Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Force-Aware Autonomous Robotic Surgery

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Feeding force measurements into an imitation-learning policy tripled autonomous tissue-retraction success and made the robot gentler.

desk verdict Genuinely useful force/no-force ablation for learned surgical retraction, but the stiffness-generalization claim overreaches a two-material, one-sample comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11742 v1 pith:2QUBG47V submitted 2025-01-20 cs.RO

Alaa Eldin Abdelaal , Jiaying Fang , Tim N. Reinhart , Jacob A. Mejia , Tony Z. Zhao , Jeannette Bohg , Allison M. Okamura This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords autonomousroboticsurgeryimitationlearningaction-chunkingtransformerforce-awarepolicytissueretractiontool-tissueinteractionforcesgeneralization
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

Autonomous surgical robots have to touch tissue at different stiffnesses, and this paper asks whether giving the robot force feedback lets it do that well. The authors compare two imitation-learning policies for a tissue-retraction task on a surgical robot, both built from the same 60 human demonstrations: one receives six-axis tool-tissue force/torque data along with stereo video and joint angles, the other receives only video and joint angles. On the training tissue, the force-aware policy succeeded 76% of the time versus 26% for the force-agnostic one; on a stiffer, unseen tissue, it succeeded 70% versus 20%. The force-aware policy also applied less force, with the no-force policy averaging 62% more force on seen tissue and 110% more on unseen tissue. The intended significance is that force sensing could let autonomous systems meet surgical guidelines that call for tissue-appropriate handling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the modified action-chunking transformer, a conditional variational autoencoder whose decoder acts as the policy and predicts the next 100 joint actions. The modification adds six numbers—the forces and torques at the tool-tissue interface—to the observation the transformer sees, together with left/right camera images and the robot's joint angles. Those six numbers carry the argument because they give the policy a direct contact cue: they signal when the grasper has actually touched the tissue, which the paper argues is hard to infer from vision alone when the tissue is stiff and deforms little. The force input also encodes how hard the demonstrator pulled, giving the policy a target force profile to imitate.

What would settle it

Make a family of tissue samples from a single silicone base with stiffness varied continuously by mixing ratio and identical surface finish, then roll both policies out across that range; if the force policy's advantage does not track stiffness, the claim that force input enables stiffness generalization is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that tool-tissue interaction force is a decisive input modality for imitation-learned surgical manipulation, not a luxury. A modified action-chunking transformer—an imitation-learning architecture that predicts a fixed-length sequence of joint actions—accepts a six-dimensional force/torque vector alongside stereo images and joint positions. Trained on the same demonstrations, this force-aware policy becomes roughly three times more successful at retracting a tissue flap and applies markedly lower forces than the identical architecture without force input. The advantage persists on a previously unseen stiffer tissue sample, which the paper takes as evidence that force input supports generalization across tissue stiffness. The paper also reports the force-aware policy's force profile is smoother, with most applied forces below 0.5 N on the unseen sample.

