Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Spatiotemporal Context-dependent Personalized Movement Compensation in Delayed Telemanipulation

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that personalized motion scaling conditioned on delay, reach distance, and movement direction improves delayed telemanipulation, yielding up to 20-25% performance gains in key metrics, with the largest effects at longer…

desk verdict A careful, substantial study of context-conditioned motion scaling whose main assistance comparison is confounded by trial order; worth reviewing with data and a reanalysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08200 v1 pith:LCTKMKD6 submitted 2026-08-08 cs.RO cs.HCcs.SYeess.SY

Sai Jiang , Zonghe Chua This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.HCcs.SYeess.SY
keywords delayedtelemanipulationmotionscalingpersonalizedassistanceovershootcompensationtelesurgeryhapticteleoperationsim-to-realtransfer
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

The paper is trying to show that the right response to communication delay in teleoperation is not a one-size-fits-all gain but a scaling factor fitted to each operator and to each delay, distance, and direction. Twenty participants reached for targets in a simulator while the system computed, for every condition, the ratio of their no-delay peak reach to their delayed peak reach, and applied that ratio as a motion-scaling gain. Across the tested delays, gains reduced overshoot and improved smoothness, path economy, and a combined error-time score by up to 20-25%, with benefits growing at longer delays; gains fit in simulation also transferred partially to a physical telesurgical robot. If this is right, delay compensation can be initialized from population data and then tuned per person, which matters for telesurgery and other time-critical teleoperation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 'gain tensor,' a 3-D array of scalar gains indexed by delay $\delta$, reach distance $d$, and movement direction $\theta$. Each entry is computed as $G(\delta,d,\theta)=\mathbb{E}_i[P_0^{(i)}(d,\theta)]\,/\,\mathbb{E}_j[P_\delta^{(j)}(d,\theta)]$, where $P_0$ and $P_\delta$ are peak reach distances in no-delay and delayed trials under the same spatial conditions. This ratio converts a person's delay-induced overshoot into a multiplicative scaling correction, and its dependence on direction and distance is what carries the paper's context-dependence claim. Delay-conditioned gain curves fitted with splines then turn the discrete fitted values into continuous per-direction functions of delay.

What would settle it

Re-run the gain identification block twice on the same participants at the same delays, distances, and directions, with no assistance in either block, and compute the fitted gain each time; if the typical within-person difference between the two fitted gains is larger than the mean personalized-versus-generic gain difference the paper reports, the fitted gains are not stable enough to carry the evaluation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that an individually fitted, context-conditioned motion-scaling gain improves delayed teleoperation relative to unassisted operation. The gain is computed as the ratio of the mean peak reach distance in no-delay baseline trials to the mean peak reach distance in delayed trials, separately for each combination of delay, reach distance, and movement direction, and is applied as a multiplicative modifier of the base input scaling. In simulation, personalized assistance reduced initial reaching error at every delay (roughly 0.035 mm at 100 ms, 0.068 mm at 250 ms, and 0.122 mm at 400 ms), improved smoothness and movement economy, and lowered a Fitts-normalized error-time score; the largest gains were at 400 ms. Personalization's extra benefit over a generic gain appeared mainly for inward reaches at short distance under moderate delay. When the same fitted gains were applied to a physical telesurgical robot in a peg-transfer task, smoothness, economy, and error-time improved, but endpoint error did not, indicating partial but not full transfer.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the delay-induced peak overshoot a person shows in five calibration trials is stable enough to predict their overshoot in later evaluation trials, and that the same fitted gain remains appropriate when the task moves to the physical robot.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Personalized motion scaling improves overshoot, smoothness, path economy, and a normalized error-time score relative to unassisted reaching, and the benefit grows with delay; key-metric gains reach 20-25%.
  • Personalized gains outperform the unassisted baseline at every tested delay in simulation, and they outperform a generic population gain mainly for inward, short-distance reaches under moderate delay.
  • Gains fitted in simulation transfer to a physical telesurgical robot for smoothness, economy, and error-time, but not for endpoint error, so transfer is real but partial.
  • Most participants need sub-unity gains that decrease with delay, while some show hypometria at 100 ms and need gains above unity, so a fixed gain cannot capture the range.
  • Personalized assistance lowers reported workload relative to unassisted operation in simulation and is perceived as lighter than generic assistance in the real-robot session.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same peak-overshoot ratio could be re-estimated continuously from recent trials, turning the one-time calibration into an online adaptive gain without changing the cost function.
  • Editorial inference: the inward-reach advantage suggests arm posture relative to the body modulates the right gain; holding reach distance fixed while varying starting shoulder position would test this directly.
  • Editorial inference: the weaker sim-to-real benefit may come from the real task's loose success criterion (ring on peg rather than centered), so a real task that scores final centering would separate platform transfer loss from task-objective loss.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a personalized, context-dependent motion-scaling method for delayed telemanipulation. In a simulator session, each participant's scaling gain is fitted as a ratio of baseline and delayed peak reach distances for each combination of delay, distance, and direction (Eq. 1); the fitted gains are then evaluated in delayed reaching trials in simulation and in a physical dVRK peg-transfer task, with a generalized population gain used as an additional comparator in the sim-to-real session. The authors report consistent benefits of motion scaling on overshoot, smoothness, movement economy, and a combined error-time metric, with larger benefits at longer delays, and more limited or even negative effects on endpoint error in the real task. Personalization showed specific benefits for inward reaching and for nCET at 400 ms delay compared with the generic gain. The manuscript includes a detailed experimental protocol, linear mixed-effects analyses, and honest reporting of conditions where assistance did not help.

