Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Implementation and Assessment of an Augmented Training Curriculum for Surgical Robotics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Force-based haptic assistance during virtual-reality surgical training improves performance during training and promotes transfer of acquired skills to unassisted, never-seen surgical evaluation tasks.

desk verdict The protocol is well-designed, but Eq. 18 defines performance as a weighted sum of lower-is-better errors with no sign inversion, so the paper's quantitative conclusions invert if read literally. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07718 v1 pith:GAJ2V7LH submitted 2025-07-10 cs.RO

Alberto Rota , Ke Fan , Elena De Momi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords surgicalroboticstraininghapticassistancevirtualrealitysimulatorskilltransferforcefeedbackrobot-assistedsurgerycurriculumevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that adding force-based haptic assistance to a virtual-reality surgical robotics training curriculum improves performance during training and, more importantly, that the improvement carries over to surgical tasks the trainee has never seen and performs without any assistance. It describes a simulator with eight tasks and four assistance modes that push or pull the trainee's hands toward targets, away from obstacles, along reference trajectories, and inside safe insertion cones. In a study of eight novices split into assisted and unassisted groups, the assisted group scored higher on the training tasks and on three of the four unassisted evaluation tasks after a two-day pause, with the largest median gain on a liver-resection task. The authors take this as evidence that haptic guidance gets integrated into the visuo-haptic motor loop used during teleoperation and continues to shape performance after the assistance is switched off.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a set of haptic assistance laws that convert distance and angular errors into forces and torques applied to the master manipulators of a surgical teleoperation console. Each law uses a sigmoidal error-mapping function to decide when assistance engages, and combines an elastic component proportional to the error with a viscous component that damps oscillations. Four modes are implemented: trajectory guidance, obstacle avoidance, surface guidance, and insertion guidance. The outcome measure is the performance index $P$, a weighted average of six logged metrics (distance error $D$, angular error $A$, force and torque feedback magnitudes $F$ and $T$, number of drops $M$, and repositioning time fraction $C$), each normalized by the corresponding metric of an expert resident surgeon; higher $P$ is interpreted as better performance.

What would settle it

Recompute the performance index $P$ with the error metrics $D$ and $A$ entered as penalties rather than positive contributions, and with $F$ and $T$ excluded entirely for the unassisted group; if the assisted group then no longer outperforms the control group on the evaluation tasks, the claimed transfer effect does not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that force-based haptic assistance during the training phase does not merely improve execution of assisted exercises; it also improves performance on unassisted, never-seen evaluation tasks designed to resemble real surgical procedures. On the final day, after four training days and two days without practice, assisted-group subjects outperformed control subjects on Liver Resection (median +21.54%), Thymectomy (+13.07%), and Suturing (+8.44%), while Nephrectomy showed a small median decrease (−2.71%). The authors attribute this to the integration of haptic guidance into the visuo-haptic motor feedback loop used during teleoperation, so that the benefits persist even when assistance is absent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the performance index $P$ in Eq. 18 is a valid higher-is-better measure of surgical skill, because it sums distance and angular errors (where lower is better) together with feedback magnitudes (which are zero for unassisted trainees); if that sign convention is wrong, all reported improvements invert.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Trainees who receive force-based assistance during training can be expected to outperform unassisted trainees on surgical tasks they have never practiced, even with assistance switched off.
  • The transfer benefit is not uniform across tasks: one of the four evaluation tasks showed a slight median decrease, so the effect may depend on the specific skill or task geometry.
  • Haptic assistance acts as a real-time error-correction strategy, redirecting the instrument toward safer regions, which could reduce errors and invasiveness if applied during clinical teleoperation.
  • The learning curves of the two groups did not differ significantly, so the advantage shows up in absolute performance level rather than in the rate of improvement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: a natural next experiment would test whether fading assistance (reducing force as skill improves) produces larger transfer than constant assistance, because trainees would be forced to internalize the corrections instead of relying on them.
  • Beyond the paper: the performance index $P$ combines lower-is-better error metrics with feedback magnitudes that are zero for the control group, so re-analysing the data with errors entered as penalties, or with $F$ and $T$ excluded, would show how much of the reported advantage depends on that scoring choice.
  • Beyond the paper: with eight subjects and a single expert benchmark, the reported percentage gains are likely noisy; a larger pre-registered replication would be needed to estimate the true effect size.
  • Beyond the paper: because the assisted group trained with help and the control group did not, the higher training scores may partly reflect the assistance doing the work; comparing post-training unassisted performance between groups equated for task exposure would separate genuine skill acquisition from assistance-induced inflation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes a haptic-enhanced virtual reality simulator for surgical robotics training, including four haptic assistance strategies (trajectory guidance, obstacle avoidance, surface guidance, insertion guidance), eight surgical tasks, and an experimental study with eight novice subjects divided into assisted and control groups. The experiment spans four training days with assistance delivered only to the assisted group, followed by two rest days and a final day of unassisted, never-seen evaluation tasks. The authors claim that haptic assistance improves performance during training and promotes transfer of skills to unassisted scenarios. The quantitative outcome is a performance index P defined in Eq. (18), and results are reported as percentage differences in mean and median P values between the two groups.

