Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Visual-Haptic Model Mediated Teleoperation for Remote Ultrasound

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Remote ultrasound operators can work as if a round-trip delay of up to one second were absent if the local system shows them a re-sliced preview of a pre-acquired scan alongside the delayed live image.

desk verdict A useful proof-of-concept for visual-haptic model-mediated tele-ultrasound, but the 'complete compensation' claim is stronger than the statistics support. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07922 v1 pith:3GEAYE7U submitted 2025-02-11 cs.RO cs.HC

David Black , Maria Tirindelli , Septimiu Salcudean , Wolfgang Wein , Marco Esposito This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.HC
keywords tele-ultrasoundteleroboticultrasoundmodel-mediatedteleoperationtimedelayhapticfeedbackre-slicingvirtualfixturevisual-hapticasynchrony
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

Telerobotic ultrasound is useful for remote care, but network delays break the loop between moving the probe and seeing the image. This paper argues that the fix is to give the operator a local model that is visual as well as haptic: a pre-acquired ultrasound sweep, re-sliced in real time at the haptic device's current pose, so the operator sees an instant preview of what the delayed live image will show. In a study with 15 volunteer operators performing a five-step vessel-scanning task, visual-haptic model-mediated teleoperation made a 500 ms one-way (about 1 s round-trip) delay statistically indistinguishable from no delay in completion time and operator effort, while conventional model-mediated teleoperation did not. At a 1000 ms one-way delay it still significantly improved motion accuracy and force consistency. If the claim holds, an expert could scan a patient through a poor connection with much of the ease and control of being physically present.

What carries the argument

Model-mediated teleoperation (MMT) represents the remote environment locally so the operator can touch it immediately; the paper's addition is a co-registered visual twin. The central mechanism is a point-cloud virtual fixture, built by compounding RGB-D frames into an octree and fitting a proxy-plane surface for spring-damper forces, plus a pre-acquired ultrasound volume that is re-sliced by GPU in real time at the plane corresponding to the haptic device pose. The correspondence is set by the chain of transforms in Eq. (2), which maps the expert handle through the hand-eye calibration, the robot pose, and the probe calibration so the predicted image and the haptic surface occupy the same space. The re-sliced image is what removes the visual delay, while the delayed live stream and periodic integration of new frames keep the model tied to reality.

What would settle it

Repeat the five-step phantom scanning task after physically shifting the phantom by about 1 cm or tilting it by about 10 degrees once the sweep has been acquired; if VH-MMT at 500 ms one-way delay no longer matches the zero-delay baseline in completion time and effort, or no longer beats conventional MMT in vessel-following accuracy, the complete-compensation claim fails for moving anatomy. Equivalently, on a human subject the same comparison during normal breathing or with visible bowel gas would test whether the static-model limitation, which the paper itself names as the primary limitation, actually erases the preview's benefit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that visual-haptic model-mediated teleoperation compensates completely for time delays up to 1000 ms round trip in operator effort and completion time, and significantly outperforms conventional MMT at longer delays in motion accuracy and force control. The new element is the local visual model: because the re-sliced preview tracks the expert's hand immediately while the virtual fixture tracks it haptically, the operator no longer experiences visual-haptic asynchrony, which the paper identifies as the main residual problem in delayed MMT. The actual delayed ultrasound image remains on display for fine positioning, and incoming frames are integrated back into the sweep to slow model aging. The evidence is a controlled comparison in which 15 volunteers each performed five scans; VH-MMT at 500 ms one-way delay had completion times and task-load scores that were not significantly different from the zero-delay control, and both delayed VH-MMT conditions beat conventional MMT on vessel-centering error and on consistency of applied force, measured through vessel eccentricity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the pre-recorded ultrasound sweep still matches the patient during the exam: the anatomy must stay still, not shift with breathing or flatten under probe pressure, and the geometric calibration linking the robot, camera, and probe must stay accurate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An expert performing tele-ultrasound over a link with roughly 1 s round-trip delay can expect zero-delay levels of effort, mental demand, and completion time during the positioning and sweeping phases of a scan, according to the 15-operator study.
  • Conventional MMT's remaining weakness under delay is visual, not haptic: restoring synchronized visual feedback is what closes the gap, so the delayed image stream is the bottleneck this method removes.
  • At longer delays (1000 ms one-way), VH-MMT no longer fully compensates but still yields significant improvements in motion accuracy and force control over conventional MMT.
  • The method is framed as a rough-positioning aid rather than a diagnostic replacement: the expert still uses the delayed real image for the final, precise assessment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If incoming live frames were used to non-rigidly deform the stored sweep rather than just being appended, the same architecture could tolerate small patient motion and breathing; this is the natural next test because the integration pipeline already exists.
  • The complete-compensation figure was obtained on a rigid phantom, so on real abdomens the static-model assumption will set the practical ceiling; a clinical evaluation should measure how much translation, rotation, and compression the preview can absorb before it misleads the operator.
  • A decoupled control variant, in which the follower robot servos to make the live image match the preview the expert is viewing, could in principle extend delay tolerance to non-static anatomy, although the matching problem is hard in real time.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes visual-haptic model-mediated teleoperation (VH-MMT) for remote ultrasound, in which a pre-acquired ultrasound sweep is re-sliced in real time on the expert side to provide immediate visual feedback, alongside a haptic virtual fixture reconstructed from an RGB-D point cloud. A prototype is built around a Franka Panda robot and a Touch X haptic device, and an experiment with 15 volunteer operators compares conventional MMT with VH-MMT under 500 ms and 1000 ms one-way delays, with a no-delay conventional MMT control. The reported results show that VH-MMT significantly reduces completion time, mental demand, effort, vessel-following error, and force inconsistency relative to conventional MMT at the same delays. The paper further claims that VH-MMT completely compensates for the 500 ms one-way (1000 ms round-trip) delay in terms of effort and completion time, because those outcomes did not differ significantly from the no-delay condition.