Load-bearing premise

The generalization result assumes the two silicone tissue samples differ only in stiffness, but they are made from different silicone formulations, so friction, surface texture, or tear behavior could also explain why the force policy did better on the unseen sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, any surgical robot that can sense tool-tissue forces should include those forces in imitation-learning policies; in this study the same architecture became roughly three times more successful and gentler with force input than without.
  • The force policy's performance on a stiffer unseen sample (70% versus 20%) suggests force-aware policies can transfer to tissue stiffnesses not present in the demonstration data without retraining.
  • The force gap—no-force policy averaging 62% more force on seen tissue and 110% more on unseen tissue—indicates that force-aware execution is closer to the gentle handling surgical guidelines recommend.
  • The approach is portable: it works with a physical force sensor, and the paper argues it can be paired with vision-based force estimation on robots that lack force sensing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's pooled force numbers mix successful and failed rollouts, so part of the force reduction may reflect fewer failed grasps rather than gentler execution; isolating successful rollouts would separate 'less fumbling' from 'more delicate touch.'
  • The same contact-cue mechanism should transfer to other contact-rich subtasks like suturing or dissection, but the paper does not test that.
  • A natural next experiment is to replace the physical force sensor with a vision-based force estimator; if the benefit survives estimated forces, the approach becomes deployable on the large installed base of surgical robots without force sensing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper trains two Action-Chunking Transformer (ACT) imitation-learning policies for autonomous tissue retraction on the da Vinci Research Kit: a 'force policy' that observes tool-tissue force/torque in addition to stereo images and joint positions, and a 'no force policy' that observes only images and joint positions. Both policies are trained on 60 demonstrations from the same silicone tissue sample and evaluated with 50 rollouts each on the training (seen) sample and on a second, stiffer silicone (unseen) sample. The authors report that the force policy achieves higher success (76% vs 26% on seen tissue, 70% vs 20% on unseen tissue) and lower mean applied force over all rollouts (0.29 vs 0.47 N and 0.40 vs 0.84 N, respectively). They interpret these results as evidence that force-aware autonomous systems are more successful, gentler, and better able to generalize across tissue stiffness levels.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a clear and practically useful demonstration that force/torque observations can improve imitation-learning policies for a contact-rich surgical subtask. The experimental setup uses a real surgical robot, physical tissue phantoms, and a systematic force/no-force ablation, and the success-rate differences are large and consistent across seen and unseen samples. However, the generalization-to-stiffness claim is confounded by the use of two different silicone materials, and the gentleness claim is substantially weaker when only successful rollouts are compared. These issues limit the strength of the stated conclusions but do not undermine the core finding that force input improves task success in this setup.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.C and Section VI] The stiffness-generalization claim is not identifiable from the current experimental design. Section III.C states that the two tissue samples were made from two different silicone materials (Dragon Skin and Ecoflex) with 100% moduli of 55 kPa and 151 kPa. These materials differ in properties beyond Young's modulus, including surface friction, tack, tear strength, and density, and there is only one sample per material. The higher success of the force policy on the unseen sample (70% vs 20% in Table III) could therefore reflect adaptation to a different surface-friction or tear regime rather than to tissue stiffness, which is the variable named in the hypothesis (Section III.E) and the conclusion (Section VI). To support the stiffness claim, the authors should use samples of the same material with controlled stiffness differences, or measure and rule out changes in other mechanical properties, and ideally include multiple samples per condition.
  2. [Section IV, Tables II and III] The gentleness claim relies on pooled force means over all rollouts, but the comparison on successful rollouts only shows small differences (0.26 vs 0.28 N on seen tissue, 0.39 vs 0.42 N on unseen tissue), whereas the all-rollout means differ much more (0.29 vs 0.47 N and 0.40 vs 0.84 N). Because the no-force policy fails more often, the lower all-rollout mean force may be driven by failure episodes rather than by gentler interaction during successful task execution. The paper should report the successful-rollout comparison as the primary evidence for gentleness, or provide an analysis that separates the effect of success from the effect of force regulation during execution.
  3. [Abstract and Section IV.B] The abstract claims that on the unseen tissue sample the force policy exerts 'an order of magnitude less force' than the no-force policy, but Table III reports mean forces of 0.40 N vs 0.84 N, which is a factor of about 2.1, not 10. The body text correctly states that the no-force policy applies 110% more force on average. The abstract should be corrected to be consistent with the data.
  4. [Section IV.A and IV.B] The success rates (76% vs 26% and 70% vs 20%) are reported without confidence intervals or a significance test, and the t-tests for force means are not described in sufficient detail. If the t-tests were performed on pooled time-series samples, the independence assumption is violated and the effective sample size is inflated, making the reported p-values (p < 0.01) uninformative. The authors should either provide per-rollout summaries (e.g., mean force per rollout) with appropriate tests, or account for temporal correlation, and include confidence intervals for the success-rate differences.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.D] The averaging window size for force smoothing is not specified; please report it.
  2. [Section III.C] The text does not state which silicone material corresponds to which modulus (55 kPa vs 151 kPa); specifying this would help readers assess the material confound.
  3. [Figures 4 and 5] The y-axis label 'Normalized Time [s]' is unclear; normalized duration should be dimensionless or the normalization should be described in the caption.
  4. [Table I] 'H-params' should be written as 'Hyper-parameters'.
  5. [Section V] The discussion attributes contact detection to force data, but the force/torque sensor is mounted beneath the tissue, not at the tool-tissue interface; the text should clarify this distinction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the force-awareness claim is an empirical ablation, not a construction from its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that adding tool-tissue force observations to an ACT imitation-learning policy improves task success and gentleness on seen and unseen tissue samples. This is supported by a direct, controlled comparison: the force policy receives force, vision, and kinematic inputs, while the no-force policy receives only vision and kinematics (Section III.D), and both are trained on the same 60 demonstrations. The outcome metrics are independent of the policy inputs: success is defined by grasping, lifting, and avoiding tissue damage (Section III.C), and gentleness is measured by the l2 norm of the force sensor readings (Eq. 5). The force sensor is the same device used to record the force observations, but that is the measured outcome of interest, not a fitted parameter or a term defined in terms of the prediction. No parameter is fitted to the target results, and no result is obtained by renaming a known pattern. The only overlapping-authority citations are [39] (ACT architecture, which the paper adapts) and [43] (force-estimation work by Okamura et al.), and [43] appears only in a future-integration suggestion, not as load-bearing justification for the central comparison. The stiffness-generalization result has a real validity threat: the two silicone samples are made from different materials (Dragon Skin vs Ecoflex), so the unseen-sample comparison may not isolate stiffness. However, a confound is not circularity; the result is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. No circular step is present.

