Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 61 references

TeleopLab: Accessible and Intuitive Teleoperation of a Robotic Manipulator for Remote Labs

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TeleopLab claims that a smartphone-based teleoperation interface lets students run real lab equipment remotely, with task completion times dropping by 46.1 percent as users gain practice.

desk verdict TeleopLab has a genuinely useful system and an overreaching abstract; the evaluation needs per-student data and softer claims, but it deserves a serious peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05547 v1 pith:ONZDVM4H submitted 2025-09-06 cs.RO cs.HC

Ziling Chen , Yeo Jung Yoon , Rolando Bautista-Montesano , Zhen Zhao , Ajay Mandlekar , John Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.HC
keywords teleoperationremotelaboratoriesSTEMeducationsmartphonecontrolroboticmanipulatortensiletestinguserstudyworkloadassessment
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 a student with nothing more than a smartphone can operate a real robotic manipulator and run a physical lab experiment remotely, and that this experience is usable enough to support hands-on STEM learning. It argues that phone-based teleoperation avoids the cost and training barriers of VR, haptic, and wearable interfaces while preserving real-world interaction that simulations cannot provide. The supporting evidence is a six-participant pilot in which students remotely ran a tensile-strength test: average cycle time fell from about 140 seconds in the first ten trials to about 80 seconds by trial thirty, a 46.1% drop, while workload and usability questionnaires landed in acceptable ranges. The paper presents TeleopLab as a scalable, effective bridge between physical labs and remote education, with the code to be released open-source.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is relative pose estimation on the student's phone: pressing a start button fixes the current phone pose as the origin, and all subsequent phone motion is converted into incremental waypoints for the robot arm. Those waypoints pass through a coordinate transform that aligns the user's perspective with the arm, an inverse-kinematics solver that maps each pose to joint angles in under a millisecond, and a low-latency motion-execution path (reduced from 500 ms to 10 ms) that smooths jitter with a low-pass filter and rejects configurations that would hit joint limits or singularities. Virtual fences around lab equipment act as a safety boundary and visual guide. The same command path also drives a serial-connected tensile tester through a two-button interface, so a full measurement cycle is under student control.

What would settle it

Plot each participant's cycle times separately: if the downward trend appears only in the pooled average and individual students show flat or worsening times, the 46.1% figure would not support the learning claim. A cleaner test would randomize whether students start with a different task order or insert a distractor between trials to separate TeleopLab learning from general practice on the tensile-test procedure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a phone-based teleoperation platform, TeleopLab, lets students control a robotic arm through natural phone motion and operate real laboratory equipment such as a tensile tester from a remote location. In a pilot with six students, the average time to complete one measurement cycle decreased by 46.1% as students gained familiarity, and the standard deviation across trials also shrank. Student ratings of immersiveness, helpfulness in learning, intuitiveness, and engagement all improved after using the system, and standardized workload and usability scores (38.2 and 73.8, respectively) were in acceptable ranges. The paper concludes that TeleopLab successfully bridges the gap between physical labs and remote education, offering a scalable platform for remote STEM learning.

Load-bearing premise

The effectiveness claim rests on the assumption that the 46.1% drop in cycle time is learning of the TeleopLab interface, not simply practice on the tensile-test procedure or differences among the six students who happened to run later trials.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Students can run a real tensile test on a physical specimen from anywhere with a smartphone and a video call, without VR, haptic, or specialized hardware.
  • With practice, users complete each measurement cycle about 46% faster, and the variance across trials also shrinks, suggesting the interface becomes more fluent.
  • The measured workload and usability scores fall in acceptable ranges, so the approach does not impose prohibitive cognitive load on novice users.
  • The system can be deployed on different robotic arms with the same phone interface, because the control stack and inverse kinematics are arm-agnostic.
  • A structured comparison in the paper ranks TeleopLab above keyboard and phone teleoperation alternatives on accessibility, safety, and intuitiveness for a remote tensile-test lab.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct follow-up that randomizes trial order or compares phone teleoperation against keyboard teleoperation on the same tensile task would isolate how much of the 46.1% gain is interface learning rather than general practice on the test procedure.
  • Because the interface maps phone motion to robot waypoints via relative pose, the same control scheme could be applied to other lab instruments such as pipettes, microscopes, or circuit probes with minimal change.
  • If the open-source release includes both the server and smartphone app, the marginal cost per additional student is essentially the cost of a phone, making the per-seat scaling claim testable in a larger class.
  • The virtual-fence mechanism could be reused as an automated safety certification that lets untrained students operate expensive equipment remotely without direct supervision.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TeleopLab, a smartphone-based teleoperation system for robotic manipulators intended for remote STEM laboratories. The system uses ARKit/ARCore on the phone for pose estimation, a ROS-based server with EGM control for multiple robot arms, and Zoom for video streaming. A pilot user study with six students performing a remote tensile test measured cycle times, NASA TLX, SUS, and pre/post perceptions. The paper reports a 46.1% reduction in cycle time (from ~140 s to ~80 s), a TLX score of 38.2, a SUS score of 73.75, and improved user perceptions, and concludes that TeleopLab is a scalable and effective remote-learning platform.

