pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.11747 · v1 · pith:3SKBI65Dnew · submitted 2019-06-27 · 💻 cs.RO

Raven: Open Surgical Robotic Platforms

Yangming Li , Blake Hannaford , Jacob Rosen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 14:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords Raven robotsurgical roboticsopen research platformrobotic surgeryresearch trendsRaven IRaven II
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Raven I and Raven II robots have served as open platforms for robotic surgery research over the past decade.

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

This review paper introduces the Raven I and Raven II surgical robots and examines recent publications that build on them, target them, or compare against them. It treats the robots as a case study to map popular research problems and trends in robotic surgery. A reader would care because these open platforms let researchers test ideas on shared hardware instead of starting from scratch each time. The analysis draws only from formally published works in the past three years to spotlight current interests and open opportunities.

Core claim

The Raven I and the Raven II surgical robots, as open research platforms, have been serving the robotic surgery research community for ten years. The paper reviews recent publications referencing these robots to identify the popular research problems in the community and the overall trend of robotic surgery study.

What carries the argument

The Raven I and Raven II open surgical robotic platforms, which provide shared hardware for researchers to develop, test, and compare new techniques without building systems from the ground up.

If this is right

  • The open nature of the Raven platforms allows direct application and comparison of new methods across multiple research groups.
  • Recent publications highlight active areas of work that can guide where new efforts are most likely to build on existing results.
  • The case study approach shows how a single shared platform can surface both established problems and emerging opportunities in the field.
  • Continued use of the platforms will extend the ability to track how research interests evolve over time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Other medical or engineering domains could benefit from creating comparable open hardware platforms to speed up collaborative testing.
  • Periodic updates to this kind of review could serve as a running map of how research priorities shift as the platforms mature.
  • Groups new to the area might start by examining the problems already being addressed on Raven hardware to avoid duplicating early-stage work.

Load-bearing premise

Publications referencing the Raven robots from only the past three years are enough to reveal the main research problems and trends across the entire robotic surgery community.

What would settle it

A complete review of all publications over the full ten-year period that finds substantially different popular problems or trends than those identified from the recent three-year sample.

read the original abstract

The Raven I and the Raven II surgical robots, as open research platforms, have been serving the robotic surgery research community for ten years. The paper 1) briefly presents the Raven I and the Raven II robots, 2) reviews the recent publications that are built upon the Raven robots, aim to be applied to the Raven robots, or are directly compared with the Raven robots, and 3) uses the Raven robots as a case study to discuss the popular research problems in the research community and the trend of robotic surgery study. Instead of being a thorough literature review, this work only reviews the works formally published in the past three years and uses these recent publications to analyze the research interests, the popular open research problems, and opportunities in the topic of robotic surgery.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the Raven I and Raven II open surgical robotic platforms, reviews publications from the past three years that build upon, aim to be applied to, or compare with these platforms, and uses the review as a case study to identify popular research problems, open issues, and trends in robotic surgery research.

Significance. If the sampling justification is supplied, the work usefully documents the decade-long role of open platforms in the robotic surgery community and supplies a recent snapshot of activity that could guide new researchers toward active topics. The emphasis on open-source hardware is a strength for reproducibility and community building.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the three-year review 'analyze[s] the research interests, the popular open research problems, and opportunities' and discusses 'the trend of robotic surgery study' is load-bearing, yet the manuscript presents the temporal restriction as a deliberate scope choice without any argument, comparison to earlier periods, or sampling validation that the window is representative rather than a transient snapshot.
  2. [Review of publications] The review of publications: No description is given of the search strategy, inclusion criteria, or database(s) used to identify the 'works formally published in the past three years,' so it is impossible to assess whether the identified popular problems are robust even within the stated window.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement of how many publications were reviewed and a breakdown by research topic to support the trend claims.
  2. Figure captions and table headings could be expanded to make the mapping from reviewed works to identified problems self-contained.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments identify areas where the manuscript's scope and methods can be clarified. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the three-year review 'analyze[s] the research interests, the popular open research problems, and opportunities' and discusses 'the trend of robotic surgery study' is load-bearing, yet the manuscript presents the temporal restriction as a deliberate scope choice without any argument, comparison to earlier periods, or sampling validation that the window is representative rather than a transient snapshot.

