Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 46 references

Placing a six-axis sensor at the shaft tip and using a transformer to subtract cable forces measures end-effector loads with under 6% normalized error in cable-driven surgical tools.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-28 22:27 UTC pith:FBM7YG73

load-bearing objection Distal sensor integration on standard cable-driven tools with transformer compensation hits under 6% error in tested cases but saturation from high cable forces limits axial sensing at higher loads. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.31434 v2 pith:FBM7YG73 submitted 2026-05-29 cs.RO

Shaft-integrated Force Sensing with Transformer-based Dynamics Compensation for Telesurgery

Shuyuan Yang , Grant Boone , Timo Markert , Sebastian Matich , Andreas Theissler , Martin Atzmueller , Zonghe Chua This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords force sensingtelesurgerytransformer networkcable-driven instrumentsrobot-assisted surgeryhaptic feedbackdynamics compensation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper demonstrates a way to equip standard cable-driven surgical instruments with force sensing by mounting a commercial six-axis sensor at the distal shaft. A transformer network fuses the sensor readings with robot state data to cancel the effects of internal cable tensions and recover the external forces at the tip. This yields normalized errors below 6% and improves generalization to unseen conditions compared with approaches that use only proximal measurements. The design needs no custom fabrication, preserving the original mechanical function of the instrument while supporting haptic feedback, skill assessment, and force-informed autonomy in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery.

Core claim

By embedding a six-axis commercial force sensor in the distal shaft of a standard cable-driven instrument and training a transformer neural network on combined sensor and state information, the method compensates for actuation-induced cable forces to estimate applied end-effector forces, achieving normalized errors below 6% with better generalization than purely proximal data-driven sensing.

What carries the argument

Shaft-integrated six-axis force sensor whose readings are fused by a transformer neural network with robot state to isolate external tip forces from internal cable dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

That internal cable forces stay low enough under typical surgical loads not to saturate the distal sensor or erase observability of axial external forces.

What would settle it

Run a test rig that applies known external loads while varying cable tensions across the operating range and check whether the network-compensated estimates stay within 6% normalized error of independent ground-truth measurements.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Haptic feedback becomes feasible on existing RAMIS platforms without redesigning instrument mechanics.
  • Force data can directly support performance assessment, tactile localization, and autonomy features.
  • The reproducible mounting approach lowers the barrier for research groups to add sensing to standard tools.
  • Performance remains usable for typical loads but drops when high cable forces cause saturation along the tool axis.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same distal-sensor-plus-network pattern could transfer to other tendon-actuated robots such as continuum manipulators.
  • Closing the loop around the compensated force signal might enable real-time force control during tasks.
  • Choosing a sensor with larger axial range could remove the saturation limit without changing the compensation architecture.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a method for integrating a commercial six-axis force sensor into the distal shaft of a standard cable-driven surgical instrument to enable end-effector force measurement in RAMIS while preserving mechanical functionality. A transformer neural network is trained to compensate for internal cable forces by fusing distal sensor readings with robot state information. The work reports normalized errors below 6% with better generalization to unseen conditions than proximal-only data-driven baselines. The design is positioned as reproducible without specialized manufacturing, and the abstract explicitly notes performance degradation from sensor saturation under high cable forces along the major axis and at higher loads. Code and videos are provided.

Significance. If the reported performance holds under conditions representative of telesurgery, the approach offers an accessible route to distal force sensing on existing instruments, supporting research in haptic feedback, skill assessment, and force-informed autonomy. The open release of code and videos is a clear strength that aids reproducibility and extension by the community.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim of normalized errors below 6% with improved generalization is qualified by the explicit statement that high internal cable forces cause distal sensor saturation and destroy axial force observability, degrading performance at higher loads. Because telesurgery routinely involves loads that may enter this regime, the manuscript must demonstrate (via load-range analysis or additional trials) that the <6% metric and generalization advantage remain usable outside the low-load regime where saturation is avoided.
  2. [Experimental evaluation] Experimental evaluation (results section): The reported normalized errors lack error bars, exact train/test split details, saturation-handling protocol, and full description of the load conditions tested. These omissions are load-bearing for assessing whether the generalization claim over proximal baselines is statistically reliable and holds under the load conditions relevant to the application.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The central claim of normalized errors below 6% with improved generalization is qualified by the explicit statement that high internal cable forces cause distal sensor saturation and destroy axial force observability, degrading performance at higher loads. Because telesurgery routinely involves loads that may enter this regime, the manuscript must demonstrate (via load-range analysis or additional trials) that the <6% metric and generalization advantage remain usable outside the low-load regime where saturation is avoided.