Significance. If the central claims were valid, the work would be a meaningful contribution to surgical robotics training: it presents a multi-task simulator integrated with a real dVRK system, implements several haptic assistance formulations, and uses a multi-day protocol with a transfer phase—an advance over ad-hoc single-task evaluations. The authors are also transparent about the exploratory nature and small sample size. However, the quantitative foundation is undermined by an apparent sign error in the performance index, a circularity in the training-phase comparison, and the absence of inferential statistics. These issues affect every quantitative conclusion in the paper, so the study's contribution is currently not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (18), Section III-E] Equation (18) defines P as (1/10) Σ w_k X_k(subject)/X_k(surgeon) for k ∈ {D, A, F, T, M, C}. D (distance error), A (angular error), M (number of drops), and C (fraction of time spent repositioning) are all lower-is-better metrics. No inversion, complement, or negative sign is applied, so lower P should correspond to better performance. Section IV and Figure 3 instead interpret higher P as better, treating +21.54% on Liver Resection as an improvement and −2.71% on Nephrectomy as a decrement. Under the literal reading of Eq. (18), every reported group difference reverses, contradicting the abstract's claim of improved performance and transfer. This is an internal inconsistency in the central outcome measure, not a minor notation issue.
  2. [Section III-D, Eq. (18), Table I] During the training phase (Days 1–4), the assistance feedback magnitudes F and T are nonzero only for the assisted group and zero for the control group. These terms enter with positive weights in Eq. (18), so the assisted group's P is inflated mechanically. The assistance algorithms are also designed to reduce exactly the error metrics D and A, which carry the largest weights in Table I. The training-phase performance advantage is therefore forced by the construction of the metric rather than by any measured difference in skill acquisition. The only non-circular comparison is Day 7, where both groups are unassisted and F = T = 0 for both; however, that comparison is still compromised by the sign-convention problem in the first comment.
  3. [Section IV] The results section reports only descriptive statistics (means, medians, standard deviations) with no significance tests, confidence intervals, or effect sizes. With n = 4 per group and three repetitions per task, the reported differences (e.g., +21.54% for Liver Resection) are well within sampling variability, and the boxplots in Figure 3 appear to show overlapping distributions. The discussion's conclusion that haptic assistance 'promotes the transfer of the acquired skills' is not supported without at least a permutation test or a mixed-effects model that accounts for repeated measures and the small sample size.
  4. [Eq. (18), Metrics defined in Section III-E] Equation (18) normalizes each metric by X_k(surgeon), the expert surgeon's metric value. For metrics where the expert's value is zero—notably M (number of drops) on Exchange and Suturing, and possibly F and T if the expert's reference performance was recorded without assistance—the ratio is undefined. The manuscript does not state how zero expert values are handled, yet Table I assigns nonzero weights to M for Exchange and Suturing. This affects every computation of P and must be addressed for the index to be valid.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II] The word 'monitorning' appears to be a typo for 'monitoring'.
  2. [Section III-B] The text 'Weights are reported in Table III-D' appears to refer to Table I, not a table labeled 'III-D'.
  3. [Section III-D] The word 'assignation' should be 'assignment'.
  4. [Section IV] The sentence 'The performance distribution shown for Nephrectomy, Liver Resection and Suturing mimic the one reported in Figure 3' should use 'mimics' for grammatical agreement.
  5. [Section III-D] The manuscript does not report how many repetitions the expert surgeon performed to obtain the reference metric values, nor whether assistance was active during those reference recordings; this information is needed to interpret the normalization in Eq. (18).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Training-phase performance advantage is built into Eq. 18 because P directly sums the assistance magnitudes F and T, which are nonzero only for the assisted group.