    Authors: The manuscript is framed as a case study that uses publications from the past three years to illustrate current research interests and open problems on the Raven platforms, rather than as a comprehensive or historically representative review. The three-year restriction is presented as a deliberate scope choice to focus on recent activity. We will revise the abstract and introduction to explicitly state this rationale and to note that the analysis is limited to observable trends within the selected window, without any claim of representativeness across earlier periods or validation that the window captures all historical trends. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Review of publications] The review of publications: No description is given of the search strategy, inclusion criteria, or database(s) used to identify the 'works formally published in the past three years,' so it is impossible to assess whether the identified popular problems are robust even within the stated window.

    Authors: We agree that a description of the search process is required for transparency. The current manuscript states only that it reviews formally published works from the past three years but does not detail the identification method. We will add a new subsection that describes the databases searched, keywords used, and inclusion criteria applied to select publications that build upon, aim to be applied to, or compare with the Raven platforms. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; purely descriptive review with no derivations or predictions

full rationale

The paper is a descriptive survey of Raven robot usage in recent publications. It presents hardware, summarizes papers from the past three years, and discusses trends based on that sample. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations exist that could reduce to inputs by construction. The three-year scope is explicitly stated as a deliberate limitation rather than a derived claim, and no self-citation chains or uniqueness theorems are invoked to support any result. This matches the default expectation of no significant circularity for non-mathematical descriptive work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a review paper; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5650 in / 879 out tokens · 23053 ms · 2026-05-25T14:29:03.388119+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 90 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The raven: Design and validation of a telesurgery system,

    M. J. Lum, D. C. Friedman, G. Sankaranarayanan, H. King, K. Fodero, R. Leuschke, B. Hannaford, J. Rosen, and M. N. Sinanan, “The raven: Design and validation of a telesurgery system,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1183–1197, 2009

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Raven-ii: an open platform for surgi- cal robotics research,

    B. Hannaford, J. Rosen, D. W. Friedman, H. King, P. Roan, L. Cheng, D. Gloz- man, J. Ma, S. N. Kosari, and L. White, “Raven-ii: an open platform for surgi- cal robotics research,”IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 954–959, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Raven II Software

    B. Lab., “Raven II Software.” https://github.com/uw-biorobotics, 2018. – 161 – Y . Li et al. Raven Review and Prospect

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Rosen, B

    J. Rosen, B. Hannaford, and R. M. Satava, Surgical robotics: systems applica- tions and visions. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    An open-source research kit for the da vinci R⃝ 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 R⃝ surgical system,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2014 IEEE International Conference on , pp. 6434–6439, IEEE, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Development of stereo endoscope system with its innovative master interface for continuous surgical operation,

    M. Kim, C. Lee, N. Hong, Y . J. Kim, and S. Kim, “Development of stereo endoscope system with its innovative master interface for continuous surgical operation,” Biomedical engineering online, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 81, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Design of a novel robotic system for min- imally invasive surgery,

    Y . Ai, B. Pan, Y . Fu, and S. Wang, “Design of a novel robotic system for min- imally invasive surgery,”Industrial Robot: An International Journal , vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 288–298, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Telesurgery with miniature robots to lever- age surgical expertise in distributed expeditionary environments,

    M. Reichenbach, T. Frederick, L. Cubrich, W. Bircher, N. Bills, M. Morien, S. Farritor, and D. Oleynikov, “Telesurgery with miniature robots to lever- age surgical expertise in distributed expeditionary environments,” Military medicine, vol. 182, no. suppl 1, pp. 316–321, 2017

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    Development of a novel paediatric surgical assist robot for tissue manipulation in a narrow workspace,