Significance. If the claims hold, TeleopLab is a valuable low-cost alternative to VR- or haptic-based teleoperation for education. The concrete system design is a strength: latency reduction from 500 ms to 10 ms, implementation on ABB IRB-120 and UR5e, and deployment in a real manufacturing academy course. The intention to open-source the software is also commendable. The evaluation uses standard instruments (TLX, SUS) and independent empirical measurements (cycle times), with no circularity or fitted parameters. However, the evidence base is a six-participant pilot with no control or comparison condition, and the main claim of effectiveness rests on a pooled learning curve. With more rigorous per-participant analysis and more modest claims, this would be a solid systems case study; as written, the significance is limited by the weak empirical support for the central assertion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V.A, Fig. 4] The 46.1% cycle-time reduction is computed from trials pooled across six participants over three weeks, with no per-participant time series and no statistical test. Such pooling cannot separate a genuine practice effect on TeleopLab from differences between participants (e.g., early versus late starters, differential dropout) or from practice on the tensile-test procedure itself, which would improve with repetition regardless of interface. The manuscript needs per-participant learning curves, a mixed-effects model with participant as a random effect, and confidence intervals or within-participant paired comparisons between early and late trials. If per-participant data are unavailable, the learning-curve claim should be substantially tempered.
  2. [Table I (Pugh chart), Section III.B] The claim that TeleopLab offers the best cost-effectiveness among considered remote-lab solutions is based on an unweighted scoring with no defined criteria, no data source for the scores, and no sensitivity analysis. Since this is a stated contribution (Contribution 4), the Pugh chart should be justified with evidence from the preliminary tower de-stacking tests (e.g., task times, error counts, or rater coding) and should include a sensitivity analysis with respect to criterion weights. As presented, this comparison is subjective and does not support the 'best cost-effectiveness' wording.
  3. [Section V.B, Fig. 5, and abstract] The pre/post perception survey shows improvements, but with six participants and no statistical tests the claim of a 'significant positive shift' is unsupported. Moreover, the abstract's conclusion that TeleopLab 'successfully bridges the gap between physical labs and remote education, offering a scalable and effective platform' goes beyond the pilot evidence, which lacks a comparison with in-person labs, a control condition, any measure of learning outcomes, and any scalability analysis. The wording should be limited to what the pilot data can support.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section V.C] The heading 'Data Collection' duplicates Section IV.B; it should be renamed to reflect the described content, e.g., 'Usability and Workload Results'.
  2. [Table III] The SUS calculation should be described explicitly; the standard SUS formula is applied to individual participants' responses, not to mean responses, and the paper should clarify how the 73.75 aggregate score was derived from the item means.
  3. [Table II] The TLX overall score appears to be a linear rescaling of the mean of the six 1-5 items; state the conversion formula (e.g., (mean - 1)/4 × 100) and note that this differs from the standard weighted TLX procedure.
  4. [Table I] The Pugh chart row 'Interactivity' rates all teleoperation options as -1, which conflicts with the text claiming that teleoperation improves interactivity compared to physical kits; this discrepancy should be explained.
  5. [Section III.A] The 'virtual fences' are described as a safety feature and guide, but no implementation details or figure are provided; a brief description or reference would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Abstract/footnote] The sentence 'The project will be open-source. We will try to align the release schedule upon acceptance of this manuscript.' is vague and out of place; either provide a repository URL or remove the sentence.
  7. [Fig. 4 caption] The error bars are labeled as standard deviation across trials; specify whether this is across participants at the same trial number or across a sliding window of trials, as this affects interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's quantitative claims are independent empirical measurements, not derived from fitted inputs or self-cited constraints.