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

The central comparison is empirical and rests on measurement assumptions (under-tissue sensor as force proxy), material assumptions (single sample pair differing only in stiffness), and statistical assumptions (t-test on likely non-normal pooled force data). No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • ACT training hyperparameters (Table I) = learning rate 1e-5, batch size 8, chunk size 100, 20,000 epochs
    No hyperparameter search is reported; both policies share these values, so the ablation is fair, but absolute performance may depend on them.
  • Force smoothing averaging window = unspecified
    Raw 800 Hz force/torque data are smoothed with an averaging window before downsampling to 30 Hz; the window length is not reported.
  • Success-criteria qualitative thresholds = unspecified
    Success requires the tissue to remain lifted for a 'reasonable amount of time' and to be 'not damaged'; these thresholds are not quantified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The under-tissue ATI sensor output equals tool-tissue interaction force
    The sensor is mounted beneath the tissue board; measured force includes gravitational, inertial, and mounting effects, with no reported calibration against grasper-tip force.
  • domain assumption The two silicone samples differ only in stiffness
    Dragon Skin and Ecoflex may differ in friction, surface texture, and tear resistance; only Young's modulus is reported.
  • domain assumption One expert's 60 demonstrations cover the randomized task distribution
    No coverage analysis or demonstration validation split is reported.
  • standard math t-test assumptions hold for the pooled force distributions
    Force values are bounded at zero and likely skewed; normality and independence across rollouts are unexamined.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Force-Aware Autonomous Robotic Surgery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2QUBG47V

@misc{pith2026250111742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Force-Aware Autonomous Robotic Surgery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2QUBG47V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11742}
}
read the original abstract

