Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

LLMs Enable Context-Aware Augmented Reality in Surgical Navigation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A language-model voice interface for augmented-reality surgical navigation outperforms keyword speech commands on task time and cognitive workload, in simulation and in the operating room.

desk verdict A worthwhile feasibility study of an LLM-based surgical AR voice interface, but the comparative claim is confounded by unequal decision support between conditions. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16597 v2 pith:5NZ3CNRT submitted 2024-12-21 cs.HC

Hamraz Javaheri , Omid Ghamarnejad , Paul Lukowicz , Gregor Alexander Stavrou , Jakob Karolus This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords augmentedrealitysurgeryvoice-controlleduserinterfacelargelanguagemodelssurgicalnavigationcognitiveworkloadspeechcommandspancreaticcontext-awarefunctioncalling
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 argues that a voice-controlled interface for an augmented-reality surgical navigation system works better when a large language model, rather than fixed keyword commands, turns the surgeon's speech into system actions. In a simulated pancreatic-surgery study with nine experienced surgeons, the LLM interface produced significantly lower task completion times across all six tasks and a significantly lower overall cognitive workload score than a conventional speech-command interface, while usability ratings were high for both. Interviews with the surgeons and a two-case clinical deployment in real pancreatic surgeries supported the quantitative finding, with surgeons describing the natural phrasing as less stressful and better suited to time-critical decision moments. The point of the work is that context-aware function calling lets a small set of simple system functions be composed on the fly, which matters because surgical hands are occupied, the AR view must not be occluded, and every decision happens under time pressure.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the LLM-based VCUI's function-calling loop. A dynamic initial prompt is generated per patient, containing the patient-specific 3D model's inter-structure distance data, diagnosis, resection guidelines, the list of executable ARAS functions, and heuristic sentence-to-function examples; the prompt instructs the model to return only appropriate function calls. The paper's key safeguard is an auto-repeat mechanism that resends this initial prompt after every user utterance to prevent the model from drifting out of context, plus a reset function that terminates the chat and stores the user's correction as a new example, which is a concrete mitigation against LLM hallucination. This context-aware function calling is what lets one natural sentence invoke several visualization functions in parallel, and it is the mechanism that the study's task-time and cognitive-load advantages are attributed to.

What would settle it

Audit every LLM function call during the six study tasks against a surgeon-defined ground-truth answer for each task; if the LLM's action-level accuracy is at or below the speech-command baseline's recognition accuracy while task completion times remain faster, the claim that the advantage comes from correct context-aware calls would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that an LLM-based voice-controlled user interface (VCUI) is a feasible and measurably more efficient control modality for an AR-based surgical assistance system than keyword speech commands. In a within-subject simulated study with nine experienced surgeons, the LLM condition had significantly lower task completion time on all six surgically grounded tasks and a significantly lower total NASA-RTLX score, with significant reductions in mental demand, physical demand, and effort; SUS was rated 'excellent' for the LLM interface (87.78) and 'good' for speech commands (79.17), although that difference was not statistically significant. The authors also report qualitative agreement from post-study interviews and from a case study in which each interface was used during an actual pancreatic tumor resection. The explanation they offer is that the LLM decides which system functions to invoke from the context of a natural request and from patient-specific data, so the surgeon no longer has to translate a clinical judgement into a sequence of keywords.