full rationale

TeleopLab is a systems and user-study paper, not a derivation from first principles. The central quantitative claims are the 46.1% cycle-time reduction, the NASA TLX workload score of 38.19, and the SUS score of 73.75. These are direct measurements collected from a six-participant pilot study as described in Sections IV.B and V, with no model parameters fitted to the reported outcomes and no quantity defined in terms of another reported quantity. The improvement in task completion time is an empirical trend across pooled trials, and the workload and usability scores are standard survey instruments scored by external rubrics. The paper's use of prior work is also not circular: TeleMoMa [53] is an external teleoperation framework that the authors extend, RoboTurk [50] is cited only as related phone-based teleoperation work, and the authors' own contributions (system design, latency reduction, interface, and pilot evaluation) do not rest on a self-citation that is itself unverified. The Pugh chart in Table I is a qualitative design comparison, not a derived prediction, so it cannot reduce to its inputs. The main weakness of the paper is statistical: the learning-curve result pools trials across six students without per-student time series, confidence intervals, or a control condition, so the improvement may reflect practice effects or cohort composition rather than interface-specific learning. However, that is a validity or correctness concern about an independently measured empirical result, not a circularity concern: the measurement is not equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The paper does not derive quantitative predictions; it reports measured outcomes. The main hidden inputs are domain assumptions about students' needs and the validity of the usability instruments, plus an author-generated Pugh chart used to argue TeleopLab is superior. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Students need minimal latency to stay focused on teleoperation tasks.
    Used to justify latency-reduction engineering in Section III.A; unverified but reasonable.
  • domain assumption NASA TLX and SUS converted from a 5-point Likert scale to a 0-100 range are valid measures of workload and usability for this population.
    Standard use, but the conversion procedure is not fully described in Section V.C.
  • domain assumption The qualitative Pugh chart comparisons (Table I) reflect meaningful relative merits of remote lab options.
    Author-generated scores without an explicit rubric or inter-rater reliability, used to claim TeleopLab superiority.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TeleopLab: Accessible and Intuitive Teleoperation of a Robotic Manipulator for Remote Labs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ONZDVM4H

@misc{pith2026250905547,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TeleopLab: Accessible and Intuitive Teleoperation of a Robotic Manipulator for Remote Labs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ONZDVM4H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05547}
}
read the original abstract

Teleoperation offers a promising solution for enabling hands-on learning in remote education, particularly in environments requiring interaction with real-world equipment. However, such remote experiences can be costly or non-intuitive. To address these challenges, we present TeleopLab, a mobile device teleoperation system that allows students to control a robotic arm and operate lab equipment. TeleopLab comprises a robotic arm, an adaptive gripper, cameras, lab equipment for a diverse range of applications, a user interface accessible through smartphones, and video call software. We conducted a user study, focusing on task performance, students' perspectives toward the system, usability, and workload assessment. Our results demonstrate a 46.1% reduction in task completion time as users gained familiarity with the system. Quantitative feedback highlighted improvements in students' perspectives after using the system, while NASA TLX and SUS assessments indicated a manageable workload of 38.2 and a positive usability of 73.8. TeleopLab successfully bridges the gap between physical labs and remote education, offering a scalable and effective platform for remote STEM learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05547 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. TeleopLab System Diagram. The user controls the robot by moving their phone to provide waypoints that are transformed to commands to manipulate lab equipment at a remote location. The camera views are streamed to a host computer and viewed on the remote desktop. Teleoperation allows students to remotely control real equipment, offering a more authentic hands-on experience [22]–[25]. Unlike simulations, which cannot … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. TeleopLab for Different Tasks. Our TeleopLab system is designed for users to carry out a variety of object manipulation tasks (here shown: a UR5e collaborative robot and a Robotiq two-finger gripper.) B. Case Study: Remote Lab Solution Comparison The Berkshire Innovation Center (BIC) offers the Berk￾shire Manufacturing Academy (BMA) program. It is de￾signed to bridge the gap between local supply chain ca￾pabilities … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Remote Tensile Strength Testing In the lab, a BIC staff was physically present during the sessions. The staff was trained to handle the preloading and unloading of samples and resolve any robot errors that occurred during the sessions. During the sessions, we recorded the time of each member’s performance as part of the data collection. The cycle time was defined as the time from the start of step 2 to the next time… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantitative User Feedback. Comparison of students’ expectations before using the system and their feelings after using the system across immersiveness, helpfulness in learning, intuitiveness and engagement. consisted of two sets of questions: one set asked students ab…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Remote learning: Technologies & oppor- tunities,