    Q. Liu, C. Shi, B. Zhang, C. Wang, L. Duan, T. Sun, X. Zhang, W. Li, Z. Wu, and M. G. Fujie, “Development of a novel paediatric surgical assist robot for tissue manipulation in a narrow workspace,” Assembly Automation, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 335–348, 2017

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Development and control of a robotic arm for percutaneous surgery,

    C. Zhou, H. Wu, X. Xu, Y . Liu, Q. Zhu, and S. Pan, “Development and control of a robotic arm for percutaneous surgery,” Assembly Automation , vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 314–321, 2017

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    A development of assistant surgical robot system based on surgical-operation-by- wire and hands-on-throttle-and-stick,

    M. Kim, C. Lee, W. J. Park, Y . S. Suh, H. K. Yang, H. J. Kim, and S. Kim, “A development of assistant surgical robot system based on surgical-operation-by- wire and hands-on-throttle-and-stick,”Biomedical engineering online, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 58, 2016

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Using general-purpose serial- link manipulators for laparoscopic surgery with moving remote center of mo- tion,

    M. M. Marinho, M. C. Bernardes, and A. P. Bo, “Using general-purpose serial- link manipulators for laparoscopic surgery with moving remote center of mo- tion,” Journal of Medical Robotics Research, vol. 1, no. 04, p. 1650007, 2016

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    Improved surgical instruments without coupled motion used in minimally invasive surgery,

    G. Niu, B. Pan, F. Zhang, H. Feng, and Y . Fu, “Improved surgical instruments without coupled motion used in minimally invasive surgery,”The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, p. e1942, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Soft robotic manipulator for improving dexterity in minimally invasive surgery,

    A. Diodato, M. Brancadoro, G. De Rossi, H. Abidi, D. Dall’Alba, R. Mu- radore, G. Ciuti, P. Fiorini, A. Menciassi, and M. Cianchetti, “Soft robotic manipulator for improving dexterity in minimally invasive surgery,” Surgical innovation, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 69–76, 2018

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Dimensional synthesis and concept design of a novel minimally invasive surgical robot,

    G. Niu, B. Pan, F. Zhang, H. Feng, W. Gao, and Y . Fu, “Dimensional synthesis and concept design of a novel minimally invasive surgical robot,” Robotica, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 715–737, 2018. – 162 – Acta Polytechnica Hungarica Vol. 14, No. 12, 2019

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Kinematic analysis of a newly designed cable-driven manipulator,

    W. Xu, Y . Wang, S. Jiang, J. Yao, and B. Chen, “Kinematic analysis of a newly designed cable-driven manipulator,”Transactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 125–135, 2018

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Dexterous and back-drivable par- allel robotic forceps wrist for robotic surgery,

    M. Bazman, N. Yilmaz, and U. Tumerdem, “Dexterous and back-drivable par- allel robotic forceps wrist for robotic surgery,” in Advanced Motion Control (AMC), 2018 IEEE 15th International Workshop on, pp. 153–159, IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Design and kinematic optimization of a two degrees-of-freedom planar remote center of motion mechanism for min- imally invasive surgery manipulators,

    S. Nisar, T. Endo, and F. Matsuno, “Design and kinematic optimization of a two degrees-of-freedom planar remote center of motion mechanism for min- imally invasive surgery manipulators,” Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics , vol. 9, no. 3, p. 031013, 2017

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    S-surge: Novel portable surgical robot with multiaxis force-sensing capability for min- imally invasive surgery,

    U. Kim, D.-H. Lee, Y . B. Kim, D.-Y . Seok, J. So, and H. R. Choi, “S-surge: Novel portable surgical robot with multiaxis force-sensing capability for min- imally invasive surgery,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1717–1727, 2017

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    A single port surgical robot system with novel elbow joint mechanism for high force transmission,

    M. Hwang, U.-J. Yang, D. Kong, D. G. Chung, J.-g. Lim, D.-H. Lee, D. H. Kim, D. Shin, T. Jang, J.-W. Kim, et al., “A single port surgical robot system with novel elbow joint mechanism for high force transmission,” The Interna- tional Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery , vol. 13, no. 4, p. e1808, 2017