This work demonstrates the benefits of using tool-tissue interaction forces in the design of autonomous systems in robot-assisted surgery (RAS). Autonomous systems in surgery must manipulate tissues of different stiffness levels and hence should apply different levels of forces accordingly. We hypothesize that this ability is enabled by using force measurements as input to policies learned from human demonstrations. To test this hypothesis, we use Action-Chunking Transformers (ACT) to train two policies through imitation learning for automated tissue retraction with the da Vinci Research Kit (dVRK). To quantify the effects of using tool-tissue interaction force data, we trained a "no force policy" that uses the vision and robot kinematic data, and compared it to a "force policy" that uses force, vision and robot kinematic data. When tested on a previously seen tissue sample, the force policy is 3 times more successful in autonomously performing the task compared with the no force policy. In addition, the force policy is more gentle with the tissue compared with the no force policy, exerting on average 62% less force on the tissue. When tested on a previously unseen tissue sample, the force policy is 3.5 times more successful in autonomously performing the task, exerting an order of magnitude less forces on the tissue, compared with the no force policy. These results open the door to design force-aware autonomous systems that can meet the surgical guidelines for tissue handling, especially using the newly released RAS systems with force feedback capabilities such as the da Vinci 5.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11742 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The CVAE decoder used to generate the learned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. We include the tool-tissue interaction forces/torques [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The hardware setup used in this work. The tissue sample is mounted on a rigid board. The force/torque sensor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Data Collection Scheme: (a) Visualization of smoothed force values. The raw force/torque data was smoothed by applying an averaging window to reduce the effect of the measurement noise. (b) Visualization of data collection of multiple modalities. All modalities were re…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Average total applied force and standard deviation for both policy roll outs on the seen tissue sample. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Average total applied force and standard deviation for both policy roll outs on the unseen tissue sample. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [43]

    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,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’21), 2021, pp. 12 335–12 341

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    [Online]

    (2024) Intuitive Surgical Inverstor Overview. [Online]. Available: https://isrg.gcs-web.com/

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    Robotic surgery in urology: the way forward

    R. Autorino and F. Porpiglia, “Robotic surgery in urology: the way forward.” World Journal of Urology , vol. 38, no. 4, p. 809, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Robot- assisted surgery in gynecological oncology: current status and contro- versies on patient benefits, cost and surgeon conditions–a systematic review,

    S. E. Kristensen, B. J. Mosgaard, M. Rosendahl, T. Dalsgaard, S. F. Bjørn, L. P. Frøding, H. Kehlet, C. K. Høgdall, and H. Lajer, “Robot- assisted surgery in gynecological oncology: current status and contro- versies on patient benefits, cost and surgeon conditions–a systematic review,” Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica , vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 2...

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    Utility of the fourth arm to facilitate robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostate- ctomy,

    C. P. Sundaram, M. O. Koch, T. Gardner, and J. E. Bernie, “Utility of the fourth arm to facilitate robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostate- ctomy,” BJU International , vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 183–186, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [5]

    Maximizing console surgeon independence during robot-assisted renal surgery by using the fourth arm and tilepro,

    C. G. Rogers, R. Laungani, A. Bhandari, L. S. Krane, D. Eun, M. N. Patel, R. Boris, A. Shrivastava, and M. Menon, “Maximizing console surgeon independence during robot-assisted renal surgery by using the fourth arm and tilepro,” Journal of Endourology , vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 115–122, 2009

    work page 2009

  7. [6]

    A review of training research and virtual reality simulators for the da vinci surgical system,

    M. Liu and M. Curet, “A review of training research and virtual reality simulators for the da vinci surgical system,” Teaching and Learning in Medicine, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 12–26, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    Safety, efficiency and learning curves in robotic surgery: a human factors analysis,

    K. Catchpole, C. Perkins, C. Bresee, M. J. Solnik, B. Sherman, J. Fritch, B. Gross, S. Jagannathan, N. Hakami-Majd, R. Avenido et al. , “Safety, efficiency and learning curves in robotic surgery: a human factors analysis,” Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 30, pp. 3749–3761, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Current and future practices in surgical retraction,

    P. R. Steele, J. Curran, and R. Mountain, “Current and future practices in surgical retraction,” The Surgeon, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 330–337, 2013

    2013

  2. [9]

    Retracting soft tissue in minimally invasive hip arthroplasty using a robotic arm: a comparison between a semiactive retractor holder and human assistants in a cadaver study,

    D. Putzer, S. Klug, M. Haselbacher, E. Mayr, and M. Nogler, “Retracting soft tissue in minimally invasive hip arthroplasty using a robotic arm: a comparison between a semiactive retractor holder and human assistants in a cadaver study,” Surgical Innovation , vol. 22, no. 5, pp...