    Authors: We agree that the saturation limitation is important to contextualize. The reported <6% normalized errors apply to the tested conditions in which saturation was avoided; the manuscript already states that performance degrades along the major axis and at higher loads. We cannot provide new load-range analysis or trials to demonstrate that the metric holds in the saturation regime, as that would contradict the observed physics of the sensor. We will revise the abstract to more explicitly bound the operating regime in which the <6% claim is valid. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Experimental evaluation] The reported normalized errors lack error bars, exact train/test split details, saturation-handling protocol, and full description of the load conditions tested. These omissions are load-bearing for assessing whether the generalization claim over proximal baselines is statistically reliable and holds under the load conditions relevant to the application.

    Authors: We accept this criticism. The revised manuscript will add error bars to all reported metrics, specify the exact train/test splits used, describe the saturation-handling protocol, and provide a complete characterization of the load conditions (including ranges and saturation thresholds) under which experiments were performed. These additions will allow readers to evaluate the statistical reliability of the generalization results. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Demonstrating via new experiments or analysis that the <6% normalized error and generalization advantage remain valid under higher loads where sensor saturation occurs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical performance claims rest on external ground-truth measurements.

full rationale

The paper describes a hardware integration of a distal force sensor plus a transformer trained to compensate cable forces, with performance quantified as normalized error against an external reference sensor on held-out experimental data. No equations, derivations, or claims reduce the reported <6% error or generalization advantage to a fitted parameter by construction, a self-referential definition, or a self-citation chain. The abstract explicitly notes the saturation limitation as an empirical observation rather than a hidden assumption that circularly validates the metric. The approach is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions about sensor integration and NN generalization rather than new theoretical entities or fitted constants beyond normal training.