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Roboscope: A flexible and bend- able surgical robot for single portal minimally invasive surgery,

    J. Rosen, L. N. Sekhar, D. Glozman, M. Miyasaka, J. Dosher, B. Dellon, K. S. Moe, A. Kim, L. J. Kim, T. Lendvay,et al., “Roboscope: A flexible and bend- able surgical robot for single portal minimally invasive surgery,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017 IEEE International Conference on , pp. 2364– 2370, IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    A four-dof laparo-endoscopic single site plat- form for rapidly-developing next-generation surgical robotics,

    L. Cubrich, M. A. Reichenbach, J. D. Carlson, A. Pracht, B. Terry, D. Oleynikov, and S. Farritor, “A four-dof laparo-endoscopic single site plat- form for rapidly-developing next-generation surgical robotics,” Journal of Medical Robotics Research, vol. 1, no. 04, p. 1650006, 2016

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Multi-optimization of a spherical mechanism for minimally invasive surgery,

    G.-j. Niu, B. Pan, F.-h. Zhang, H.-b. Feng, and Y .-l. Fu, “Multi-optimization of a spherical mechanism for minimally invasive surgery,” Journal of Central South University, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1406–1417, 2017

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Ma- nipulability of teleoperated surgical robots with application in design of mas- ter/slave manipulators,

    A. Torabi, M. Khadem, K. Zareinia, G. R. Sutherland, and M. Tavakoli, “Ma- nipulability of teleoperated surgical robots with application in design of mas- ter/slave manipulators,” inMedical Robotics (ISMR), 2018 International Sym- posium on, pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Modular manipulators for cluttered en- vironments: A task-based configuration design approach,

    S. Singh, A. Singla, and E. Singla, “Modular manipulators for cluttered en- vironments: A task-based configuration design approach,” Journal of Mecha- nisms and Robotics, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 051010, 2018

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    Kinematic analysis and simulation of a misr system using bimanual manipulator,

    D. Yang, L. Wang, and Y . Li, “Kinematic analysis and simulation of a misr system using bimanual manipulator,” in Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2016 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 271–276, IEEE, 2016. – 163 – Y . Li et al. Raven Review and Prospect

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    Automation of suturing path generation for da vinci-like surgical robotic systems,

    H. Dehghani, S. Farritor, D. Oleynikov, and B. Terry, “Automation of suturing path generation for da vinci-like surgical robotic systems,” in 2018 Design of Medical Devices Conference , pp. V001T07A008–V001T07A008, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Autonomous suturing via surgical robot: An algorithm for optimal selection of needle di- ameter, shape, and path,

    S. A. Pedram, P. Ferguson, J. Ma, E. Dutson, and J. Rosen, “Autonomous suturing via surgical robot: An algorithm for optimal selection of needle di- ameter, shape, and path,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017 IEEE In- ternational Conference on, pp. 2391–2398, IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    Autonomous multilateral surgical tumor resection with interchangeable instrument mounts and fluid injection device,

    S. McKinley, A. Garg, S. Sen, D. V . Gealy, J. P. McKinley, Y . Jen, and K. Gold- berg, “Autonomous multilateral surgical tumor resection with interchangeable instrument mounts and fluid injection device,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

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

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

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Semi- autonomous image-guided brain tumour resection using an integrated robotic system: A bench-top study,

    D. Hu, Y . Gong, E. J. Seibel, L. N. Sekhar, and B. Hannaford, “Semi- autonomous image-guided brain tumour resection using an integrated robotic system: A bench-top study,” The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 2017

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Path planning for semi- automated simulated robotic neurosurgery,

    D. Hu, Y . Gong, B. Hannaford, and E. J. Seibel, “Path planning for semi- automated simulated robotic neurosurgery,” in 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), September 2015

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    A framework for sensorless and autonomous probe-tissue contact management in robotic endomicroscopic scanning,