  1. self definitional [Section III-D (Eq. 18 and metric definitions), used in Sections IV and V]
    "P = 1/10 Σ_{k=1}^6 w_k · X_k(subject)/X_k(surgeon) (18) with k ∈ {D, A, F, T, M, C} refers to each of the metrics included in this study. [...] F = f (D, ˙D, K, η) Force Feedback Magnitude, calculated by the specific assistance algorithm as a function of the distance error D, its rate of change ˙D and the visco-elastic parameters."

    During Days 1-4 the claim that assisted subjects achieve higher performance is entailed by construction of the outcome variable: Eq. 18 adds the force and torque feedback magnitudes F and T as positive, task-weighted components, and F and T are zero for the unassisted control group because no assistance is delivered. In addition, D and A are error terms that the assistance actively reduces, and they also enter P positively without sign inversion. Thus the higher P of the assisted group on the training tasks is the metric restating that assistance was applied, not independent evidence of learning.

full rationale

The only load-bearing circular step is the performance index. Eq. 18's numerator is a weighted sum in which the intervention itself, the haptic feedback magnitudes F and T, is a positive component, so the training-phase improvement reduces to the definition of P rather than to a measured effect; this warrants a partial-circularity score. The Day 7 transfer result removes F and T and is therefore not fully forced by the same construction, though it inherits the metric's non-inverted treatment of lower-is-better error terms. The paper also cites its own prior simulator work for the haptic implementation ([36]), but that citation is a methods attribution, not a load-bearing theoretical premise, and no uniqueness theorem or fitted parameter is imported from the authors. The score is set at 6 rather than higher because the strongest transfer claim is a between-group comparison on unassisted tasks and would not reduce by construction if the metric were corrected.

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

The central claims rest on manually chosen assistance parameters, consultant-set performance weights, and the assumed validity of the simulator and of the performance metric as a measure of surgical skill. None of these are independently verified in the paper.

free parameters (4)
  • Sigmoid parameters t, h, w = not reported
    Shape the mapping from error to assistance intensity for every algorithm (Eq. 1); values are not given.
  • Visco-elastic gains K_F, eta_F, K_T, eta_T = not reported
    Determine the magnitude and damping of haptic forces and torques (Eqs. 2, 3); manually tuned and not reported.
  • Relax distance d_r = 20% of cone height
    Scales down insertion force near the target (Eq. 17); chosen by a clinical consultant.
  • Task-specific performance weights w_k = see Table I
    Weights used in P (Eq. 18); determined with clinical consultants, not from data or prior validation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Expert surgeon performance is near-optimal and suitable as normalization baseline.
    P divides each subject metric by the expert surgeon's metric (Eq. 18); no evidence given that the expert's F and T values are defined for unassisted tasks.
  • domain assumption The metrics D, A, F, T, M, C capture surgical skill.
    Used to construct P; no validation of construct validity is provided.
  • domain assumption The dVRK inverse dynamics model accurately generates the commanded haptic forces.
    The hardware relies on energizing MTM motors according to the inverse dynamics model (Section III.C); accuracy is assumed.
  • domain assumption The Unity physics engine faithfully simulates the surgical tasks.
    All task interactions and metric recordings happen in the simulated environment; fidelity is not validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Implementation and Assessment of an Augmented Training Curriculum for Surgical Robotics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GAJ2V7LH

@misc{pith2026250707718,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Implementation and Assessment of an Augmented Training Curriculum for Surgical Robotics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GAJ2V7LH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07718}
}
read the original abstract