Load-bearing premise

The measured time saving counts as a genuine advantage only if the LLM's function-call decisions are actually correct, but the paper reports no quantitative accuracy for those decisions, relying instead on a reset function and participants' verbal confirmation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In time-critical intraoperative moments, a surgeon can ask for structures relevant to the current decision in plain language, and the system composes the required visualization immediately instead of the surgeon issuing several keyword commands.
  • Because the LLM composes simple system functions on the fly, the ARAS function vocabulary can stay small; adding new clinical behaviours does not force an ever-growing list of unique spoken keywords.
  • The reset-and-remember interaction gives users a way to correct the LLM in situ, and the stored correction becomes an example in the regenerated prompt, so the system's behaviour can be adapted per patient or surgeon.
  • The reported qualitative data imply that a hybrid interface, speech commands for direct deterministic actions and an LLM for complex or time-pressed decisions, would preserve the transparency of keywords while keeping the flexibility of natural language.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same 'prompt with context and function list' pattern could transfer to other hands-busy, high-stress AR settings such as industrial maintenance or emergency response, provided the LLM's function calls are constrained to a small verified set.
  • A direct testable extension would be to measure the LLM's action-level accuracy against a surgeon-annotated ground truth for each task; high accuracy would confirm the TCT gain is real, while low accuracy would imply part of the saving comes from faster-but-wrong calls that users must catch and reset.
  • The paper describes but does not implement a hybrid interface; an experiment comparing keyword commands, LLM-only, and a switchable hybrid on task time and workload would quantify the trade-off between direct control and context-aware flexibility.
  • Because tasks 5 and 6 were deliberately not annotated in the system prompt, repeating them with paraphrased requests would test whether the LLM's success is robust to phrasing or depends on the particular sentence forms used in the study.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an LLM-based voice-controlled user interface (VCUI) for an augmented-reality surgical assistance system (ARAS) used in pancreatic surgery. The authors compare this interface against a conventional speech-command interface in a within-subject simulated study with nine experienced surgeons (six standardized tasks, NASA-RTLX, SUS, semi-structured interviews) and in two real pancreatic surgeries with post-operative interviews. Quantitative results show significantly lower task completion times for all six tasks and significantly lower NASA-RTLX total, mental demand, physical demand, and effort scores for the LLM condition; qualitative findings indicate a strong surgeon preference for the LLM-based interface. The central claim, stated in the Abstract, is that the LLM-based VCUI achieves significantly lower task completion time and cognitive workload compared to speech commands.

Significance. If the comparison were clean, this would be a valuable contribution as one of the few evaluations of LLM-based voice control in a surgical AR setting, with a rare real-surgery case study and mixed-methods data. The authors give credit for involving surgeons throughout the design process, reporting both simulated and intraoperative deployments, and acknowledging limitations such as the specific functionality scope. However, the significance is conditional on resolving the confounding between the voice modality and the additional decision-support capabilities provided only to the LLM arm. As presented, the headline comparative claim cannot be attributed specifically to the voice interface, and the inability to audit the initial prompt weakens the reproducibility of the result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2.2 vs. 4.2.1; Appendix A] The two experimental arms differ in two factors simultaneously: the input grammar (natural language versus fixed keywords) and the availability of a patient-specific prompt that provides the LLM with diagnosis, distance data, surgical guidelines, and sentence-result examples. The speech-command arm contains none of this information. Tasks 5 and 6 were explicitly designed to require clinical inference about which structures to visualize, and the significantly larger TCT benefit on these tasks (Section 5.5.1, t(8) = -4.34 and -4.16) is consistent with the advantage coming from the LLM's decision support and compound function calling rather than from the voice-control modality itself. The Abstract's claim of 'significantly lower task completion time and cognitive workload compared to speech commands' is therefore a system-level comparison, not a comparison of voice interaction methods. The authors should add an information-matched baseline (for example, a speech-command interface with pre-programmed macros for the compound tasks) or substantially reframe the claim and the research questions.
  2. [Section 4.2.2, 'no direct annotation to the study tasks (C5.1)'] This assertion cannot be audited because the actual initial prompt is not released. Moreover, Appendix A shows that the prompt includes a 'sentencesAndResultsExamples' list, one entry of which is the sentence 'Show me the infiltrated vessels' with the corresponding result being a set of function calls. This example is structurally identical to Task 5 (Tumor infiltration), in which participants had to enable the structures infiltrated by the tumor. The authors must either make the full initial prompt available or provide evidence that the examples were finalized before the study tasks were designed and that they do not overlap with the tasks. Without this, the statement that no bias was introduced cannot be independently verified.
  3. [Sections 5.5.1 and 7.1] The paper's central mechanism is context-aware function calling: the LLM infers which functions to invoke from natural language and patient-specific context. However, the paper reports no objective accuracy measure for these function-call decisions. The only success criterion is the participant's verbal confirmation that the visualized structures were correct (Section 5.3), and the reset function is described as a safeguard (Section 4.2.2). The narrative in Section 7.1 that the LLM 'correctly decided' in complex cases (e.g., P2's 'Can you show me what should be resected?') is illustrative but does not quantify correctness, resets, or unrecognized errors. Without per-query decision accuracy or at least reset counts, the measured TCT savings might include time spent recovering from incorrect actions, which would change the interpretation of the efficiency benefit. Please report these figures.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2.2] The reference to the JSON format appears as '??' in the text; please cite Appendix A explicitly.
  2. [Introduction] There is a typo: 'cogntitive' should be 'cognitive'.
  3. [Table 2] The table header contains stray spaces and typos ('V oice Keywords', 'F unctionality'), and one row appears to have misaligned content: 'Activates/Deactivates rendering of the associated structure' should specify which structure.
  4. [Section 6.2] The two surgeons who participated in the case study are first referred to as P1 and P2, but the quotes in Section 6.3 are attributed to S1 and S2. Please clarify whether these are the same participants and use consistent labels.
  5. [Figure 8 and Section 5.5.1] The word 'frustration' is misspelled as 'frustation' in the figure and surrounding text.
  6. [Section 5.5.1] Please report effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's d) for the TCT and NASA-RTLX comparisons to help readers assess practical significance. The multiple subscale tests are reported without any familywise-error correction; although the number of significant subscales exceeds what would be expected by chance, this should be acknowledged with effect sizes and corrected p-values or a note about the exploratory nature of the subscale analyses.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial evaluation circularity: the Appendix's prompt example supplies the Task 5 answer, making part of the reported LLM advantage built into the input; the broader comparison is confounded rather than fully circular.