    R. J. Varghese, P. Berthet-Rayne, P. Giataganas, V . Vitiello, and G.-Z. Yang, “A framework for sensorless and autonomous probe-tissue contact management in robotic endomicroscopic scanning,” inRobotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 1738–1745, IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Human-centered transparency of grasping via a robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery system,

    A. Milstein, T. Ganel, S. Berman, and I. Nisky, “Human-centered transparency of grasping via a robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery system,” IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 349–358, 2018

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Human-centered transparency of grasping via a robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery system

    A. Milstein, T. Ganel, S. Berman, and I. Nisky, “The scaling of the gripper affects the action and perception in teleoperated grasping via a robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery system,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.05319, 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Analytical study of percep- tual and motor transparency in bilateral teleoperation,

    I. Nisky, F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi, and A. Karniel, “Analytical study of percep- tual and motor transparency in bilateral teleoperation,” IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 570–582, 2013

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    Surgical motion analysis using discriminative interpretable patterns,

    G. Forestier, F. Petitjean, P. Senin, F. Despinoy, A. Huaulm ´e, H. I. Fawaz, J. Weber, L. Idoumghar, P.-A. Muller, and P. Jannin, “Surgical motion analysis using discriminative interpretable patterns,”Artificial intelligence in medicine, 2018. – 164 – Acta Polytechnica Hungarica Vol. 14, No. 12, 2019

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    Evaluation of contactless human–machine interface for robotic surgical training,

    F. Despinoy, N. Zemiti, G. Forestier, A. S ´anchez, P. Jannin, and P. Poignet, “Evaluation of contactless human–machine interface for robotic surgical training,” International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery , vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 13–24, 2018

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Unsupervised trajectory segmentation for surgical gesture recog- nition in robotic training,

    F. Despinoy, D. Bouget, G. Forestier, C. Penet, N. Zemiti, P. Poignet, and P. Jannin, “Unsupervised trajectory segmentation for surgical gesture recog- nition in robotic training,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 1280–1291, 2016

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    A model based recurrent neural network with randomness for efficient control with applications,

    Y . Li, S. Li, and B. Hannaford, “A model based recurrent neural network with randomness for efficient control with applications,”IEEE Transactions on In- dustrial Informatics, 2018

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Region-specific objective signatures of endoscopic surgical instrument motion: A cadaveric exploratory analysis,

    R. A. Harbison, A. M. Berens, Y . Li, R. A. Bly, B. Hannaford, and K. S. Moe, “Region-specific objective signatures of endoscopic surgical instrument motion: A cadaveric exploratory analysis,” Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base, vol. 78, no. 01, pp. 099–104, 2017

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    Yu, PID Control with Intelligent Compensation for Exoskeleton Robots

    W. Yu, PID Control with Intelligent Compensation for Exoskeleton Robots . Academic Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    Integrated and nonlinear dynamic model of a poly- mer cable for low-speed cable-driven parallel robots,

    S.-H. Choi and K.-S. Park, “Integrated and nonlinear dynamic model of a poly- mer cable for low-speed cable-driven parallel robots,” Microsystem Technolo- gies, pp. 1–11, 2018

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    A novel recurrent neural network control scheme for improving redundant manipulator motion planning completeness,

    Y . Li, S. Li, and B. Hannaford, “A novel recurrent neural network control scheme for improving redundant manipulator motion planning completeness,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2018 IEEE International Conference on, p. 1 6, IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Trends in control and decision-making for human-robot collaboration systems [bookshelf],

    Y . Li, “Trends in control and decision-making for human-robot collaboration systems [bookshelf],” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 39, pp. 101–103, April 2019

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Toward intracorporeally navigated untethered microsurgeons,

    C. Bergeles, “Toward intracorporeally navigated untethered microsurgeons,”

    work page

  47. [47]

    Anatomical region segmentation for objective surgical skill assessment with operating room motion data,

    Y . Li, R. A. Bly, R. A. Harbison, I. M. Humphreys, M. E. Whipple, B. Han- naford, and K. S. Moe, “Anatomical region segmentation for objective surgical skill assessment with operating room motion data,” Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base, vol. 369, no. 15, pp. 1434–1442, 2017