    2015

  3. [10]

    Tool- tissue forces in surgery: A systematic review,

    A. K. Golahmadi, D. Z. Khan, G. P. Mylonas, and H. J. Marcus, “Tool- tissue forces in surgery: A systematic review,” Annals of Medicine and Surgery, vol. 65, p. 102268, 2021

    2021

  4. [11]

    Human vs robotic organ retraction during laparoscopic nissen fundoplication,

    B. Poulose, M. Kutka, M. Mendoza-Sagaon, A. Barnes, C. Yang, R. Taylor, and M. Talamini, “Human vs robotic organ retraction during laparoscopic nissen fundoplication,” Surgical Endoscopy , vol. 13, pp. 461–465, 1999

    1999

  5. [12]

    Autonomy in surgical robotics,

    A. Attanasio, B. Scaglioni, E. De Momi, P. Fiorini, and P. Valdastri, “Autonomy in surgical robotics,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 651–679, 2021

    2021

  6. [13]

    Robot autonomy for surgery,

    M. Yip and N. Das, “Robot autonomy for surgery,” in The Encyclo- pedia of MEDICAL ROBOTICS: V olume 1 Minimally Invasive Surgical Robotics. World Scientific, 2019, pp. 281–313

    2019

  7. [14]

    Supervised autonomous robotic soft tissue surgery,

    A. Shademan, R. S. Decker, J. D. Opfermann, S. Leonard, A. Krieger, and P. C. Kim, “Supervised autonomous robotic soft tissue surgery,” Science Translational Medicine , vol. 8, no. 337, pp. 337ra64–337ra64, 2016

    2016

  8. [15]

    Human-machine collaborative surgery using learned models,

    N. Padoy and G. D. Hager, “Human-machine collaborative surgery using learned models,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’11) , 2011, pp. 5285–5292

    2011

  9. [16]

    Autonomous robotic laparoscopic surgery for intestinal anastomosis,

    H. Saeidi, J. D. Opfermann, M. Kam, S. Wei, S. L ´eonard, M. H. Hsieh, J. U. Kang, and A. Krieger, “Autonomous robotic laparoscopic surgery for intestinal anastomosis,” Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 62, p. eabj2908, 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Autonomous suturing framework and quantification using a cable-driven surgical robot,

    S. A. Pedram, C. Shin, P. W. Ferguson, J. Ma, E. P. Dutson, and J. Rosen, “Autonomous suturing framework and quantification using a cable-driven surgical robot,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 404–417, 2020

    2020

  11. [18]

    Par- allelism in autonomous robotic surgery,

    A. E. Abdelaal, J. Liu, N. Hong, G. D. Hager, and S. E. Salcudean, “Par- allelism in autonomous robotic surgery,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1824–1831, 2021

    2021

  12. [19]

    The current state of autonomous suturing: a systematic review,

    B. T. Ostrander, D. Massillon, L. Meller, Z.-Y . Chiu, M. Yip, and R. K. Orosco, “The current state of autonomous suturing: a systematic review,” Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 2383–2397, 2024

    2024

  13. [20]

    Autonomous robotic suction to clear the surgical field for hemostasis using image-based blood flow detection,

    F. Richter, S. Shen, F. Liu, J. Huang, E. K. Funk, R. K. Orosco, and M. C. Yip, “Autonomous robotic suction to clear the surgical field for hemostasis using image-based blood flow detection,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1383–1390, 2021

    2021

  14. [21]

    Autonomous robotic intracardiac catheter navigation using haptic vision,

    G. Fagogenis, M. Mencattelli, Z. Machaidze, B. Rosa, K. Price, F. Wu, V . Weixler, M. Saeed, J. E. Mayer, and P. E. Dupont, “Autonomous robotic intracardiac catheter navigation using haptic vision,” Science Robotics, vol. 4, no. 29, p. eaaw1977, 2019