  1. other [Section 4.2.2 (LLM prompt contents), Section 5.1 Task 5 description, Appendix A (Initial Prompt JSON Format)]
    "Section 4.2.2: "Apart from this reset function, no extra function or direct annotation to the study tasks (C5.1) was included in the initial prompt to avoid potential performance bias for the sake of the study." Appendix A example: { "sentence": "Show me the infiltrated vessels", "result": {"function_{yy}(variable_y1, variable_y2)", ...} }."

    Task 5 asks participants to 'only enable those structures that are infiltrated by the tumor.' Appendix A's sentencesAndResultsExamples, which Section 4.2.2 places inside the dynamically generated initial prompt, contains the near-identical utterance 'Show me the infiltrated vessels' together with the exact function-call result. The paper then presents the LLM's correct Task 5 behavior in Section 5.5.1 and Discussion as evidence of context-aware decision-making. To the degree that this example is present in the real prompt, the LLM's 'decision' is a few-shot lookup from the input, not an emergent inference, so the measured TCT/cognitive-load advantage on Task 5 is partly built into the setup.

full rationale

There is no equation-level derivation in this paper: the central claim is an empirical usability comparison, and most of the reported TCT and NASA-RTLX differences come from actual experimental runs. There is also no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. The main circularity-adjacent issue is that the LLM condition receives a patient-specific prompt containing surgical guidelines, distance data, and heuristic examples, while the speech-command baseline receives none of this; Section 4.2.2 explicitly states no direct task annotation was included, yet Appendix A shows an example ('Show me the infiltrated vessels') that is semantically identical to Task 5. Thus part of the LLM's apparent decision-making success may reduce to retrieving a supplied exemplar, and the headline comparison varies both input grammar and decision-support content at once. That is primarily an experimental confound, and only partially circularity; the remaining tasks, SUS results, and qualitative interviews provide additional—though still confounded—evidence, so the central claim is not wholly forced by the prompt.