Significance. If the central comparison is valid, the paper makes a useful contribution: it extends prior single-DOF and fixed-gain motion-scaling results to a multi-DOF, context-dependent personalization framework and provides a sim-to-real transfer evaluation on a physical surgical robot. Strengths include the within-subject design across delays, distances, and directions; the use of multiple performance metrics; the transparent statistical modeling; and the explicit discussion of conditions where personalization or assistance did not help. The reported simulation benefits, if supported, would be practically relevant for delay-mitigating assistance layers. However, the manuscript currently provides no data or code, and the main assistance-versus-unassisted comparison is compromised by a systematic order confound; the latter is load-bearing for the paper's central claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III-E, §IV (Tables I and reported contrasts)] The unassisted and assisted delayed trials are not interleaved or counterbalanced in either session. In SimOnly, all unassisted delayed trials (Phase 2, Gain ID) precede all assisted delayed trials (Phase 4, Evaluation). In Sim2Real, the unassisted control block (Phase 3) always precedes the two assisted evaluation blocks (Phases 4 and 5), with only the order of the two assisted blocks counterbalanced. Any monotonic practice, fatigue, or delay-adaptation trend over the session is therefore attributed to assistance. The no-delay catch trials embedded in both phases could provide a practice control, but they are not analyzed. This confound threatens the main assistance main effects and the Asst:Delay interactions in Table I, as well as the abstract's central claim of consistent 20–25% performance gains.
  2. [§III-G.3 and §IV-A.3] The smoothness metric sign convention is internally inconsistent. Section III-G.3 states that lower SAL values indicate more erratic or segmented motion and higher values correspond to fluid movements, but Section IV-A.3 reports that personalized assistance 'reduced SAL values' while claiming increased smoothness. Under the standard spectral arc length definition (which is negative, with higher values indicating smoother movement), these statements cannot both be true. Please state the exact sign convention, verify whether the contrasts are increases or decreases in SAL, and re-report the smoothness results and any associated table entries if the sign was reversed.
  3. [§III-C and §III-I] The design is described as having three reaching directions (lateral, longitudinal, vertical), but the statistical model uses a two-level factor classified as inward (adduction) versus outward (abduction). The manuscript does not explain how the vertical direction and the two horizontal directions map onto this binary factor, or whether vertical trials were excluded from the analysis. Please specify the mapping or report a three-level/direction-specific analysis; otherwise the Direction effects in Table I and the direction-related contrasts are ambiguous.
  4. [§III-F, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) defines the gain as the ratio of mean peak reach distances in baseline and delayed trials, not as a ratio of overshoots. The text and abstract state that scaling gains were computed to minimize mean overshoot, but peak reach distance equals target distance plus overshoot along the movement axis. The ratio of peak distances is therefore not equivalent to an overshoot-minimizing gain and will be biased toward unity when baseline overshoot is nonzero. Please define the objective precisely and justify the peak-distance ratio, or compute the gain from the overshoot values defined in Eq. (2).
  5. [§IV-B.2 and Abstract] The abstract's claim that 'Motion scaling consistently improved performance relative to unassisted trials' is stronger than the reported Sim2Real endpoint-error results. Section IV-B.2 states that assistance did not produce a consistent endpoint-error reduction and that the only significant contrast was a decrease in accuracy due to assistance at 250 ms delay. Please qualify the abstract so that it reflects this important exception, for example by specifying that improvements were consistent across most metrics but not endpoint error in the transfer task.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§III-E, Phase 4] The sentence 'participants experienced personalized compensation gains for each non-delayed trial condition' appears to say 'delayed' rather than 'non-delayed'; the evaluation block applies compensation to delayed trials.
  2. [General] The manuscript does not mention data or code availability. Given the scale of the dataset and the importance of the human-factors results, providing processed data or analysis code would materially improve reproducibility.
  3. [References] The same reference appears twice: Richter, Orosco, and Yip, ICRA 2019, is listed as both [9] and [30]. Please merge the duplicate.
