, CARV-based mesh reconstruction, a Gazebo digital twin, and VR streaming. The ledger instead captures the hand-set parameters and untested modeling assumptions on which the predictive haptic claim depends.

free parameters (3)

Number of neighboring keyframes for semi-dense points = 50
Section III-A states semi-dense points are created based on neighboring 50 keyframes, a hand-set parameter that directly affects mesh density, speed, and precision-completeness results.
Contact min depth parameter for haptic feedback = 20 mm
Section IV-C says contact is computed before 20 mm of physical contact using the min depth parameter, which sets how early the operator feels simulated contact.
Constant force values in the haptic plugin = unspecified
Section IV-C says Gazebo force sensors were replaced with constant force values defined in the plugin, so the haptic feedback magnitude is an arbitrary constant rather than a measured force.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Monocular ORB-SLAM2 pose estimates are accurate enough for space carving and mesh updates.
Section III-A relies on ORB-SLAM2 for camera pose and sparse points, but the paper does not report pose accuracy on the scenes used for haptic interaction.
domain assumption Gazebo ODE contact simulation with the reconstructed mesh approximates real contact forces well enough for haptic feedback.
Section III-C and IV-C use contact normals and force/torque from the ODE engine, but the authors chose constant force values instead of measured forces, so fidelity to real contact is assumed.
domain assumption The semi-dense monocular surface mesh is complete and accurate enough for collision detection and haptic rendering.
Table I shows precision and completeness on the EuRoC room, but the tabletop haptic scenario is not independently evaluated for geometric accuracy against the real scene.
domain assumption Haptic feedback can be delivered meaningfully through the WAM arm at 250 Hz.
Section IV-C reports the custom plugin supplies haptic feedback at 250 frames per second, but no measurement of operator perception or force fidelity is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Immersive Human-in-the-Loop Control: Real-Time 3D Surface Meshing and Physics Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LH4U3B6E

@misc{pith2026241213752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Immersive Human-in-the-Loop Control: Real-Time 3D Surface Meshing and Physics Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LH4U3B6E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13752}
}

read the original abstract

This paper introduces the TactiMesh Teleoperator Interface (TTI), a novel predictive visual and haptic system designed explicitly for human-in-the-loop robot control using a head-mounted display (HMD). By employing simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM)in tandem with a space carving method (CARV), TTI creates a real time 3D surface mesh of remote environments from an RGB camera mounted on a Barrett WAM arm. The generated mesh is integrated into a physics simulator, featuring a digital twin of the WAM robot arm to create a virtual environment. In this virtual environment, TTI provides haptic feedback directly in response to the operator's movements, eliminating the problem with delayed response from the haptic follower robot. Furthermore, texturing the 3D mesh with keyframes from SLAM allows the operator to control the viewpoint of their Head Mounted Display (HMD) independently of the arm-mounted robot camera, giving a better visual immersion and improving manipulation speed. Incorporating predictive visual and haptic feedback significantly improves teleoperation in applications such as search and rescue, inspection, and remote maintenance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13752 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Our real-time physics simulation-based immersive virtual world system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Monocular surface mesh reconstruction using semi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Incremental surface mesh being updated in physics simulator in EuRoC MAV Dataset Vicon Room 101( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Top : The contact between the surface mesh and the WAM digital twin robot was calculated for haptic feedback before 20 mm of the physical contact using min depth parameter. Bottom : Haptic feedback to WAM arm robot arm by surface collision mesh from physics simulator (…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Predictive texture and surface mesh on immersive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

Stanczyk and M

B. Stanczyk and M. Buss. Development of a telerobotic system for exploration of hazardous environments. In 2004 IEEE/RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566) , volume 3, pages 2532–2537 vol.3, 2004

work page 2004
[2]

Roennau, G

A. Roennau, G. Liebel, T. Schamm, T. Kerscher, and R. Dillmann. Robust 3d scan segmentation for teleoperation tasks in areas contam- inated by radiation. In 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pages 2419–2424, 2010

work page 2010
[3]