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

The central result rests on a hand-authored LLM prompt (patient context, distances, guidelines, examples), a hand-set listening window, and a fixed 34-keyword baseline; these design choices are reported but not exhaustively specified, and they materially shape the measured TCT and workload differences. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • LLM listening window after 'Assistant' activation = 10 s in simulator; later reduced
    Hand-set from preliminary testing to capture full queries; directly affects TCT and perceived responsiveness.
  • Silence threshold for query end = 2 s in simulator; 1.5 s after refinement
    Determines when the transcribed query is sent to the LLM; contributes to system latency and task times.
  • Number of speech-command keywords = 34
    Selected in collaboration with surgeons; baseline performance depends on recall and recognition of this keyword set.
  • Sentence-result examples in the initial prompt = not fully specified (appendix shows two)
    Human-authored examples guide the LLM's function-call mapping; their wording influences task success and is not exhaustively reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Speech recognition on HoloLens 2 transcribes surgeons' English requests accurately enough for both interfaces
    The comparison depends on dictation quality; the authors report misrecognition issues in interviews (Section 5.5.2).
  • domain assumption GPT-3.5-turbo can reliably map natural-language queries to the ARAS function set given the initial prompt
    No per-query accuracy or error rate is reported; only a reset mechanism for wrong outputs (Section 4.2.2).
  • domain assumption The six simulator tasks represent realistic intraoperative visualization decisions
    Task order and content were advised by surgeons, but task success is confirmed verbally rather than scored (Section 5.3).
  • domain assumption Patient-specific model distances, diagnosis, and guidelines in the prompt are correct
    Errors in segmentation or distance computation would propagate to LLM function calls (Section 4.2.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLMs Enable Context-Aware Augmented Reality in Surgical Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5NZ3CNRT

@misc{pith2026241216597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLMs Enable Context-Aware Augmented Reality in Surgical Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5NZ3CNRT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16597}
}
read the original abstract

Wearable Augmented Reality (AR) technologies are gaining recognition for their potential to transform surgical navigation systems. As these technologies evolve, selecting the right interaction method to control the system becomes crucial. Our work introduces a voice-controlled user interface (VCUI) for surgical AR assistance systems (ARAS), designed for pancreatic surgery, that integrates Large Language Models (LLMs). Employing a mixed-method research approach, we assessed the usability of our LLM-based design in both simulated surgical tasks and during pancreatic surgeries, comparing its performance against conventional VCUI for surgical ARAS using speech commands. Our findings demonstrated the usability of our proposed LLM-based VCUI, yielding a significantly lower task completion time and cognitive workload compared to speech commands. Additionally, qualitative insights from interviews with surgeons aligned with the quantitative data, revealing a strong preference for the LLM-based VCUI. Surgeons emphasized its intuitiveness and highlighted the potential of LLM-based VCUI in expediting decision-making in surgical environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16597 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Chart showing different phases of our work from pre-design till the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The characteristics of in-situ visualization and supportive data visu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A top view of the surgical room setup. The placement of the medical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Anatomical drawing of 3D reconstructed segments in ARAS and their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of LLM-based VC framework. The system begins with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A captured image from the AR surgical assistance system using LLM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Task completion times for each task given the different VC methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Total NASA-RTLX score (left) and individual subscale scores (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Actual pancreatic surgery. The right picture shows a snippet from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How Much Does It Cost to Answer My Question? Benchmarking Cloud VLM-based VQA Systems

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Preprocessing effects on cloud VLM VQA vary strongly by model, API paradigm, and provider token accounting, so no single preprocessing strategy is universally best.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A comparison of input devices for precise interaction tasks in vr-based surgical planning and training

    Mareen Allgaier, Vuthea Chheang, Patrick Saalfeld, Vikram Apilla, To- bias Huber, Florentine Huettl, Belal Neyazi, I Erol Sandalcioglu, Christian Hansen, Bernhard Preim, et al. A comparison of input devices for precise interaction tasks in vr-based surgical planning and training. Computers in Biology and Medicine , 145:105429, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Determining what in- dividual sus scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale

    Aaron Bangor, Philip Kortum, and James Miller. Determining what in- dividual sus scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of usability studies , 4(3):114–123, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Qualitative HCI research: Going behind the scenes

    Ann Blandford, Dominic Furniss, and Stephann Makri. Qualitative HCI research: Going behind the scenes . Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Design guidelines for user interface for augmented reality

    Jakub Blokˇ sa. Design guidelines for user interface for augmented reality. Masaryk University , 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale.Usability evaluation in industry , 189(194):4–7, 1996

    John Brooke et al. Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale.Usability evaluation in industry , 189(194):4–7, 1996

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Local standards for sample size at chi

    Kelly Caine. Local standards for sample size at chi. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems , pages 981–992, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Support- ing interaction in augmented reality in the presence of uncertain spatial knowledge

    Enylton Machado Coelho, Blair MacIntyre, and Simon J Julier. Support- ing interaction in augmented reality in the presence of uncertain spatial knowledge. In Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology , pages 111–114, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Soft- ware framework for customized augmented reality headsets in medicine