  4. [§III-J] Equation (1) defines gains over (δ, d, θ), but the GAM in Section III-J uses delay as the sole predictor and excludes distance. Please clarify whether the evaluation used the discrete three-dimensional gain array or the direction-only GAM, and whether the reported personalization effects are based on the distance-conditioned gains or the reduced model.
  5. [§III-G.5, Eq. (7)] The effective target width W in the Fitts' law index of difficulty is not defined for either the shape-matching or peg-transfer task. Please specify how W was measured or set, as this affects the nCET normalization.
  6. [§III-F] The term 'gain tensor' is acknowledged as informal; consider using 'gain array' throughout to avoid confusion with tensor algebra in a robotics readership.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the personalized gain is fit on a separate identification block and evaluated on held-out trials, and the central claims are supported by multiple independent metrics and a sim-to-real transfer.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain computes the gain G as the ratio of baseline peak reach to delayed peak reach (Eq. 1) and then applies that gain in a separate evaluation block. Because the evaluation block uses new trials rather than the same trials used to fit G, the overshoot comparison is an empirical held-out test, not the fit renamed as a prediction. The gain definition does make sub-unity scaling mechanically likely to reduce delay-induced overshoot, so the overshoot metric is not a fully independent confirmation; however, the paper's central claims also rest on endpoint error, smoothness, economy of motion, nCET, workload, and sim-to-real transfer, none of which are determined by Eq. 1 by construction. Self-citations ([23], [27]) are used only to define metrics and support a biomechanical interpretation, and are not load-bearing. The order confound raised by the skeptic (unassisted always preceding assisted) is a threat to internal validity, but it is not a circularity of the derivation chain. No circular step can be quoted where an equation or fitted parameter is identical to the reported outcome.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the stability of per-participant overshoot, the linearity of motion scaling, and the fidelity of simulation to real hardware. The personalized gains themselves are fitted values, which is the method's intended output. No new physical entities or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Per-participant context-conditioned gain G(delta, d, theta) = Varies by condition; e.g., roughly 0.8 to 1.05 in Fig. 3
    Fitted as ratio of mean baseline peak reach to delayed peak reach (Eq. 1). This is the central fitted quantity and also the intervention being tested.
  • Generic population gain = Approximately 1.0 at 100 ms, decreasing with delay
    Average of personalized gains across participants; used as the generic assistance baseline in Sim2Real.
  • GAM smooth term f(delta) with fourth-order spline = Direction-specific curves, not numerically listed
    Modeling choice to interpolate gains across delays; not load-bearing for the main evaluation, which uses discrete condition-specific gains.
  • Box-Cox transformation lambda = Listed in Section III-I, e.g., 0.22, 0.061, 1.11, -0.02 for SimOnly metrics
    Estimated from data to stabilize residuals in the linear mixed-effects models; incidental to the central claim.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Scaling gain multiplies the base motion scaling factor linearly, so robot displacement is proportional to commanded hand motion times gain.
    Used throughout the derivation of Eq. 1 and the evaluation; no nonlinear interaction between gain and hand motion is modeled.
  • domain assumption Peak displacement in delayed trials (P_delta) is a valid measure of delay-induced hypermetria and predicts the needed compensation.
    Eq. 1 defines gain as P0/P_delta; if peak overshoot does not capture the error users will make under scaling, the gain is miscalibrated.
  • domain assumption Participant motor behavior is stable between the Gain ID block and the evaluation block.
    Gains are fit in Phase 2 and applied in Phase 4 without re-fitting; learning, fatigue, or strategy changes would break the transfer.
  • domain assumption Simulated PSM kinematics and the virtual camera view are sufficiently faithful to the physical dVRK for gains to transfer.
    The Sim2Real session applies SimOnly gains to real hardware; any kinematic or visual mismatch weakens the transfer conclusion.
  • standard math Fitts' law Index of Difficulty provides a fair normalization for task completion time across reach distances.
    Used in defining nCET (Eq. 9); if the normalization is inappropriate, the composite score could introduce artifacts.
  • domain assumption Unassisted trials collected before the assisted evaluation block are an appropriate control, with no systematic order effect.
    In SimOnly, the gain ID block provides the unassisted delayed trials and always precedes the assisted block; no counterbalancing was used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatiotemporal Context-dependent Personalized Movement Compensation in Delayed Telemanipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LCTKMKD6