    M. Turoff and S. R. Hiltz, “Remote learning: Technologies & oppor- tunities,” 1986

    work page 1986

  2. [2]

    Building complex remote learning laboratories,

    I. Calvo, M. Marcos, D. Orive, and I. Sarachaga, “Building complex remote learning laboratories,”Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 18, pp. 53–66, 2010

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    The virtual university,

    P. Hunter, “The virtual university,”EMBO reports, vol. 16, pp. 146– 148, 2 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: A necessity in light of covid-19 pandemic,

    W. Ali, “Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: A necessity in light of covid-19 pandemic,”Higher Education Studies, vol. 10, p. 16, 5 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Hands-on, simulated, and remote labo- ratories: A comparative literature review,

    J. Ma and J. V . Nickerson, “Hands-on, simulated, and remote labo- ratories: A comparative literature review,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 38, p. 1, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    The global research trends on the growth of remote learning in higher education institutions: A bibliometric analysis,

    P. Ndibalema, “The global research trends on the growth of remote learning in higher education institutions: A bibliometric analysis,” International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, vol. 6, pp. 218–236, 5 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Remote learning is here to stay: Results from the first american school district panel survey,

    H. L. Schwartz, D. Grant, M. Diliberti, G. P. Hunter, and C. M. Setodji, “Remote learning is here to stay: Results from the first american school district panel survey,” 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    The effects of mobile ar-based biology learning experience on students’ motivation, self-efficacy, and attitudes in online learning,

    T. Ciloglu and A. B. Ustun, “The effects of mobile ar-based biology learning experience on students’ motivation, self-efficacy, and attitudes in online learning,”Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 32, pp. 309–337, 6 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Are we there yet? comparing remote learning tech- nologies in the university classroom,

    N. T. Fitter, N. Raghunath, E. Cha, C. A. Sanchez, L. Takayama, and M. J. Mataric, “Are we there yet? comparing remote learning tech- nologies in the university classroom,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, pp. 2706–2713, 4 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Contemporary american literature in online learning: fos- tering reading motivation and student engagement,

    L. Gao, “Contemporary american literature in online learning: fos- tering reading motivation and student engagement,”Education and Information Technologies, vol. 28, pp. 4725–4740, 4 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Online learning in health professions education. part 1: Teaching and learning in online environments: Amee guide no. 161,

    H. MacNeill, K. Masters, K. Nemethy, and R. Correia, “Online learning in health professions education. part 1: Teaching and learning in online environments: Amee guide no. 161,”Medical Teacher, vol. 46, pp. 4–17, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Exploring the educational landscape: The impact of post- covid online learning on physics education undergraduates’ academic engagement and achievement,

    S. Susanti, R. P. Putra, R. D. Agustina, N. P. Quy, H. S. Siregar, and J. da Silva, “Exploring the educational landscape: The impact of post- covid online learning on physics education undergraduates’ academic engagement and achievement,”Indonesian Journal on Learning and Adva...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Online learning in teaching initial math education,

    M. Pokorný, “Online learning in teaching initial math education,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Recent Innovations in Computing(P. Kumar, K. M. H., K. A. Kumar, G. P. J. S. S. Yashwant, and Singh, eds.), pp. 657–667, Springer Nature Singapore, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    D. May, G. R. Alves, A. A. Kist, and S. M. Zvacek,Online labora- tories in engineering education research and practice, pp. 525–552. Routledge, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Lessons learned: Making the

    Y .-L. Han, “Lessons learned: Making the "new reality" more real: Adjusting a hands-on curriculum for remote learning,” 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Literature review of online learning technology in chemistry lab activities,

    R. Ismawati, A. Widiyatmoko, and A. N. Cahyono, “Literature review of online learning technology in chemistry lab activities,”Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, vol. 9, pp. 751–759, 10 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    The importance of hands-on experiences in robotics courses,