    Fabrizio Cutolo, Benish Fida, Nadia Cattari, and Vincenzo Ferrari. Soft- ware framework for customized augmented reality headsets in medicine. IEEE Access, 8:706–720, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Augmented reality during parotid surgery: Real-life evaluation of voice control and user-experience

    A Dias, D M¨ annle, T Balkenhol, J¨ urgen Hesser, N Rotter, L Huber, O Hoff- mann, A Schell, B Kramer, A Lammert, et al. Augmented reality during parotid surgery: Real-life evaluation of voice control and user-experience. Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie, 100(S 02), 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Towards next-generation intelligent assistants leveraging llm tech- niques

    Xin Luna Dong, Seungwhan Moon, Yifan Ethan Xu, Kshitiz Malik, and Zhou Yu. Towards next-generation intelligent assistants leveraging llm tech- niques. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 5792–5793, 2023. 28

    2023

  3. [11]

    A systematic review of voice assistant usability: An iso 9241–11 approach

    Faruk Lawal Ibrahim Dutsinma, Debajyoti Pal, Suree Funilkul, and Jonathan H Chan. A systematic review of voice assistant usability: An iso 9241–11 approach. SN computer science , 3(4):267, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    The challenge of augmented reality in surgery

    PJ “ Eddie” Edwards, Manish Chand, Manuel Birlo, and Danail Stoyanov. The challenge of augmented reality in surgery. Digital Surgery, pages 121– 135, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Augmented reality in open surgery

    Benish Fida, Fabrizio Cutolo, Gregorio di Franco, Mauro Ferrari, and Vin- cenzo Ferrari. Augmented reality in open surgery. Updates in surgery , 70(3):389–400, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Truth-o-meter: Collaborating with llm in fighting its hallucinations

    Boris A Galitsky. Truth-o-meter: Collaborating with llm in fighting its hallucinations. Preprints, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Interaction in augmented reality: Challenges to enhance user experience

    Yahya Ghazwani and Shamus Smith. Interaction in augmented reality: Challenges to enhance user experience. In Proceedings of the 2020 4th International Conference on Virtual and Augmented Reality Simulations , pages 39–44, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Enhanced ai voice assistance using machine learning and nlp

    J Gowthamy, A Senthilselvi, Aniket Kumar, S Aakash, and Gandikota Sreedhar. Enhanced ai voice assistance using machine learning and nlp. In 2023 Third International Conference on Smart Technologies, Communica- tion and Robotics (STCR) , volume 1, pages 1–5. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years later

    Sandra G Hart. Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years later. In Pro- ceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting , vol- ume 50, pages 904–908. Sage publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Hand, foot or voice: Alterna- tive input modalities for touchless interaction in the medical domain

    Benjamin Hatscher and Christian Hansen. Hand, foot or voice: Alterna- tive input modalities for touchless interaction in the medical domain. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on multimodal in- teraction, pages 145–153, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    A taxonomy of interaction techniques for immersive augmented reality based on an iterative literature review

    Julia Hertel, Sukran Karaosmanoglu, Susanne Schmidt, Julia Br¨ aker, Mar- tin Semmann, and Frank Steinicke. A taxonomy of interaction techniques for immersive augmented reality based on an iterative literature review. In 2021 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Alexa, siri, cortana, and more: an introduction to voice assistants

    Matthew B Hoy. Alexa, siri, cortana, and more: an introduction to voice assistants. Medical reference services quarterly, 37(1):81–88, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Number of people required for usability evaluation: the 10 ±2 rule

    Wonil Hwang and Gavriel Salvendy. Number of people required for usability evaluation: the 10 ±2 rule. Communications of the ACM , 53(5):130–133, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    Multimodal fusion: ges- ture and speech input in augmented reality environment

    Ajune Wanis Ismail and Mohd Shahrizal Sunar. Multimodal fusion: ges- ture and speech input in augmented reality environment. In Computational 29 Intelligence in Information Systems: Proceedings of the Fourth INNS Sym- posia Series on Computational Intelligence in Information S...