The integration of high-level assistance algorithms in surgical robotics training curricula may be beneficial in establishing a more comprehensive and robust skillset for aspiring surgeons, improving their clinical performance as a consequence. This work presents the development and validation of a haptic-enhanced Virtual Reality simulator for surgical robotics training, featuring 8 surgical tasks that the trainee can interact with thanks to the embedded physics engine. This virtual simulated environment is augmented by the introduction of high-level haptic interfaces for robotic assistance that aim at re-directing the motion of the trainee's hands and wrists toward targets or away from obstacles, and providing a quantitative performance score after the execution of each training exercise.An experimental study shows that the introduction of enhanced robotic assistance into a surgical robotics training curriculum improves performance during the training process and, crucially, promotes the transfer of the acquired skills to an unassisted surgical scenario, like the clinical one.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07718 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a illustrates the vectors involved in the computation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Vectors involved in the computation of the haptic assistance algorithms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. d shows a representative example. For the insertion cone, fixed in space, the aperture a relates the longitudinal and radial components through the angle α (expressed in degrees) as follows: a = tan  α · π 180  ∥r∥ = ∥l∥ · a The computed feedback force aims at maintaining the EE position inside the safe insertion cone, therefore the threshold in the error mapping function fmap(·) is set to t = ∥r∥, the value of wh… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Snapshot of the simulated surgical tasks, with the respective denomination. Training tasks have blue headlines, while realistic evaluation tasks have [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Performance trend of assisted subjects (blue) and unassisted subjects (orange) of the Path training task; Right: Boxplots of the average performance of assisted subjects (blue) and unassisted subjects (orange) of the Thymectomy evaluation task and the unassisted …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A decade retrospective of medical robotics research from 2010 to 2020

    Pierre E Dupont, Bradley J Nelson, Michael Goldfarb, Blake Hannaford, Arianna Menciassi, Marcia K O’Malley, Nabil Simaan, Pietro Valdastri, and Guang-Zhong Yang. A decade retrospective of medical robotics research from 2010 to 2020. Science Robotics , 6(60):eabi8017, 2021

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Training for minimally invasive surgery

    Bruce M Wolfe, Zoltan Szabo, Michael E Moran, Paul Chan, and John G Hunter. Training for minimally invasive surgery. Surgical endoscopy , 7(2):93–95, 1993

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    The future of surgery: Technology enhanced surgical training report

    Joshua Burke. The future of surgery: Technology enhanced surgical training report. The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 103(S1):014–017, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Virtual fixtures: Perceptual tools for telerobotic ma- nipulation

    Louis B Rosenberg. Virtual fixtures: Perceptual tools for telerobotic ma- nipulation. In Proceedings of IEEE virtual reality annual international symposium, pages 76–82. Ieee, 1993

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    Active constraints/virtual fixtures: A survey

    Stuart A Bowyer, Brian L Davies, and Ferdinando Rodriguez y Baena. Active constraints/virtual fixtures: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 30(1):138–157, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Rozenblit

    Minsik Hong and Jerzy W. Rozenblit. A haptic guidance system for computer-assisted surgical training using virtual fixtures. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) , pages 002230–002235, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    A Survey of Visuo-Haptic Simulation in Surgical Training

    Felix G Hamza-Lup, Crenguta M Bogdan, Dorin M Popovici, and Ovidiu D Costea. A survey of visuo-haptic simulation in surgical training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.03272 , 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1903

  8. [8]

    Virtual reality and augmented reality—translating surgical training into surgical technique

    R Randall McKnight, Christian A Pean, J Stewart Buck, John S Hwang, Joseph R Hsu, and Sarah N Pierrie. Virtual reality and augmented reality—translating surgical training into surgical technique. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine , 13(6):663–674, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review

    Olivier AJ Van der Meijden and Marlies P Schijven. The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review. Surgical endoscopy, 23(6):1180–1190, 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    A meta-analysis of the training effectiveness of virtual reality surgical simulators

    Syed Haque and Shankar Srinivasan. A meta-analysis of the training effectiveness of virtual reality surgical simulators. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine , 10(1):51–58, 2006

    2006

  3. [11]

    Multiser- vice laparoscopic surgical training using the davinci surgical system

    Eric J Hanly, Michael R Marohn, Sharon L Bachman, Mark A Talamini, Sander O Hacker, Robin S Howard, and Noah S Schenkman. Multiser- vice laparoscopic surgical training using the davinci surgical system. The American Journal of Surgery , 187(2):309–315, 2004

    2004

  4. [12]

    Robotic and laparoscopic surgery: cost and training

    Hiten RH Patel, Ana Linares, and Jean V Joseph. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery: cost and training. Surgical oncology , 18(3):242– 246, 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    Laparoscopic and robotic surgical training in urology