@misc{pith2026260808200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatiotemporal Context-dependent Personalized Movement Compensation in Delayed Telemanipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LCTKMKD6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08200}
}
read the original abstract

Communication delay remains a central challenge in telerobotics, where it disrupts visuomotor coordination and reduces task precision. Motion scaling is an effective countermeasure to delay-induced overshoot, yet typical deployments rely on uniform gains that neglect individual and contextual variability. We propose a human-centered method that fits personalized delay-, direction-, and distance-specific scaling parameters for each participant. We conducted experiments with twenty participants who performed delayed reaching tasks in a virtual simulator. Scaling gains were computed to minimize mean overshoot in simulation in each combination of experimental conditions. Evaluation was done in simulation and on a telesurgical robot to evaluate assistance benefits. Performance was assessed across multiple delays, distances, and movement directions using overshoot, endpoint error, trajectory smoothness, economy of motion, and a composite error-time metric. Motion scaling consistently improved performance relative to unassisted trials, yielding up to 20-25% performance gains in key metrics. Effects were most pronounced at longer delays. Personalization demonstrated additional accuracy benefits for inward reaching at a short distance under moderate delay. The results highlight the potential of personalized scaling as a foundation for more adaptive frameworks that integrate contextual information to improve the safety and precision of teleoperated procedures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08200 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) User interface set up. User viewpoints for (b) sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Workflow for a lateral-direction trial. (a) Start of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Personalized and generic gains modeled as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: All task performance metrics as a function of temporal delay, assist state, and target distance. Error bars indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reach paths under assisted vs. unassisted conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A Brief Survey of Telerobotic Time Delay Mitigation,

    P. Farajiparvar, H. Ying, and A. Pandya, “A Brief Survey of Telerobotic Time Delay Mitigation,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 7, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery,

    J. Marescaux, J. Leroy, M. Gagner, F. Rubino, D. Mutter, M. Vix, S. E. Butner, and M. K. Smith, “Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery,” Nature, vol. 413, no. 6854, pp. 379–380, 2001

    2001

  3. [3]

    A review on haptic bilateral teleoperation systems,

    S. N. F. Nahri, S. Du, and B. J. Van Wyk, “A review on haptic bilateral teleoperation systems,”Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 104, no. 1, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Maximum acceptable communication delay for the realization of telesurgery,