free parameters (1)
  • Transformer architecture and training hyperparameters
    Model depth, attention heads, learning rate, and regularization are chosen or optimized during training but not enumerated in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Integration of the commercial sensor into the shaft preserves original mechanical functionality of the cable-driven instrument.
    Stated as a design goal in the abstract without quantitative validation of unchanged kinematics or friction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5786 in / 1185 out tokens · 22586 ms · 2026-06-28T22:27:59.292123+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery (RAMIS) enhances surgeon dexterity, with newer platforms leveraging haptic feedback to further improve performance. Such force information has broader potential to inform performance assessment, tactile localization, and surgical autonomy. This motivates the need for accessible approaches to integrating force sensing into RAMIS tools. This work presents a method for integrating a six-axis commercial force sensor into the distal end of a standard cable-driven surgical instrument, enabling end-effector force measurement while preserving the original mechanical functionality of the device. The proposed design emphasizes reproducibility and accessibility for research applications, requiring no specialized manufacturing tools. A transformer neural network integrates force sensor measurements with robot state information to aid estimation of applied forces at the end-effector, compensating for internal cable forces arising from actuation. Our proposed approach achieved normalized errors below 6%, and generalized to unseen conditions better than purely proximal data-driven sensing approaches. High internal cable forces caused sensor saturation and reduced axial force observability, which can degrade performance along the tool's major axis and under higher load conditions. Given current levels of performance, the balance of system integrability and performance enables applications and research into timely topics of haptic feedback, skill assessment, and force-informed autonomy in RAMIS. Videos and code are available at https://enhanced-telerobotics.github.io/shaft_force_sensing/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31434 by Andreas Theissler, Grant Boone, Martin Atzmueller, Sebastian Matich, Shuyuan Yang, Timo Markert, Zonghe Chua.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (A) EndoWrist Cadiere Forceps tool with (B) shaft-integrated sensor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: EndoWrist mod￾ification process. (A) Non￾destructive removal of the case and upper bearing assembly. (B) Drilling the motor inter￾face to remove the bearing and spools. (C) Cutting a slot in the spool to free the con￾trol cables. (E) Removing all spools and cables to free the shaft. (D) Removing and short￾ening the shaft to accommo￾date the HEX10 and its inter￾faces; rewiring the control ca￾bles through th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Transformer model with a temporal look-back window and striding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Automated benchtop data collection setup: (A) Traction fixture. (B) Palpation fixture. (C) End-effector position defined in task space for traction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (A-C) PSM config￾urations used for evaluation under manual teleoperation. A leave-one-configuration￾out cross-validation scheme was used: for each fold, demonstrations from two configurations were used for training, while the re￾maining configuration was held out exclusively as an unseen test set. (D￾H) Movements performed in soft-contact teleopera￾tion demonstrations. (I-M) Movements performed in rigid-co… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms comparing ground truth vs. HEX10 forces for test dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Model predicted vs ground truth force for representative sections of (A) free, (B) palpation, and (C) traction benchtop performance evaluation runs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation comparison across force components on the automated benchtop dataset. For each ablation group (y-axis), horizontal box plots summarize [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Model predicted vs ground truth force for representative sections of (A) free, (B) rigid, and (C) soft contact conditions teleoperation performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Robot- assisted minimally invasive surgery—surgical robotics in the data age,

    T. Haidegger, S. Speidel, D. Stoyanov, and R. M. Satava, “Robot- assisted minimally invasive surgery—surgical robotics in the data age,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 110, no. 7, pp. 835–846, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    The benefits of haptic feedback in robot assisted surgery and their moderators: A meta- analysis,

    M. Bergholz, M. Ferle, and B. M. Weber, “The benefits of haptic feedback in robot assisted surgery and their moderators: A meta- analysis,”Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Novel force feedback technology improves suturing in robotic-assisted surgery: a pre-clinical study,

    E. L. Servais, L. Rashidi, P. Porwal, M. Garibaldi, and A. J. Hung, “Novel force feedback technology improves suturing in robotic-assisted surgery: a pre-clinical study,”Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 1217–1226, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Fast localization and segmentation of tissue abnormalities by autonomous robotic palpation,

    Y . Yan and J. Pan, “Fast localization and segmentation of tissue abnormalities by autonomous robotic palpation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1707–1714, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Adaptive compliance policy: Learning approximate compliance for diffusion guided control,

    Y . Hou, Z. Liu, C. Chi, E. Cousineau, N. Kuppuswamy, S. Feng, B. Burchfiel, and S. Song, “Adaptive compliance policy: Learning approximate compliance for diffusion guided control,” inIEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2025, pp. 4829–4836. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND BIONICS. PREPRINT VERSION. 12

    2025

  6. [6]

    Force-aware autonomous robotic surgery,

    A. E. Abdelaal, J. Fang, T. N. Reinhart, J. A. Mejia, T. Z. Zhao, J. Bohg, and A. M. Okamura, “Force-aware autonomous robotic surgery,”arXiv 2501.11742, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Making sense of vision and touch: Learning multimodal representations for contact-rich tasks,

    M. A. Lee, Y . Zhu, P. Zachares, M. Tan, K. Srinivasan, S. Savarese, L. Fei-Fei, A. Garg, and J. Bohg, “Making sense of vision and touch: Learning multimodal representations for contact-rich tasks,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 582–596, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Leveraging Haptic Feedback to Improve Data Quality and Quantity for Deep Imitation Learning Models,