    2019

  15. [22]

    Semi-autonomous simulated brain tumor ablation with ravenii surgical robot using behavior tree,

    D. Hu, Y . Gong, B. Hannaford, and E. J. Seibel, “Semi-autonomous simulated brain tumor ablation with ravenii surgical robot using behavior tree,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’15), 2015, pp. 3868–3875

    2015

  16. [23]

    Toward automated tissue retraction in robot- assisted surgery,

    S. Patil and R. Alterovitz, “Toward automated tissue retraction in robot- assisted surgery,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’10) , 2010, pp. 2088–2094

    2010

  17. [24]

    Surgical subtask automationsoft tissue retraction,

    T. D. Nagy, M. Tak ´acs, I. J. Rudas, and T. Haidegger, “Surgical subtask automationsoft tissue retraction,” in Proc. of IEEE 16th World Symposium on Applied Machine Intelligence and Informatics (SAMI’18) , 2018, pp. 55–60

    2018

  18. [25]

    Surgical retraction of non-uniform deformable layers of tissue: 2d robot grasping and path planning,

    R. Jansen, K. Hauser, N. Chentanez, F. Van Der Stappen, and K. Gold- berg, “Surgical retraction of non-uniform deformable layers of tissue: 2d robot grasping and path planning,” in Proc. of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS’09) , 2009, p...

    2009

  19. [26]

    Autonomous tissue retraction in robotic assisted minimally invasive surgery–a feasibility study,

    A. Attanasio, B. Scaglioni, M. Leonetti, A. F. Frangi, W. Cross, C. S. Biyani, and P. Valdastri, “Autonomous tissue retraction in robotic assisted minimally invasive surgery–a feasibility study,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 6528–6535, 2020

    2020

  20. [27]

    Autonomous flexible endoscope for minimally invasive surgery with enhanced safety,

    X. Ma, C. Song, P. W. Chiu, and Z. Li, “Autonomous flexible endoscope for minimally invasive surgery with enhanced safety,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 2607–2613, 2019

    2019

  21. [28]

    First experience with THE AUTOLAP SYSTEM: an image-based robotic camera steering device,

    P. J. Wijsman, I. A. Broeders, H. J. Brenkman, A. Szold, A. Forgione, H. W. Schreuder, E. C. Consten, W. A. Draaisma, P. M. Verheijen, J. P. Ruurda et al. , “First experience with THE AUTOLAP SYSTEM: an image-based robotic camera steering device,” Surgical Endoscopy , vol. 32,...

    2018

  22. [29]

    A survey of robot learning from demonstration,

    B. D. Argall, S. Chernova, M. Veloso, and B. Browning, “A survey of robot learning from demonstration,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 469–483, 2009

    2009

  23. [30]

    Superhuman performance of surgical tasks by robots using iterative learning from human-guided demonstrations,

    J. Van Den Berg, S. Miller, D. Duckworth, H. Hu, A. Wan, X.-Y . Fu, K. Goldberg, and P. Abbeel, “Superhuman performance of surgical tasks by robots using iterative learning from human-guided demonstrations,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation ...

    2010

  24. [31]

    Learning by observation for surgical subtasks: Multilateral cutting of 3d viscoelastic and 2d orthotropic tissue phantoms,

    A. Murali, S. Sen, B. Kehoe, A. Garg, S. McFarland, S. Patil, W. D. Boyd, S. Lim, P. Abbeel, and K. Goldberg, “Learning by observation for surgical subtasks: Multilateral cutting of 3d viscoelastic and 2d orthotropic tissue phantoms,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference ...

    2015

  25. [32]

    Toward teaching by demonstration for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery,

    H. Su, A. Mariani, S. E. Ovur, A. Menciassi, G. Ferrigno, and E. De Momi, “Toward teaching by demonstration for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 484–494, 2021

    2021

  26. [33]

    Autonomous needle manipulation for robotic surgical suturing based on skills learned from demonstration,

    K. L. Schwaner, D. Dall’Alba, P. T. Jensen, P. Fiorini, and T. R. Savarimuthu, “Autonomous needle manipulation for robotic surgical suturing based on skills learned from demonstration,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE’21), ...