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    Advanced numerical modeling of nonlinear elas- tic cable with recovery characteristics,

    S.-H. Choi and K.-S. Park, “Advanced numerical modeling of nonlinear elas- tic cable with recovery characteristics,” in ASME 2017 Conference on Infor- mation Storage and Processing Systems collocated with the ASME 2017 Con- ference on Information Storage and Processing Systems, pp. V001T07A009– V001T07A009, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2017

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    Improving control precision and motion adaptiveness for surgical robot with recurrent neural net- work,

    Y . Li, S. Li, M. Miyasaka, A. Lewis, and B. Hannaford, “Improving control precision and motion adaptiveness for surgical robot with recurrent neural net- work,” inIntelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2017. – 165 – Y . Li et al. Raven Review and Prospect

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    Gaussian process regression for sensorless grip force estimation of cable-driven elongated surgical instruments,

    Y . Li and B. Hannaford, “Gaussian process regression for sensorless grip force estimation of cable-driven elongated surgical instruments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1312–1319, 2017

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    Designing cable-driven actuation net- works for kinematic chains and trees,

    V . Megaro, E. Knoop, A. Spielberg, D. I. Levin, W. Matusik, M. Gross, B. Thomaszewski, and M. B ¨acher, “Designing cable-driven actuation net- works for kinematic chains and trees,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIG- GRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation , p. 15, ACM, 2017

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    Modeling of tendon-pulley transmission systems with application to surgical robots: A preliminary experimental validation,

    F. Anooshahpour, P. Yadmellat, I. G. Polushin, and R. V . Patel, “Modeling of tendon-pulley transmission systems with application to surgical robots: A preliminary experimental validation,” in Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), 2017 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 761–766, IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    Tension analysis of a 6- degree-of-freedom cable-driven parallel robot considering dynamic pulley bearing friction,

    S.-H. Choi, J.-O. Park, and K.-S. Park, “Tension analysis of a 6- degree-of-freedom cable-driven parallel robot considering dynamic pulley bearing friction,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering , vol. 9, no. 8, p. 1687814017714981, 2017

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    The integrated elasto-plastic cable modeling for cable driven parallel robots (cdprs),

    S.-H. Choi and K.-S. Park, “The integrated elasto-plastic cable modeling for cable driven parallel robots (cdprs),” inControl, Automation and Systems (IC- CAS), 2017 17th International Conference on, pp. 420–422, IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    Soft-obstacle avoidance for redundant manipulators with recurrent neural network,

    Y . Li and B. Hannaford, “Soft-obstacle avoidance for redundant manipulators with recurrent neural network,” inIntelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Collabora- tive human–robot system for hals suture procedures,

    E. Bauzano, B. Estebanez, I. Garcia-Morales, and V . F. Mu ˜noz, “Collabora- tive human–robot system for hals suture procedures,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 957–966, 2016

    work page 2016

  57. [57]

    Simulation results on selector adaptation in behavior trees,

    B. Hannaford, D. Hu, D. Zhang, and Y . Li, “Simulation results on selector adaptation in behavior trees,” 2016

    work page 2016

  58. [58]

    Time-of-flight-assisted kinect camera-based people detection for intuitive human robot cooperation in the surgical operating room,

    T. Beyl, P. Nicolai, M. D. Comparetti, J. Raczkowsky, E. De Momi, and H. W ¨orn, “Time-of-flight-assisted kinect camera-based people detection for intuitive human robot cooperation in the surgical operating room,” Interna- tional journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery , vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 1329–1345, 2016

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    Unscented kalman filter and 3d vision to improve cable driven surgical robot joint an- gle estimation,

    M. Haghighipanah, M. Miyasaka, Y . Li, and B. Hannaford, “Unscented kalman filter and 3d vision to improve cable driven surgical robot joint an- gle estimation,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 4135–4142, IEEE, 2016

    work page 2016

  60. [60]