    A. Nankaku, M. Tokunaga, H. Yonezawa, T. Kanno, K. Kawashima, K. Hakamada, S. Hirano, E. Oki, M. Mori, and Y . Kinugasa, “Maximum acceptable communication delay for the realization of telesurgery,”PLoS ONE, vol. 17, no. 10, p. e0274328, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    State-based delay representation and its transfer from a game of pong to reaching and tracking,

    G. Avraham, R. Leib, A. Pressman, L. S. Simo, A. Karniel, L. Shmuelof, F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi, and I. Nisky, “State-based delay representation and its transfer from a game of pong to reaching and tracking,”eNeuro, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. ENEURO.0179–17.2017, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Perception and action inteleoperated needle insertion,

    I. Nisky, A. Pressman, C. M. Pugh, F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi, and A. Karniel, “Perception and action inteleoperated needle insertion,”IEEE Transac- tions on Haptics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 155–166, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Optimal Motion Scaling for Delayed Telesurgery

    J. Lim, F. Richter, Z.-Y . Chiu, J. Lee, E. Quist, N. Fisher, J. Cham- bers, S. Hong, and M. C. Yip, “Optimal motion scaling for delayed telesurgery,”arXiv:2506.21689, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Perceptuo-motor trans- parency in bilateral teleoperation,

    I. Nisky, F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi, and A. Karniel, “Perceptuo-motor trans- parency in bilateral teleoperation,” inProceedings of the ASME 2008 9th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis, 2008, pp. 449–456

    work page 2008

Show all 32 references
  1. [10]

    Adaptive control of time delay teleoperation system with uncertain dynamics,

    S. Lu, Y . Ban, X. Zhang, B. Yang, S. Liu, L. Yin, and W. Zheng, “Adaptive control of time delay teleoperation system with uncertain dynamics,”Frontiers in Neurorobotics, vol. 16, p. 928863, 2022

    2022

  2. [11]

    Quantifying the effects of network latency for a teleoperated robot,

    A. Noguera Cundar, R. Fotouhi, Z. Ochitwa, and H. Obaid, “Quantifying the effects of network latency for a teleoperated robot,”Sensors, vol. 23, no. 20, p. 8438, 2023

    2023

  3. [12]

    Analytical study of perceptual and motor transparency in bilateral teleoperation,

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

    2013

  4. [13]

    A low-cost predictive display for teleoperation: Investigating effects on human performance and workload,

    H. Dybvik, M. Løland, A. Gerstenberg, K. B. Sl ˚attsveen, and M. Stein- ert, “A low-cost predictive display for teleoperation: Investigating effects on human performance and workload,”International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, vol. 145, p. 102536, 2021

    2021

  5. [14]

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

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

    2014

  6. [15]

    Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (fls) and of endoscopic surgery (fes),

    J. M. Marks, “Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (fls) and of endoscopic surgery (fes),” inThe SAGES Manual: V olume 1 Basic Laparoscopy and Endoscopy. Springer, 2012, pp. 3–13

    2012

  7. [16]

    Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,

    S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland, “Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,” inAdvances in Psychology, ser. Human Mental Workload, P. A. Hancock and N. Meshkati, Eds. North-Holland, 1988, vol. 52, pp. 139–183

    1988

  8. [17]

    Short time delay does not hinder haptic communication benefits,

    E. Ivanova, J. Eden, S. Zhu, G. Carboni, A. Yurkewich, and E. Burdet, “Short time delay does not hinder haptic communication benefits,”IEEE Transactions on Haptics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 322–327, 2021

    2021

  9. [18]

    A robust and sensitive metric for quantifying movement smoothness,

    S. Balasubramanian, A. Melendez-Calderon, and E. Burdet, “A robust and sensitive metric for quantifying movement smoothness,”IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 2126–2136, 2012

    2012

  10. [19]

    Adaptive surgical robotic training using real-time stylistic behavior feedback through haptic cues,

    M. Ershad, R. Rege, and A. M. Fey, “Adaptive surgical robotic training using real-time stylistic behavior feedback through haptic cues,”IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 959– 969, 2021