    2014

  15. [23]

    Practical ap- plication of augmented/mixed reality technologies in surgery of abdominal cancer patients

    Vladimir M Ivanov, Anton M Krivtsov, Sergey V Strelkov, Anton Yu Smirnov, Roman Yu Shipov, Vladimir G Grebenkov, Valery N Rumyantsev, Igor S Gheleznyak, Dmitry A Surov, Michail S Korzhuk, et al. Practical ap- plication of augmented/mixed reality technologies in surgery of abdo...

    2022

  16. [24]

    A comparative study of interaction time and usability of using controllers and hand tracking in virtual reality train- ing

    Chaowanan Khundam, Varunyu Vorachart, Patibut Preeyawongsakul, Wit- thaya Hosap, and Fr´ ed´ eric No¨ el. A comparative study of interaction time and usability of using controllers and hand tracking in virtual reality train- ing. In Informatics, volume 8, page 60. MDPI, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    A usability study of multimodal input in an augmented reality environment

    Minkyung Lee, Mark Billinghurst, Woonhyuk Baek, Richard Green, and Woontack Woo. A usability study of multimodal input in an augmented reality environment. Virtual Reality, 17:293–305, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Hill: A hallucination identifier for large language models

    Florian Leiser, Sven Eckhardt, Valentin Leuthe, Merlin Knaeble, Alexan- der Maedche, Gerhard Schwabe, and Ali Sunyaev. Hill: A hallucination identifier for large language models. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages 1–13, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Augmented reality navigation method for recontouring surgery of craniofacial fibrous dysplasia

    Kai Liu, Yuan Gao, Ahmed Abdelrehem, Lei Zhang, Xi Chen, Le Xie, and Xudong Wang. Augmented reality navigation method for recontouring surgery of craniofacial fibrous dysplasia. Scientific Reports, 11(1):10043, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    A review on the applications of virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality in surgical simulation: an extension to different kinds of surgery

    Abel J Lungu, Wout Swinkels, Luc Claesen, Puxun Tu, Jan Egger, and Xiaojun Chen. A review on the applications of virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality in surgical simulation: an extension to different kinds of surgery. Expert review of medical devices , 18(1):47...

    2021

  21. [29]

    Llm-powered conversational voice assistants: Inter- action patterns, opportunities, challenges, and design guidelines

    Amama Mahmood, Junxiang Wang, Bingsheng Yao, Dakuo Wang, and Chien-Ming Huang. Llm-powered conversational voice assistants: Inter- action patterns, opportunities, challenges, and design guidelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13879, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Voice or gesture in the operating room

    Helena M Mentis, Kenton O’Hara, Gerardo Gonzalez, Abigail Sellen, Robert Corish, Antonio Criminisi, Rikin Trivedi, and Pierre Theodore. Voice or gesture in the operating room. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Sys...

    2015

  23. [31]

    Windowsspeechinputprovider class - mixed reality toolkit, 2020

    Microsoft. Windowsspeechinputprovider class - mixed reality toolkit, 2020. Accessed: April 2024

    2020

  24. [32]

    Microsoft hololens 2, 2023

    Microsoft. Microsoft hololens 2, 2023. Accessed on September 14, 2023. 30

    2023

  25. [33]

    Mixed reality toolkit, 2023

    Microsoft. Mixed reality toolkit, 2023. Accessed: April 2024

    2023

  26. [34]

    Unity 3d engine, 2023

    Microsoft. Unity 3d engine, 2023. Accessed on September 13, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Leveraging large language models (llm) for the plastic surgery resident training: do they have a role? Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery, 56(05):413–420, 2023

    Devi Prasad Mohapatra, Friji Meethale Thiruvoth, Satyaswarup Tripathy, Sheeja Rajan, Madhubari Vathulya, Palukuri Lakshmi, Veena K Singh, and Ansar Ul Haq. Leveraging large language models (llm) for the plastic surgery resident training: do they have a role? Indian Journal of ...