    N. Ackovska and V . Kirandziska, “The importance of hands-on experiences in robotics courses,”17th IEEE International Conference on Smart Technologies, EUROCON 2017 - Conference Proceedings, pp. 56–61, 8 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Evaluating learning out- comes by applying interdisciplinary hands-on learning to advanced technology courses,

    H.-T. Chang, H.-H. Wu, and Y .-T. Chang, “Evaluating learning out- comes by applying interdisciplinary hands-on learning to advanced technology courses,”Innovative Higher Education, vol. 48, pp. 619– 636, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    A study on the effectiveness of hands-on experiments in learning science among year 4 students,

    S. Dhanapal, E. Wan, and Z. Shan, “A study on the effectiveness of hands-on experiments in learning science among year 4 students,” International Online Journal of Primary Education, vol. 3, pp. 20–31, 6 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    Effect of hands-on learning strategies on senior secondary school students’ academic achievement in topographical map studies in ganye educational zone, adamawa state, nigeria,

    J. Filgona, L. K. Sababa, and J. Filgona, “Effect of hands-on learning strategies on senior secondary school students’ academic achievement in topographical map studies in ganye educational zone, adamawa state, nigeria,”Available (Print) International Journal of Social Sci- en...

    2016

  13. [21]

    Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest,

    N. Holstermann, D. Grube, S. Bögeholz, N. Holstermann, S. Bögeholz, and D. Grube, “Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest,”Res Sci Educ, vol. 40, pp. 743–757, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    Common educational teleoperation platform for robotics utilizing digital twins,

    T. Kaarlela, H. Arnarson, T. Pitkäaho, B. Shu, B. Solvang, and S. Pieskä, “Common educational teleoperation platform for robotics utilizing digital twins,”Machines, vol. 10, 7 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Smart educational robotics laboratory ecosystem for remote control of robotic manipulators through telepresence technologies,

    S. Kondratyev, V . Pikalov, A. Muravyev, and A. Evseev, “Smart educational robotics laboratory ecosystem for remote control of robotic manipulators through telepresence technologies,” inProceedings - 2022 2nd International Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher E...

    2022

  16. [24]

    Fusion of vr and teleoperation for innovative near-presence laboratory experience in engineering education,

    S. M. Rakshit, S. Banerjee, M. Hempel, and H. Sharif, “Fusion of vr and teleoperation for innovative near-presence laboratory experience in engineering education,” in2017 IEEE International Conference on Electro Information Technology (EIT), pp. 376–381, IEEE, 5 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Toward a telepresence robot empowered smart lab,

    Q. Tan, M. Denojean-Mairet, H. Wang, X. Zhang, F. C. Pivot, and R. Treu, “Toward a telepresence robot empowered smart lab,”Smart Learning Environments, vol. 6, 12 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Formal methods for establishing simulation interoperability for military health system applications,

    N. K. Davis, R. Byrne, R. K. Gupta, A. S. II, and A. Tolk, “Formal methods for establishing simulation interoperability for military health system applications,”Military Medicine, vol. 189, pp. 767–774, 9 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Using virtual reality–based simulation in neonatal resuscitation program training,

    R. M. McAdams and G. Trinh, “Using virtual reality–based simulation in neonatal resuscitation program training,”NeoReviews, vol. 25, pp. e567–e577, 9 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Using virtual reality for teaching kinematics,

    G. Kortemeyer, “Using virtual reality for teaching kinematics,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 2727, Institute of Physics, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Reiners, L

    T. Reiners, L. C. Wood, S. Gregory, H. Teräs, T. Reiners, L. C. Wood, S. Gregory, and H. Teräs,Gamification Design Elements in Business Education Simulations, pp. 3048–3061. IGI Global, 7 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    H. S. Farley,Learning in Virtual Worlds: Research and Applications. Athabasca University Press, 4 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Cooperative vs. teleoperation control of the steady hand eye robot with adaptive sclera force control: A comparative study,

    M. Esfandiari, J. W. Kim, B. Zhao, G. Amirkhani, M. Hadi, P. Gehlbach, and R. H. Taylor, “Cooperative vs. teleoperation control of the steady hand eye robot with adaptive sclera force control: A comparative study,” 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Sensorless transparency optimized haptic teleoperation on the da vinci research kit,