    C. Cuan, A. Okamura, and M. Khansari, “Leveraging Haptic Feedback to Improve Data Quality and Quantity for Deep Imitation Learning Models,”IEEE Transactions on Haptics, pp. 1–9, 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    Vision- based force estimation for minimally invasive telesurgery through con- tact detection and local stiffness models,

    S. Yang, M. H. Le, K. R. Golobish, J. C. Beaver, and Z. Chua, “Vision- based force estimation for minimally invasive telesurgery through con- tact detection and local stiffness models,”Journal of Medical Robotics Research, vol. 9, no. 03n04, p. 2440008, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    A modular 3-degrees-of-freedom force sensor for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery research,

    Z. Chua and A. M. Okamura, “A modular 3-degrees-of-freedom force sensor for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery research,”Sensors, vol. 23, no. 11, 2023

    2023

  11. [11]

    Haptics for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery,

    A. M. Okamura, L. N. Verner, C. E. Reiley, and M. Mahvash, “Haptics for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery,” inRobotics Research, M. Kaneko and Y . Nakamura, Eds., 2011, pp. 361–372

    2011

  12. [12]

    Force and torque sensing for surgical instruments,

    S. J. Blumenkranz and D. Q. Larkin, “Force and torque sensing for surgical instruments,” US Patent US8 945 095B2, 2015

    2015

  13. [13]

    Design and evaluation of a sterilizable force sensing instrument for minimally invasive surgery,

    A. L. Trejos, A. Escoto, M. D. Naish, and R. V . Patel, “Design and evaluation of a sterilizable force sensing instrument for minimally invasive surgery,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 17, no. 13, pp. 3983–3993, 2017

    2017

  14. [14]

    Force feedback for the patient side manipulator of the davinci research kit,

    A. Novoseltseva, “Force feedback for the patient side manipulator of the davinci research kit,” Ph.D. dissertation, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA, USA, 2018

    2018

  15. [15]

    Sensorized surgical forceps for robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery,

    U. Kim, Y . B. Kim, J. So, D.-Y . Seok, and H. R. Choi, “Sensorized surgical forceps for robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 9604–9613, Dec. 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8328910/

    work page arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Ultralow noise, high band- width, low latency, no overload 6-axis optical force sensor,

    A. H. H. Hosseinabadi and S. E. Salcudean, “Ultralow noise, high band- width, low latency, no overload 6-axis optical force sensor,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 2581–2592, 2020

    2020

  17. [17]

    Development of the x-perce—a universal fbg-based force sensing kit for laparoscopic surgical robot,

    C. Du, D. Wei, H. Wang, W. Wang, J. Dong, H. Huo, and Y . Li, “Development of the x-perce—a universal fbg-based force sensing kit for laparoscopic surgical robot,”IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 183–193, 2022

    2022

  18. [18]

    Development of force sensing techniques for robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: A review,

    Y . Hao, H. Zhang, Z. Zhang, C. Hu, and C. Shi, “Development of force sensing techniques for robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: A review,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 868–887, 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    Force sensing in robot- assisted keyhole endoscopy: A systematic survey,

    A. H. H. Hosseinabadi and S. E. Salcudean, “Force sensing in robot- assisted keyhole endoscopy: A systematic survey,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 136–162, 2022

    2022

  20. [20]

    Haptic interaction in robot- assisted endoscopic surgery: a sensorized end-effector,

    M. Tavakoli, R. V . Patel, and M. Moallem, “Haptic interaction in robot- assisted endoscopic surgery: a sensorized end-effector,”The Interna- tional Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 53–63

  21. [21]

    Sensorization of a surgical robotic instrument for force sensing,

    K. S. Shahzada, A. Yurkewich, R. Xu, and R. V . Patel, “Sensorization of a surgical robotic instrument for force sensing,” inOptical Fibers and Sensors for Medical Diagnostics and Treatment Applications XVI, I. Gannot, Ed., vol. 9702, 2016, p. 97020U

    2016

  22. [22]

    A convex optimization-based dynamic model identification package for the da vinci research kit,