    Control system design for a novel mini- mally invasive surgical robot,

    Y . Ai, B. Pan, Y . Fu, and S. Wang, “Control system design for a novel mini- mally invasive surgical robot,” Computer Assisted Surgery, vol. 21, no. sup1, pp. 45–53, 2016

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    Dy- namic modeling of cable driven elongated surgical instruments for sensorless – 166 – Acta Polytechnica Hungarica Vol. 14, No. 12, 2019 grip force estimation,

    Y . Li, M. Miyasaka, M. Haghighipanah, L. Cheng, and B. Hannaford, “Dy- namic modeling of cable driven elongated surgical instruments for sensorless – 166 – Acta Polytechnica Hungarica Vol. 14, No. 12, 2019 grip force estimation,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016 IEEE Inter- national Conference on, pp. 4128–4134, IEEE, 2016

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    Hysteresis model of longitudinally loaded cable for cable driven robots and identification of the parameters,

    M. Miyasaka, M. Haghighipanah, Y . Li, and B. Hannaford, “Hysteresis model of longitudinally loaded cable for cable driven robots and identification of the parameters,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 4051–4057, IEEE, 2016

    work page 2016

  63. [63]

    Preoperative planning simulator with haptic feedback for raven-ii surgical robotics platform,

    A. Bhardwaj, A. Jain, and V . Agarwal, “Preoperative planning simulator with haptic feedback for raven-ii surgical robotics platform,” inComputing for Sus- tainable Global Development (INDIACom), 2016 3rd International Confer- ence on, pp. 2443–2448, IEEE, 2016

    work page 2016

  64. [64]

    Improving po- sition precision of a servo-controlled elastic cable driven surgical robot us- ing unscented kalman filter,

    M. Haghighipanah, Y . Li, M. Miyasaka, and B. Hannaford, “Improving po- sition precision of a servo-controlled elastic cable driven surgical robot us- ing unscented kalman filter,” in Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pp. 2030–2036, IEEE, 2015

    work page 2015

  65. [65]

    A master manipu- lator with a remote-center-of-motion kinematic structure for a minimally inva- sive robotic surgical system,

    H. Lee, B. Cheon, M. Hwang, D. Kang, and D.-S. Kwon, “A master manipu- lator with a remote-center-of-motion kinematic structure for a minimally inva- sive robotic surgical system,” The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, vol. 14, no. 1, p. e1865, 2018

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    Design of a new haptic device and experiments in minimally invasive surgical robot,

    T. Wang, B. Pan, Y . Fu, S. Wang, and Y . Ai, “Design of a new haptic device and experiments in minimally invasive surgical robot,”Computer Assisted Surgery, vol. 22, no. sup1, pp. 240–250, 2017

    work page 2017

  67. [67]

    A laparoscopic grasping tool with force sensing capability,

    D.-H. Lee, U. Kim, T. Gulrez, W. J. Yoon, B. Hannaford, and H. R. Choi, “A laparoscopic grasping tool with force sensing capability,” IEEE/ASME Trans- actions on Mechatronics, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 130–141, 2016

    work page 2016

  68. [68]

    Design of a multi-dof cable-driven mechanism of a miniature serial manipulator for robot-assisted minimally in- vasive surgery,

    A. Tzemanaki, L. Fracczak, D. Gillatt, A. Koupparis, C. Melhuish, R. Persad, E. Rowe, A. G. Pipe, and S. Dogramadzi, “Design of a multi-dof cable-driven mechanism of a miniature serial manipulator for robot-assisted minimally in- vasive surgery,” inBiomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), 2016 6th IEEE International Conference on, pp. 55–60, IEEE, 2016

    work page 2016

  69. [69]

    Motion control skill as- sessment based on kinematic analysis of robotic end-effector movements,

    K. Liang, Y . Xing, J. Li, S. Wang, A. Li, and J. Li, “Motion control skill as- sessment based on kinematic analysis of robotic end-effector movements,”The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery , vol. 14, no. 1, p. e1845, 2018