    N. Yilmaz, B. Burkhart, A. Deguet, P. Kazanzides, and U. Tumerdem, “Sensorless transparency optimized haptic teleoperation on the da vinci research kit,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, pp. 971–978, 2 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Sensor fusion-based teleoperation control of anthropomorphic robotic arm,

    X. Yang, F. Chen, F. Wang, L. Zheng, S. Wang, W. Qi, and H. Su, “Sensor fusion-based teleoperation control of anthropomorphic robotic arm,”Biomimetics, vol. 8, 6 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Imu motion capture method with adaptive tremor attenuation in teleoperation robot system,

    H. Zhu, X. Li, L. Wang, Z. Chen, Y . Shi, S. Zhen, and M. Li, “Imu motion capture method with adaptive tremor attenuation in teleoperation robot system,”Sensors, vol. 22, 5 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Intuitive robot teleoperation through multi-sensor informed mixed reality visual aids,

    S. Livatino, D. C. Guastella, G. Muscato, V . Rinaldi, L. Cantelli, C. D. Melita, A. Caniglia, R. Mazza, and G. Padula, “Intuitive robot teleoperation through multi-sensor informed mixed reality visual aids,” Ieee Access, vol. 9, pp. 25795–25808, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Self-supervised 6-dof robot grasping by demonstration via augmented reality teleoperation system,

    X. Dengxiong, X. Wang, S. Bai, and Y . Zhang, “Self-supervised 6-dof robot grasping by demonstration via augmented reality teleoperation system,” 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Creating augmented and virtual reality applications: Current prac- tices, challenges, and opportunities,

    N. Ashtari, A. Bunt, J. McGrenere, M. Nebeling, and P. K. Chilana, “Creating augmented and virtual reality applications: Current prac- tices, challenges, and opportunities,” inProceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 1–13, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    The role of ar and vr technologies in education developments: opportunities and challenges,

    H. Ardiny and E. Khanmirza, “The role of ar and vr technologies in education developments: opportunities and challenges,” in2018 6th rsi international conference on robotics and mechatronics (icrom), pp. 482–487, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    A systematic review of virtual reality in education,

    S. Kavanagh, A. Luxton-Reilly, B. Wuensche, and B. Plimmer, “A systematic review of virtual reality in education,” 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Augmented virtual reality: How to improve education systems,

    M. Fernandez, “Augmented virtual reality: How to improve education systems,”Higher Learning Research Communications, vol. 7, p. 1, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Virtual technologies trends in education,

    C. E. Mora, A. Angel, J. Martín-Gutiérrez, B. Añorbe-Díaz, and A. González-Marrero, “Virtual technologies trends in education,” OPEN ACCESS EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Tech- nology Education, vol. 13, pp. 469–486, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Physical robots for teaching mobility & manipulation using ros in remote learning,

    M. E. Cabrera and J. Raiti, “Physical robots for teaching mobility & manipulation using ros in remote learning,” in2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Tele-operated laboratory experiments in engineering education. the uniaxial tensile test for material characterization in forming technology,

    C. Pleul, C. Terkowsky, I. Jahnke, and A. E. Tekkaya, “Tele-operated laboratory experiments in engineering education. the uniaxial tensile test for material characterization in forming technology,”Using Re- 7 mote Labs in Education. Two Little Ducks in Remote Experimentation, ...

    2011

  36. [44]

    Implementation of a teleoperated didactic manufacturing cell through internet2 as a means of engineering education*,

    M. Hincapie, O. Salas, M. Ramirez, and B. Carranza, “Implementation of a teleoperated didactic manufacturing cell through internet2 as a means of engineering education*,”International Journal of Engineer- ing Education, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2013

    2013

  37. [45]

    Developing tele-operated laboratories for manufacturing engineering education. platform for e-learning and telemetric experimentation (petex),

    C. Terkowsky, I. Jahnke, R. Licari, P. Johannssen, G. Buffa, M. Heiner, L. Fratini, E. LoValvo, M. Nicolescu, J. Wildt,et al., “Developing tele-operated laboratories for manufacturing engineering education. platform for e-learning and telemetric experimentation (petex),”In- te...

    2010

  38. [46]

    Teleoperated robot prototype for the manipulation and transport of chemical substances in laboratory: a low-cost adaptation,

    M. C. Moreno, Y . D. Angulo, and O. J. Suarez, “Teleoperated robot prototype for the manipulation and transport of chemical substances in laboratory: a low-cost adaptation,” in2022 18th IEEE/ASME International Conference on Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and Applications (ME...