    Y . Wang, R. Gondokaryono, A. Munawar, and G. S. Fischer, “A convex optimization-based dynamic model identification package for the da vinci research kit,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3657–3664, 2019

    2019

  23. [23]

    Modelling and identification of the da vinci research kit robotic arms,

    G. A. Fontanelli, F. Ficuciello, L. Villani, and B. Siciliano, “Modelling and identification of the da vinci research kit robotic arms,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2017, pp. 1464–1469

    2017

  24. [24]

    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, no. 2, pp. 971–978, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Neural network based inverse dynamics identification and external force estimation on the da vinci research kit,

    N. Yilmaz, J. Y . Wu, P. Kazanzides, and U. Tumerdem, “Neural network based inverse dynamics identification and external force estimation on the da vinci research kit,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Paris, France, 2020, pp. 1387–1393

    2020

  26. [26]

    Learning based estimation of tool- tissue interaction forces for stationary and moving environments,

    L. Nowakowski and R. Patel, “Learning based estimation of tool- tissue interaction forces for stationary and moving environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    A recurrent convolutional neural network approach for sensorless force estimation in robotic surgery,

    A. Marban, V . Srinivasan, W. Samek, J. Fern ´andez, and A. Casals, “A recurrent convolutional neural network approach for sensorless force estimation in robotic surgery,”Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 50, pp. 134–150, 2019

    2019

  28. [28]

    Toward force estimation in robot-assisted surgery using deep learning with vision and robot state,

    Z. Chua, A. M. Jarc, and A. M. Okamura, “Toward force estimation in robot-assisted surgery using deep learning with vision and robot state,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2021, pp. 12 335–12 341

    2021

  29. [29]

    Learning to estimate palpation forces in robotic surgery from visual- inertial data,

    Y .-E. Lee, H. M. Husin, M.-P. Forte, S.-W. Lee, and K. J. Kuchenbecker, “Learning to estimate palpation forces in robotic surgery from visual- inertial data,”IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 496–506, 2023

    2023

  30. [30]

    Differential six-axis force and torque measurement in a prototype robotic surgical instrument,

    D. Neykov, T. Markert, N. Hellinger, A. Theissler, M. Atzmueller, and S. Matich, “Differential six-axis force and torque measurement in a prototype robotic surgical instrument,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2025, pp. 11 263–11 270

    2025

  31. [31]

    An open-source research kit for the da vinci surgical system,

    P. Kazanzides, Z. Chen, A. Deguet, G. S. Fischer, R. H. Taylor, and S. P. DiMaio, “An open-source research kit for the da vinci surgical system,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2014, pp. 6434–6439

    2014

  32. [32]

    Autonomous multi- lateral debridement with the raven surgical robot,

    B. Kehoe, G. Kahn, J. Mahler, J. Kim, A. Lee, A. Lee, K. Nakagawa, S. Patil, W. D. Boyd, P. Abbeel, and K. Goldberg, “Autonomous multi- lateral debridement with the raven surgical robot,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2014, pp. 1432–1439

    2014

  33. [33]

    Evaluation of force and torque magnitude discrimination thresholds on the human hand-arm system,

    M. Vicentini, S. Galvan, D. Botturi, and P. Fiorini, “Evaluation of force and torque magnitude discrimination thresholds on the human hand-arm system,”ACM Trans. Appl. Percept., vol. 8, no. 1, 2010

    2010

  34. [34]

    Multi-axis force sensing in laparoscopic surgery,

    A. H. H. Hosseinabadi, D. G. Black, and S. E. Salcudean, “Multi-axis force sensing in laparoscopic surgery,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2551–2558, 2024

    2024

  35. [35]

    Multimodal and force-matched imitation learning with a see-through visuotactile sensor,

    T. Ablett, O. Limoyo, A. Sigal, A. Jilani, J. Kelly, K. Siddiqi, F. Hogan, and G. Dudek, “Multimodal and force-matched imitation learning with a see-through visuotactile sensor,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    2024