    2023

  28. [36]

    A review of multimodal interaction technique in augmented reality environment

    SS Muhammad Nizam, Rimaniza Zainal Abidin, Nurhazarifah Che Hashim, Meng Chun Lam, Haslina Arshad, and NAA Majid. A review of multimodal interaction technique in augmented reality environment. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol, 8(4-2):1460, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Through the hololens ™ looking glass: augmented reality for extremity reconstruction surgery using 3d vascular models with perforating vessels

    Philip Pratt, Matthew Ives, Graham Lawton, Jonathan Simmons, Nasko Radev, Liana Spyropoulou, and Dimitri Amiras. Through the hololens ™ looking glass: augmented reality for extremity reconstruction surgery using 3d vascular models with perforating vessels. European radiology e...

    2018

  30. [38]

    A review of augmented reality in robotic-assisted surgery

    Long Qian, Jie Ying Wu, Simon P DiMaio, Nassir Navab, and Peter Kazanzides. A review of augmented reality in robotic-assisted surgery. IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics , 2(1):1–16, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Intraoperative 3d hologram support with mixed reality techniques in liver surgery

    Yu Saito, Maki Sugimoto, Satoru Imura, Yuji Morine, Tetsuya Ikemoto, Shuichi Iwahashi, Shinichiro Yamada, and Mitsuo Shimada. Intraoperative 3d hologram support with mixed reality techniques in liver surgery. Annals of surgery, 271(1):e4–e7, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Augmented reality during parotid surgery: real-life evaluation of voice control of a head mounted display

    Claudia Scherl, David M¨ annle, Nicole Rotter, J¨ urgen Hesser, Jan Stal- lkamp, Tobias Balkenhol, Lena Huber, Benedikt Kramer, Anne Lammert, and Annette Affolter. Augmented reality during parotid surgery: real-life evaluation of voice control of a head mounted display. Europe...

    2023

  33. [41]

    Augmented reality with hololens ® in parotid tumor surgery: a prospec- tive feasibility study

    Claudia Scherl, Johanna Stratemeier, Nicole Rotter, J¨ urgen Hesser, Ste- fan O Sch¨ onberg, J´ erˆ ome J Servais, David M¨ annle, and Anne Lammert. Augmented reality with hololens ® in parotid tumor surgery: a prospec- tive feasibility study. ORL, 83(6):439–448, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Voice assistants and smart speakers in everyday life and in education

    George Terzopoulos and Maya Satratzemi. Voice assistants and smart speakers in everyday life and in education. Informatics in Education , 19(3):473–490, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    Innova- tions in surgical training: exploring the role of artificial intelligence and 31 large language models (llm)

    Julian Varas, Brandon Valencia Coronel, IGNACIO VILLAGR´ aN, Gabriel Escalona, Rocio Hernandez, Gregory Schuit, V ALENTINA DUR´ aN, An- tonia Lagos-Villaseca, Cristian Jarry, Andres Neyem, et al. Innova- tions in surgical training: exploring the role of artificial intelligence...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice

    Basil Varkey. Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice , 30(1):17–28, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Recent development of aug- mented reality in surgery: a review

    Petr V´ avra, Jan Roman, Pavel Zonˇ ca, Peter Ihn´ at, Martin Nˇ emec, Jayant Kumar, Nagy Habib, Ahmed El-Gendi, et al. Recent development of aug- mented reality in surgery: a review. Journal of healthcare engineering , 2017, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    Taber’s cyclopedic medical dictionary

    Donald Venes. Taber’s cyclopedic medical dictionary. F A Davis, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Vision- based hand-gesture applications

    Juan Pablo Wachs, Mathias K¨ olsch, Helman Stern, and Yael Edan. Vision- based hand-gesture applications. Communications of the ACM , 54(2):60– 71, 2011

    2011

  40. [48]

    Llm lies: Hallucinations are not bugs, but features as adversarial examples

    Jia-Yu Yao, Kun-Peng Ning, Zhen-Hui Liu, Mu-Nan Ning, and Li Yuan. Llm lies: Hallucinations are not bugs, but features as adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01469 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    d e s c r i p t i o n

    Zhen-yu Zhang, Wen-chao Duan, Ruo-kun Chen, Feng-jiang Zhang, Bin Yu, Yun-bo Zhan, Ke Li, Hai-biao Zhao, Tao Sun, Yu-chen Ji, et al. Pre- liminary application of mxed reality in neurosurgery: Development and evaluation of a new intraoperative procedure. Journal of Clinical Neu...

    2019

Pith tools

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