Shaw, and Kris Hauser

Zhi Li, Peter Moran, Qingyuan Dong, Ryan J. Shaw, and Kris Hauser. Development of a tele-nursing mobile manipulator for remote care- giving in quarantine areas. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 3581–3586, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

Gosselin, C

F. Gosselin, C. Bidard, and J. Brisset. Design of a high fidelity haptic device for telesurgery. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages 205–210, 2005

work page 2005
[5]

Control of haptic master – slave robot system for minimally invasive surgery (mis)

J S Oh, W K Shin, C H Uhm, S R Lee, Y M Han, and S B Choi. Control of haptic master – slave robot system for minimally invasive surgery (mis). Journal of Physics: Conference Series , 412(1):012041, feb 2013

work page 2013
[6]

Intuitive hri approach with reliable and resilient wireless communication for rescue robots and first responders

Raimund Edlinger, Michael Anschober, Roman Froschauer, and An- dreas N ¨uchter. Intuitive hri approach with reliable and resilient wireless communication for rescue robots and first responders. In 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pages 75–82, 2022

work page 2022
[7]

Tsagarakis, and Sven Behnke

Tobias Klamt, Diego Rodriguez, Lorenzo Baccelliere, Xi Chen, Domenico Chiaradia, Torben Cichon, Massimiliano Gabardi, Paolo Guria, Karl Holmquist, Malgorzata Kamedula, Hakan Karaoguz, Navvab Kashiri, Arturo Laurenzi, Christian Lenz, Daniele Leonardis, Enrico Mingo Hoffman, Luca Muratore, Dmytro Pavlichenko, Francesco Porcini, Zeyu Ren, Fabian Schilling, M...

work page 2019
[8]

Chen, Ellen C

Jessie Y .C. Chen, Ellen C. Haas, and Michael J. Barnes. Human perfor- mance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 37:1231–1245, 2007

work page 2007

Show all 37 references

[9]

Jessie Yang

Shihan Lu, Meng Yuan Zhang, Tulga Ersal, and X. Jessie Yang. Workload management in teleoperation of unmanned ground vehicles: Effects of a delay compensation aid on human operators’ workload and teleoperation performance. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 3...

2019
[10]

Incremental free-space carving for real-time 3d recon- struction

David Lovi. Incremental free-space carving for real-time 3d recon- struction. 2011

2011
[11]

Predictive display for mobile manipulators in unknown environments using online vision-based monocular modeling and localization

David Lovi, Neil Birkbeck, Alejandro Hernandez Herdocia, Adam Rachmielowski, Martin J ¨agersand, and Dana Cobzas ¸. Predictive display for mobile manipulators in unknown environments using online vision-based monocular modeling and localization. In 2010 IEEE/RSJ International ...

2010
[12]

Vr based robot teleoperation interface for virtual tour

Yeon Taek Oh, Ramviyas Parasuraman, and Byung-Cheol Min. Vr based robot teleoperation interface for virtual tour. 2018

2018
[13]

Robot teleoperation system based on mixed reality

Congyuan Liang, Chao Liu, Xiaofeng Liu, Long Cheng, and Chen- guang Yang. Robot teleoperation system based on mixed reality. In 2019 IEEE 4th International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Mechatronics (ICARM), pages 384–389, 2019

2019
[14]

Olaf K ¨ahler, Victor Adrian Prisacariu, Carl Yuheng Ren, Xin Sun, Philip H. S. Torr, and David William Murray. Very high frame rate volumetric integration of depth images on mobile devices. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 21:1241–1250, 2015

2015
[15]

Jin, Mingjie Wang, Wei Jiang, Lei Gao, and Liping Xiao

Xian-Feng Han, Jesse S. Jin, Mingjie Wang, Wei Jiang, Lei Gao, and Liping Xiao. A review of algorithms for filtering the 3d point cloud. Signal Process. Image Commun. , 57:103–112, 2017

2017
[16]

Immersive ros-integrated framework for robot teleoperation

Lorenzo Peppoloni, Filippo Brizzi, Carlo Alberto Avizzano, and Emanuele Ruffaldi. Immersive ros-integrated framework for robot teleoperation. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), pages 177–178, 2015

2015
[17]

A survey and benchmark of automatic surface reconstruction from point clouds, 2023