  36. [36]

    Sensory substitution and augmentation using 3-degree-of- freedom skin deformation feedback,

    Z. F. Quek, S. B. Schorr, I. Nisky, W. R. Provancher, and A. M. Okamura, “Sensory substitution and augmentation using 3-degree-of- freedom skin deformation feedback,”IEEE Transactions on Haptics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 209–221, 2015

    2015

  37. [37]

    Effects of wrist-worn haptic feedback on force accuracy and task speed during a teleoperated robotic surgery task,

    B. B. Vuong, J. Davidson, S. Cheon, K. Cho, and A. M. Okamura, “Effects of wrist-worn haptic feedback on force accuracy and task speed during a teleoperated robotic surgery task,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    2025

  38. [38]

    Comparing human haptic perception and robotic force/torque sensing in a simulated surgical palpation task,

    T. Markert, S. Matich, E. Hoerner, J. Pfannes, A. Theissler, and M. Atz- mueller, “Comparing human haptic perception and robotic force/torque sensing in a simulated surgical palpation task,” inIEEE/RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2022, pp. 7825– 7832

    2022

  39. [39]

    A hybrid method combining data-driven and model-based algorithms for external force-sensing and haptics control of cable-pulley-driven surgical robotic manipulator,

    Z. Wang, X. Yu, M. Hai, S. Qian, D. Wang, and Z. Li, “A hybrid method combining data-driven and model-based algorithms for external force-sensing and haptics control of cable-pulley-driven surgical robotic manipulator,”Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, vol. 16, no. 10, p. 101006, 02 2024

    2024

  40. [40]

    An effectiveness study across baseline and learning-based force estimation methods on the da vinci research kit si system,

    H. Yang, A. Acar, K. Xu, A. Deguet, P. Kazanzides, and J. Y . Wu, “An effectiveness study across baseline and learning-based force estimation methods on the da vinci research kit si system,”IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1393–1397, 2025

    2025

  41. [41]

    Study of sustained forces and the working space of endoscopic surgery instruments,

    L. Toledo, D. Gossot, S. Fritsch, Y . Revillon, and C. Reboulet, “Study of sustained forces and the working space of endoscopic surgery instruments,” inAnnales de Chirurgie, vol. 53, no. 7, 1999, pp. 587–597

    1999

  42. [42]

    The role of force feed- back in surgery: analysis of blunt dissection,

    C. R. Wagner, R. D. Howe, and N. Stylopoulos, “The role of force feed- back in surgery: analysis of blunt dissection,” inHaptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, International Symposium on, 2002, pp. 73–73

    2002

  43. [43]

    A novel force sensing integrated into the trocar for minimally invasive robotic surgery,

    G. A. Fontanelli, L. R. Buonocore, F. Ficuciello, L. Villani, and B. Si- ciliano, “A novel force sensing integrated into the trocar for minimally invasive robotic surgery,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2017, pp. 131–136

    2017

  44. [44]

    A hybrid model and learning-based force estimation framework for surgical robots,

    H. Yang, H. Zhou, G. S. Fischer, and J. Y . Wu, “A hybrid model and learning-based force estimation framework for surgical robots,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2024, pp. 906–912

    2024

  45. [45]

    Robot force estimation with learned intraoperative correction,

    J. Y . Wu, N. Yilmaz, U. Tumerdem, and P. Kazanzides, “Robot force estimation with learned intraoperative correction,” in2021 International Symposium on Medical Robotics, 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  46. [46]

    Development and validation of objective performance metrics for robot- assisted radical prostatectomy: A pilot study,

    A. J. Hung, J. Chen, A. Jarc, D. Hatcher, H. Djaladat, and I. S. Gill, “Development and validation of objective performance metrics for robot- assisted radical prostatectomy: A pilot study,”Journal of Urology, vol. 199, no. 1, pp. 296–304, 2018. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND BIONICS. PREPRINT VERSION. 13 SUPPLEMENTARYMATERIAL Hyperparameters T...

    2018