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    On cyber-physical at- tacks in bilateral teleoperation systems: An experimental analysis,

    A. Munteanu, R. Muradore, M. Merro, and P. Fiorini, “On cyber-physical at- tacks in bilateral teleoperation systems: An experimental analysis,” in 2018 IEEE Industrial Cyber-Physical Systems (ICPS), pp. 159–166, IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  71. [71]

    Ros-igtl- bridge: an open network interface for image-guided therapy using the ros en- vironment,

    T. Frank, A. Krieger, S. Leonard, N. A. Patel, and J. Tokuda, “Ros-igtl- bridge: an open network interface for image-guided therapy using the ros en- vironment,” International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1451–1460, 2017. – 167 – Y . Li et al. Raven Review and Prospect

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    Motion re- production system using multi dof haptic forceps robots for ligation task,

    T. Matsunaga, T. Okano, X. Sun, T. Mizoguchi, and K. Ohnishi, “Motion re- production system using multi dof haptic forceps robots for ligation task,” in Industrial Electronics Society, IECON 2017-43rd Annual Conference of the IEEE, pp. 2888–2893, IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  73. [73]

    Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of fda data,

    H. Alemzadeh, J. Raman, N. Leveson, Z. Kalbarczyk, and R. K. Iyer, “Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of fda data,” PloS one, vol. 11, no. 4, p. e0151470, 2016

    work page 2016

  74. [74]

    Rt- ros: A real-time ros architecture on multi-core processors,

    H. Wei, Z. Shao, Z. Huang, R. Chen, Y . Guan, J. Tan, and Z. Shao, “Rt- ros: A real-time ros architecture on multi-core processors,”Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 56, pp. 171–178, 2016

    work page 2016

  75. [75]

    Targeted attacks on teleoperated surgical robots: Dynamic model-based de- tection and mitigation,

    H. Alemzadeh, D. Chen, X. Li, T. Kesavadas, Z. T. Kalbarczyk, and R. K. Iyer, “Targeted attacks on teleoperated surgical robots: Dynamic model-based de- tection and mitigation,” in Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), 2016 46th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on , pp. 395–406, IEEE, 2016

    work page 2016

  76. [76]

    Safety-critical cyber-physical attacks: Analysis, detection, and mitigation,

    H. Lin, H. Alemzadeh, D. Chen, Z. Kalbarczyk, and R. K. Iyer, “Safety-critical cyber-physical attacks: Analysis, detection, and mitigation,” inProceedings of the Symposium and Bootcamp on the Science of Security , pp. 82–89, ACM, 2016

    work page 2016

  77. [77]

    A cognitive robot control architecture for autonomous exe- cution of surgical tasks,

    N. Preda, F. Ferraguti, G. De Rossi, C. Secchi, R. Muradore, P. Fiorini, and M. Bonf `e, “A cognitive robot control architecture for autonomous exe- cution of surgical tasks,”Journal of Medical Robotics Research, vol. 1, no. 04, p. 1650008, 2016

    work page 2016

  78. [78]

    Intuitive control algorithm of a novel min- imally invasive surgical robot,

    G. Niu, B. Pan, Y . Ai, and Y . Fu, “Intuitive control algorithm of a novel min- imally invasive surgical robot,”Computer Assisted Surgery, vol. 21, no. sup1, pp. 92–101, 2016

    work page 2016

  79. [79]

    Architecture design for a mis robot control system,

    X. Da, Q. Cao, P. Chen, and M. Adachi, “Architecture design for a mis robot control system,”

    work page

  80. [80]

    A novel communication architecture and control system for tele- bot: A multi-modal telepresence robot for disabled officers.,

    S. Sundarapandian, S. Ferris-Francis, H. Michko, C. Charters, J. Miller, and N. Prabakar, “A novel communication architecture and control system for tele- bot: A multi-modal telepresence robot for disabled officers.,” International Journal of Next-Generation Computing, vol. 7, no. 3, 2016

    work page 2016

Showing first 80 references.