    Andr ´as Hoznek, Ran Katz, Matthew Gettman, Laurent Salomon, Patrick Antiphon, Alexandre de la Taille, Ren ´e Yiou, Dominique Chopin, and Cl´ement-Claude Abbou. Laparoscopic and robotic surgical training in urology. Current Urology Reports , 4(2):130–137, 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    Coordinated multiple cadaver use for minimally invasive surgical training

    Sarah D Blaschko, H Mark Brooks, S Michael Dhuy, Cynthia Charest- Shell, Ralph V Clayman, and Elspeth M McDougall. Coordinated multiple cadaver use for minimally invasive surgical training. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons , 11(4):403, 2007

    2007

  7. [15]

    Single session of robotic human cadaver training: the immediate impact on urology residents in a teaching hospital

    Riccardo Bertolo, Juan Garisto, Julien Dagenais, Daniel Sagalovich, and Jihad H Kaouk. Single session of robotic human cadaver training: the immediate impact on urology residents in a teaching hospital. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, 28(10):1157–1162, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Anatomically relevant pelvic phantom for surgical simulation

    Ill ´es Nigicser, Bal ´azs Szab ´o, L ´aszl´o Jaksa, D ´enes ´Akos Nagy, Tivadar Garamv¨olgyi, Szilvia Barcza, P ´eter Galambos, and Tam ´as Haidegger. Anatomically relevant pelvic phantom for surgical simulation. In 2016 7th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocomm...

    2016

  9. [17]

    Minimally invasive surgical technologies: Challenges in education and training

    J S ´andor, B Lengyel, T Haidegger, Gy Saftics, G Papp, A Nagy, and Gy W ´eber. Minimally invasive surgical technologies: Challenges in education and training. Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery , 3(3):101– 108, 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    Do laparoscopic pelvic trainer exercises improve residents’ surgical skills? a randomized con- trolled trial

    Jean Dubuisson, Fleur Vilmin, Michel Boulvain, Christophe Combes- cure, Patrick Petignat, and Philippe Brossard. Do laparoscopic pelvic trainer exercises improve residents’ surgical skills? a randomized con- trolled trial. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reprod...

    2016

  11. [19]

    An evaluation of inanimate and virtual reality training for psychomotor skill development in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery

    Guido Caccianiga, Andrea Mariani, Elena De Momi, Gabriela Cantarero, and Jeremy D Brown. An evaluation of inanimate and virtual reality training for psychomotor skill development in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics , ...

    2020

  12. [20]

    3d printing technology and its role in urological training

    Brandon Smith and Prokar Dasgupta. 3d printing technology and its role in urological training. World journal of urology, 38(10):2385–2391, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Recent advancements in augmented reality for robotic applications: A survey

    Junling Fu, Alberto Rota, Shufei Li, Jianzhuang Zhao, Qingsheng Liu, Elisa Iovene, Giancarlo Ferrigno, and Elena De Momi. Recent advancements in augmented reality for robotic applications: A survey. In Actuators, volume 12, page 323. MDPI, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    A systematic review on orthopedic simulators for psycho-motor skill and surgical procedure training

    Darshan D Ruikar, Ravindra S Hegadi, and KC Santosh. A systematic review on orthopedic simulators for psycho-motor skill and surgical procedure training. Journal of medical systems , 42(9):1–21, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Objective metrics for the evaluation of simple surgical skills in real and virtual domains

    Louise Moody, Chris Baber, Theodoros N Arvanitis, and Martin Elliott. Objective metrics for the evaluation of simple surgical skills in real and virtual domains. Presence: teleoperators & virtual environments , 12(2):207–221, 2003

    2003

  16. [24]

    Self- assessment in simulation-based surgical skills training

    Jeannie MacDonald, Reed G Williams, and David A Rogers. Self- assessment in simulation-based surgical skills training. The American journal of surgery , 185(4):319–322, 2003

    2003

  17. [25]

    Bric, Derek C

    Justin D. Bric, Derek C. Lumbard, Matthew J. Frelich, and Jon C. Gould. Current state of virtual reality simulation in robotic surgery training: a review, 6 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Aghazadeh, Miguel A

    Monty A. Aghazadeh, Miguel A. Mercado, Michael M. Pan, Brian J. Miles, and Alvin C. Goh. Performance of robotic simulated skills tasks is positively associated with clinical robotic surgical performance. BJU International, 118:475–481, 9 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Comparative assessment of three standardized robotic surgery training methods