Raphael Sulzer, Loic Landrieu, Renaud Marlet, and Bruno Vallet. A survey and benchmark of automatic surface reconstruction from point clouds, 2023

2023
[18]

Surface reconstruction from point clouds: A survey and a benchmark, 2022

Zhangjin Huang, Yuxin Wen, Zihao Wang, Jinjuan Ren, and Kui Jia. Surface reconstruction from point clouds: A survey and a benchmark, 2022

2022
[19]

Incre- mental 3d line segment extraction from semi-dense slam

Shida He, Xuebin Qin, Zichen Zhang, and Martin Jagersand. Incre- mental 3d line segment extraction from semi-dense slam. In 2018 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) , pages 1658–1663, 2018

2018
[20]

Artificial intelligence for long-term robot autonomy: A survey

Lars Kunze, Nick Hawes, Tom Duckett, Marc Hanheide, and Tom ´a Krajn´ık. Artificial intelligence for long-term robot autonomy: A survey. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 3:4023–4030, 2018

2018
[21]

Lobe, and Eliot H

Jung Leng Foo, Marisol Martinez-Escobar, Bethany Juhnke, Keely M Cassidy, Kenneth Hisley, Thom E. Lobe, and Eliot H. Winer. Eval- uating mental workload of two-dimensional and three-dimensional visualization for anatomical structure localization. Journal of la- paroendoscopic ...

2013
[22]

Fusion4d: Real-time performance capture of challenging scenes

Mingsong Dou, Sameh Khamis, Yury Degtyarev, Philip Davidson, Sean Ryan Fanello, Adarsh Kowdle, Sergio Orts Escolano, Christoph Rhemann, David Kim, Jonathan Taylor, Pushmeet Kohli, Vladimir Tankovich, and Shahram Izadi. Fusion4d: Real-time performance capture of challenging sce...

2016
[23]

Hullin, Michael Wein- mann, and Reinhard Klein

Patrick Stotko, Stefan Krumpen, Matthias B. Hullin, Michael Wein- mann, and Reinhard Klein. Slamcast: Large-scale, real-time 3d recon- struction and streaming for immersive multi-client live telepresence. CoRR, abs/1805.03709, 2018

2018 arXiv
[24]

Long range teleoperation for fine manipulation tasks under time-delay network conditions

Jun Jin, Laura Petrich, Shida He, Masood Dehghan, and Martin J¨agersand. Long range teleoperation for fine manipulation tasks under time-delay network conditions. ArXiv, abs/1903.09189, 2019

1903 arXiv
[25]

Goldman, Matthias Nießner, and Justus Thies

Dejan Azinovic, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Dan B. Goldman, Matthias Nießner, and Justus Thies. Neural RGB-D surface reconstruction. CoRR, abs/2104.04532, 2021

2021 arXiv
[26]

R. Oboe. Web-interfaced, force-reflecting teleoperation systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , 48(6):1257–1265, 2001

2001
[27]

A VR system for immersive teleoperation and live exploration with a mobile robot

Patrick Stotko, Stefan Krumpen, Max Schwarz, Christian Lenz, Sven Behnke, Reinhard Klein, and Michael Weinmann. A VR system for immersive teleoperation and live exploration with a mobile robot. CoRR, abs/1908.02949, 2019

1908 arXiv
[28]

Real-time 3d unstructured environment reconstruction utilizing vr and kinect-based immersive teleoperation for agricultural field robots

Yi Chen, Baohua Zhang, Jun Zhou, and Kai Wang. Real-time 3d unstructured environment reconstruction utilizing vr and kinect-based immersive teleoperation for agricultural field robots. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , 175:105579, 2020

2020
[29]

Comparing robot grasping teleopera- tion across desktop and virtual reality with ros reality

David Whitney, Eric Rosen, Elizabeth Phillips, George Dimitri Konidaris, and Stefanie Tellex. Comparing robot grasping teleopera- tion across desktop and virtual reality with ros reality. In International Symposium of Robotics Research , 2017

2017
[30]

Evaluation of immersive teleoper- ation systems using standardized tasks and measurements

Boris Illing, Martin Westhoven, Bastian Gaspers, Nanja Smets, Bernd Br¨uggemann, and Tintu Mathew. Evaluation of immersive teleoper- ation systems using standardized tasks and measurements. In 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication...