    2021

  27. [34]

    Learning from demonstrations for autonomous soft-tissue retraction,

    A. Pore, E. Tagliabue, M. Piccinelli, D. DallAlba, A. Casals, and P. Fiorini, “Learning from demonstrations for autonomous soft-tissue retraction,” in Proc. of the International Symposium on Medical Robotics (ISMR’21), 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  28. [35]

    Trajectory planning under different initial conditions for surgical task automation by learning from demonstration,

    T. Osa, K. Harada, N. Sugita, and M. Mitsuishi, “Trajectory planning under different initial conditions for surgical task automation by learning from demonstration,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’14) , 2014, pp. 6507–6513

    2014

  29. [36]

    Autonomous tissue manipulation via surgical robot using learning based model predictive control,

    C. Shin, P. W. Ferguson, S. A. Pedram, J. Ma, E. P. Dutson, and J. Rosen, “Autonomous tissue manipulation via surgical robot using learning based model predictive control,” in Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’19) , 2019, pp. 3875–3881

    2019

  30. [37]

    Transferring know-how for an autonomous camera robotic assistant,

    I. Rivas-Blanco, C. J. Perez-del Pulgar, C. L ´opez-Casado, E. Bauzano, and V . F. Mu˜noz, “Transferring know-how for an autonomous camera robotic assistant,” Electronics, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 224, 2019

    2019

  31. [38]

    Surgical robot transformer (srt): Imitation learning for surgical subtasks,

    J. W. Kim, T. Z. Zhao, S. Schmidgall, A. Deguet, M. Kobilarov, C. Finn, and A. Krieger, “Surgical robot transformer (srt): Imitation learning for surgical subtasks,” in Proc. of 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL’24), 2024

    2024

  32. [39]

    Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware,

    T. Z. Zhao, V . Kumar, S. Levine, and C. Finn, “Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware,” Proc. of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS 23) , 2023

    2023

  33. [40]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,

    C. Chi, S. Feng, Y . Du, Z. Xu, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, and S. Song, “Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,” in Proc of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS’23) , 2023

    2023

  34. [41]

    6-dof force sensing for the master tool manipulator of the da vinci surgical system,

    D. G. Black, A. H. H. Hosseinabadi, and S. E. Salcudean, “6-dof force sensing for the master tool manipulator of the da vinci surgical system,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2264–2271, 2020

    2020

  35. [42]

    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

  36. [44]

    Haptics in teleoperated medical interventions: Force measurement, haptic interfaces and their influence on user’s performance,

    E. Abdi, D. Kuli ´c, and E. Croft, “Haptics in teleoperated medical interventions: Force measurement, haptic interfaces and their influence on user’s performance,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 67, no. 12, pp. 3438–3451, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Surgeons and non-surgeons prefer haptic feedback of instrument vibrations during robotic surgery,

    J. K. Koehn and K. J. Kuchenbecker, “Surgeons and non-surgeons prefer haptic feedback of instrument vibrations during robotic surgery,” Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 29, pp. 2970–2983, 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    Evaluation of haptic feedback on bimanually teleoperated laparoscopy for endometriosis surgery,

    S. P. Dez, G. Borghesan, L. Joyeux, C. Meuleman, J. Deprest, D. Stoy- anov, S. Ourselin, T. Vercauteren, D. Reynaerts, and E. B. V . Poorten, “Evaluation of haptic feedback on bimanually teleoperated laparoscopy for endometriosis surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engin...

    2019

  39. [47]

    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

  40. [48]

    Visual-tactile learning of garment unfolding for robot-assisted dressing,

    F. Zhang and Y . Demiris, “Visual-tactile learning of garment unfolding for robot-assisted dressing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 5512–5519, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proc. of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’16) , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  42. [50]

    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,” in Proc, of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’14), 2014, pp. 6434–6439

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.