    Andrew J Hung, Isuru S Jayaratna, Kara Teruya, Mihir M Desai, Inderbir S Gill, and Alvin C Goh. Comparative assessment of three standardized robotic surgery training methods. BJU international , 112(6):864–871, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    Robot assistance of motor learning: A neuro-cognitive perspective

    Herbert Heuer and Jenna Luettgen. Robot assistance of motor learning: A neuro-cognitive perspective. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , 56:222–240, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Multi-sensory guidance and feedback for simulation-based training in robot assisted surgery: A preliminary comparison of visual, haptic, and visuo-haptic

    Guido Caccianiga, Andrea Mariani, Chiara Galli de Paratesi, Arianna Menciassi, and Elena De Momi. Multi-sensory guidance and feedback for simulation-based training in robot assisted surgery: A preliminary comparison of visual, haptic, and visuo-haptic. IEEE Robotics and Automa...

    2021

  22. [30]

    The role of humans in surgery automation

    Eduard Fosch-Villaronga, Pranav Khanna, Hadassah Drukarch, and Bart Custers. The role of humans in surgery automation. International Journal of Social Robotics , pages 1–18, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Development and validation of a surgical training simulator with haptic feedback for learning bone-sawing skill

    Yanping Lin, Xudong Wang, Fule Wu, Xiaojun Chen, Chengtao Wang, and Guofang Shen. Development and validation of a surgical training simulator with haptic feedback for learning bone-sawing skill. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 48:122–129, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    A dual-user teleoperated system with virtual fixtures for robotic surgical training

    Mahya Shahbazi, S Farokh Atashzar, and Rajni V Patel. A dual-user teleoperated system with virtual fixtures for robotic surgical training. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages 3639–3644. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    Simulation- based surgical training systems in laparoscopic surgery: a current review

    Minsik Hong, Jerzy W Rozenblit, and Allan J Hamilton. Simulation- based surgical training systems in laparoscopic surgery: a current review. Virtual Reality, 25(2):491–510, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Okamura, Andrea Mariani, Edoardo Pelle- grini, Margaret M

    Nima Enayati, Allison M. Okamura, Andrea Mariani, Edoardo Pelle- grini, Margaret M. Coad, Giancarlo Ferrigno, and Elena De Momi. Robotic assistance-as-needed for enhanced visuomotor learning in surgi- cal robotics training: An experimental study. pages 6631–6636. Institute of ...

    2018

  27. [35]

    Design and evaluation of a performance-based adaptive curriculum for robotic surgical training: a pilot study

    Andrea Mariani, Edoardo Pellegrini, Nima Enayati, Peter Kazanzides, Marco Vidotto, and Elena De Momi. Design and evaluation of a performance-based adaptive curriculum for robotic surgical training: a pilot study. In 2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Enginee...

    2018

  28. [36]

    A unity-based da vinci robot simulator for surgical training

    Ke Fan, Aldo Marzullo, Nicolo Pasini, Alberto Rota, Matteo Pecorella, Giancarlo Ferrigno, and Elena De Momi. A unity-based da vinci robot simulator for surgical training. In 2022 9th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference for Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), p...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Oka- mura, and Gregory D

    Alessandro Bettini, Panadda Marayong, Samuel Lang, Allison M. Oka- mura, and Gregory D. Hager. Vision-assisted control for manipulation using virtual fixtures. IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 20:953–966, 12 2004

    2004

  30. [38]

    Fundamentals of robotic surgery: A course of basic robotic surgery skills based upon a 14-society consensus template of outcomes measures and curriculum development

    Roger Smith, Vipul Patel, and Richard Satava. Fundamentals of robotic surgery: A course of basic robotic surgery skills based upon a 14-society consensus template of outcomes measures and curriculum development. International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted S...

    2014

  31. [39]

    Fischer, Russell H

    Peter Kazanzidesf, Zihan Chen, Anton Deguet, Gregory S. Fischer, Russell H. Taylor, and Simon P. Dimaio. An open-source research kit for the da vinci® surgical system. pages 6434–6439. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 9 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    Modelling and identification of the da vinci research kit robotic arms

    Giuseppe Andrea Fontanelli, Fanny Ficuciello, Luigi Villani, and Bruno Siciliano. Modelling and identification of the da vinci research kit robotic arms. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 1464–1469. IEEE, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.