2020
[31]

Joseph J. LaViola. A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environ- ments. SIGCHI Bull. , 32(1):47–56, jan 2000

2000
[32]

A review of physics simulators for robotic applications

Jack Collins, Shelvin Chand, Anthony Vanderkop, and David Howard. A review of physics simulators for robotic applications. IEEE Access, 9:51416–51431, 2021

2021
[33]

Real- time process-level digital twin for collaborative human-robot con- struction work

Xi Wang, Ci-Jyun Liang, Carol Menassa, and Vineet Kamat. Real- time process-level digital twin for collaborative human-robot con- struction work. In Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC) , pages 1528– 1535, Kitakyush...

2020
[34]

Parti-a haptic virtual reality control station for model-mediated robotic applications

Jean Elsner, Gerhard Reinerth, Luis Figueredo, Abdeldjallil Naceri, Ulrich Walter, and Sami Haddadin. Parti-a haptic virtual reality control station for model-mediated robotic applications. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3, 2022

2022
[35]

Gazebo documentation index
[36]

Tard ´os

Raul Mur-Artal and Juan D. Tard ´os. ORB-SLAM2: an open-source SLAM system for monocular, stereo and RGB-D cameras. CoRR, abs/1610.06475, 2016

2016 arXiv
[37]

The euroc micro aerial vehicle datasets

Michael Burri, Janosch Nikolic, Pascal Gohl, Thomas Schneider, Joern Rehder, Sammy Omari, Markus W Achtelik, and Roland Siegwart. The euroc micro aerial vehicle datasets. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2016

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Stanczyk and M

B. Stanczyk and M. Buss. Development of a telerobotic system for exploration of hazardous environments. In 2004 IEEE/RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566) , volume 3, pages 2532–2537 vol.3, 2004

work page 2004

[2] [2]

Roennau, G

A. Roennau, G. Liebel, T. Schamm, T. Kerscher, and R. Dillmann. Robust 3d scan segmentation for teleoperation tasks in areas contam- inated by radiation. In 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pages 2419–2424, 2010

work page 2010

[3] [3]

Shaw, and Kris Hauser

Zhi Li, Peter Moran, Qingyuan Dong, Ryan J. Shaw, and Kris Hauser. Development of a tele-nursing mobile manipulator for remote care- giving in quarantine areas. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 3581–3586, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Gosselin, C

F. Gosselin, C. Bidard, and J. Brisset. Design of a high fidelity haptic device for telesurgery. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages 205–210, 2005

work page 2005

[5] [5]

Control of haptic master – slave robot system for minimally invasive surgery (mis)

J S Oh, W K Shin, C H Uhm, S R Lee, Y M Han, and S B Choi. Control of haptic master – slave robot system for minimally invasive surgery (mis). Journal of Physics: Conference Series , 412(1):012041, feb 2013

work page 2013

[6] [6]

Intuitive hri approach with reliable and resilient wireless communication for rescue robots and first responders

Raimund Edlinger, Michael Anschober, Roman Froschauer, and An- dreas N ¨uchter. Intuitive hri approach with reliable and resilient wireless communication for rescue robots and first responders. In 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pages 75–82, 2022

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Tsagarakis, and Sven Behnke

Tobias Klamt, Diego Rodriguez, Lorenzo Baccelliere, Xi Chen, Domenico Chiaradia, Torben Cichon, Massimiliano Gabardi, Paolo Guria, Karl Holmquist, Malgorzata Kamedula, Hakan Karaoguz, Navvab Kashiri, Arturo Laurenzi, Christian Lenz, Daniele Leonardis, Enrico Mingo Hoffman, Luca Muratore, Dmytro Pavlichenko, Francesco Porcini, Zeyu Ren, Fabian Schilling, M...

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Chen, Ellen C

Jessie Y .C. Chen, Ellen C. Haas, and Michael J. Barnes. Human perfor- mance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 37:1231–1245, 2007

work page 2007