    2022

  39. [47]

    Educational teleoperation platform for heavy industrial robotics as a learning environment,

    S. Pöysäri, T. Kaarlela, M. Dianatfar, and M. Lanz, “Educational teleoperation platform for heavy industrial robotics as a learning environment,”13th Conference on Learning Factories, CLF 2023, p. 2023, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Development of a tele-operative testing cell as a remote lab for mate- rial characterization,

    T. Ortelt, A. Sadiki, C. Pleul, C. Becker, S. Chatti, and A. Tekkaya, “Development of a tele-operative testing cell as a remote lab for mate- rial characterization,” in2014 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), pp. 977–982, IEEE, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    Adapting through a pan- demic: Creating a hands-on mechatronics laboratory with team-based collaboration for remote learning,

    S. Lopez, N. P. Pesci, and D. Quintero, “Adapting through a pan- demic: Creating a hands-on mechatronics laboratory with team-based collaboration for remote learning,” in2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Roboturk: A crowdsourcing platform for robotic skill learning through imitation,

    A. Mandlekar, Y . Zhu, A. Garg, J. Booher, M. Spero, A. Tung, J. Gao, J. Emmons, A. Gupta, E. Orbay, S. Savarese, and L. Fei- Fei, “Roboturk: A crowdsourcing platform for robotic skill learning through imitation,” 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    Advanced teleoperation and control system for industrial robots based on augmented virtuality and haptic feedback,

    C. González, J. E. Solanes, A. Munoz, L. Gracia, V . Girbés-Juan, and J. Tornero, “Advanced teleoperation and control system for industrial robots based on augmented virtuality and haptic feedback,”Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. 59, pp. 283–298, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    Tavakoli, R

    M. Tavakoli, R. V . Patel, M. Moallen, and A. Aziminejad,Haptics for teleoperated surgical robotic systems, vol. 1. World Scientific, 2008

    2008

  45. [53]

    Telemoma: A modular and versatile teleoperation system for mobile manipulation,

    S. Dass, W. Ai, Y . Jiang, S. Singh, J. Hu, R. Zhang, P. Stone, B. Abbatematteo, and R. Martín-Martín, “Telemoma: A modular and versatile teleoperation system for mobile manipulation,” 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Evaluation of com- munication and human response latency for (human) teleoperation,

    D. G. Black, D. Andjelic, and S. E. Salcudean, “Evaluation of com- munication and human response latency for (human) teleoperation,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 53–63, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Quality assurance of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education,

    M. Kang, “Quality assurance of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education,” inInternational Symposium 2010, 2010

    2010

  48. [56]

    Instagrasp: An entirely 3d printed adaptive gripper with tpu soft elements and minimal assembly time,

    X. Zhou and A. J. Spiers, “Instagrasp: An entirely 3d printed adaptive gripper with tpu soft elements and minimal assembly time,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 5 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    Trac-ik: An open-source library for improved solving of generic inverse kinematics,

    P. Beeson and B. Ames, “Trac-ik: An open-source library for improved solving of generic inverse kinematics,” 2015

    2015

  50. [58]

    Geometric approach in solving inverse kinematics of puma robots,

    C. S. Lee and M. Ziegler, “Geometric approach in solving inverse kinematics of puma robots,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. AES-20, pp. 695–706, 1984

    1984

  51. [59]

    Development of nasa-tlx (task load index)

    S. G. Hart, M. Field, C. Lowell, and E. Staveland, “Development of nasa-tlx (task load index)" results of empirical and theoretical research,” 1988

    1988

  52. [60]

    Sus: A quick and dirty usability scale,

    J. Brooke, “Sus: A quick and dirty usability scale,”Usability Evalu- ation in Industry, 1996

    1996

  53. [61]

    What does the system usability scale (sus) measure?: Validation using think aloud verbalization and behavioral metrics,

    M. R. Drew, B. Falcone, W. L. Baccus, A. Marcus, and W. Wang, “What does the system usability scale (sus) measure?: Validation using think aloud verbalization and behavioral metrics,” inDesign, User Experience, and Usability: Theory and Practice, (Cham), pp. 356– 366, Springer...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.