    2021

  11. [20]

    Design and performance investigation of the microanastomosis surgical robot based on the novel dual-triangular rcm mechanism,

    S. Chen, D. Long, K. Wang, Z. Yang, B. Zhang, and C. Shi, “Design and performance investigation of the microanastomosis surgical robot based on the novel dual-triangular rcm mechanism,”IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics, pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  12. [21]

    Fitts’ law in two-dimensional task space,

    D. Mottet, R. J. Bootsma, Y . Guiard, and M. Laurent, “Fitts’ law in two-dimensional task space,”Experimental Brain Research, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 144–148, 1994

    1994

  13. [22]

    Space teleoperation through time delay: review and prog- nosis,

    T. Sheridan, “Space teleoperation through time delay: review and prog- nosis,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 592–606, 1993

    1993

  14. [23]

    Haptic guidance and haptic error amplification in a virtual surgical robotic training environment,

    Y . A. Oquendo, M. M. Coad, S. M. Wren, T. S. Lendvay, I. Nisky, A. M. Jarc, A. M. Okamura, and Z. Chua, “Haptic guidance and haptic error amplification in a virtual surgical robotic training environment,”IEEE Transactions on Haptics, pp. 1–12, 2024

    2024

  15. [24]

    Marker displacement data filtering in gait analysis: A technical note,

    K. R ´acz and R. M. Kiss, “Marker displacement data filtering in gait analysis: A technical note,”Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 70, p. 102974, 2021

    2021

  16. [25]

    Where is your arm? variations in proprioception across space and tasks,

    C. T. Fuentes and A. J. Bastian, “Where is your arm? variations in proprioception across space and tasks,”Journal of Neurophysiology, vol. 103, no. 1, 2010

    2010

  17. [26]

    The pro- prioceptive map of the arm is systematic and stable, but idiosyncratic,

    L. Rincon-Gonzalez, C. A. Buneo, and S. I. Helms Tillery, “The pro- prioceptive map of the arm is systematic and stable, but idiosyncratic,” PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 11, p. e25214, 2011

    2011

  18. [27]

    Task dynamics of prior training influence visual force estimation ability during teleoperation,

    Z. Chua, A. M. Jarc, S. M. Wren, I. Nisky, and A. M. Okamura, “Task dynamics of prior training influence visual force estimation ability during teleoperation,”IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 586–597, 2020

    2020

  19. [28]

    Development of neutral zone-based lumbar support wearable robot utilizing an electroadhesive clutch,

    G. Lee, E. Sung, J. Kim, K. Kim, and J. Park, “Development of neutral zone-based lumbar support wearable robot utilizing an electroadhesive clutch,”International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 23, pp. 370–381, 02 2025

    2025

  20. [29]

    Review of methods for objective surgical skill evaluation,

    C. E. Reiley, H. C. Lin, D. D. Yuh, and G. D. Hager, “Review of methods for objective surgical skill evaluation,”Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 356–366, 2011

    2011

  21. [30]

    Motion scaling solutions for improved performance in high delay surgical teleoperation,

    F. Richter, R. K. Orosco, and M. C. Yip, “Motion scaling solutions for improved performance in high delay surgical teleoperation,” in International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2019, pp. 1590– 1595

    2019

  22. [31]

    A review of robot learning for manipulation: Challenges, representations, and algorithms,

    O. Kroemer, S. Niekum, and G. Konidaris, “A review of robot learning for manipulation: Challenges, representations, and algorithms,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 22, no. 30, pp. 1–82, 2021

    2021

  23. [32]

    A survey on imitation learning for contact-rich tasks in robotics,

    T. Tsuji, Y . Kato, G. Solak, H. Zhang, T. Petriˇc, F. Nori, and A. Ajoudani, “A survey on imitation learning for contact-rich tasks in robotics,” no. arXiv:2506.13498, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [33]

    A survey of robot manipulation in contact,

    M. Suomalainen, Y . Karayiannidis, and V . Kyrki, “A survey of robot manipulation in contact,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 156, p. 104224, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.