Significance. The core idea is novel and practically motivated: replacing delayed video with a locally re-sliced model of the ultrasound volume directly addresses the visual-haptic asynchrony that prior model-mediated teleoperation systems leave unsolved. The prototype is fully implemented, the system description is detailed enough to be reproduced, and the experimental comparison includes multiple clinically relevant metrics (completion time, workload, vessel centering, force consistency). If the complete-compensation claim survives proper statistical scrutiny, the work would be an important step toward tele-ultrasound over realistic communication links. However, as presented, the strongest claim rests on a non-significant difference rather than a demonstrated equivalence, so the significance of the paper is currently limited by missing statistical evidence. I also credit the authors for transparently stating the static-model limitation and for providing detailed algorithms and calibration equations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Tables I and II] The central claim that VH-MMT 'compensates completely' for the 500 ms one-way delay is not supported by the statistics actually reported. The p-values in Tables I and II compare conventional MMT with VH-MMT at the same delay; there is no test reported that directly compares VH-MMT at 500 ms with the no-delay MMT control. The text states that 'none of the effort or completion time values differed significantly between 0 delay and 500 ms delay with VH-MMT,' but that comparison is not shown. A non-significant difference is also not evidence of equivalence without a prespecified equivalence margin, confidence intervals, or a two one-sided tests (TOST) procedure. Please report the missing pairwise comparison and an appropriate equivalence test before claiming complete compensation.
  2. [Section II-C and Section III, Tables I-IV] The statistical methodology is under-specified. The paper does not state which significance test was used (paired t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank, or other), whether the data satisfied normality assumptions, or how the many p-values in Tables I-IV were corrected for multiple comparisons. Several reported p-values are close to conventional thresholds (e.g., p=0.047 for effort and p=0.07 for sweeping), so the conclusions could depend on these choices. Please provide the test names, effect sizes, confidence intervals, and a multiple-comparison correction or a clear rationale for not applying one.
  3. [Abstract and Section III] The claim of complete compensation 'for time delays up to 1000 ms round trip' is supported by only a single delay condition: 500 ms one-way (approximately 1000 ms round trip). No intermediate or longer delays were tested within the range claimed, and for the 1000 ms one-way (approximately 2000 ms round trip) condition, Tables III and IV show significant remaining differences in vessel-centering error and force consistency. The phrase 'up to 1000 ms round trip' should be restricted to the condition actually tested, or additional delay levels should be included to justify the generality.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-C] The task description says 'VH-MMT and short (500 ms) communication delay' and 'once for each delay with standard MMT'; this should be rephrased for clarity, e.g., 'VH-MMT with a 500 ms communication delay, VH-MMT with a 1000 ms delay, conventional MMT with each delay, and conventional MMT with no delay as a control.'
  2. [Section IV] The sentence 'With this visual-haptic MMT concept, several other avenues of further research.' is missing a verb; it should read '...several other avenues of further research exist' or 'are possible.'
  3. [Section II-C] The 15 participants are described only as 'volunteers,' not as trained sonographers. The paper should state their level of ultrasound expertise and discuss how this affects generalizability to expert operators.
  4. [Table IV] The eccentricity metric is described as 'proportional to the applied force'; a citation or a brief derivation would help readers understand why eccentricity is a valid proxy for probe pressure.
  5. [Section II-B] The text uses 'VH-MMT' and 'MMT' in close proximity without always clarifying which condition is being discussed (e.g., the paragraph starting 'Interestingly' in Section III); please make the comparisons explicit so the reader is not forced to infer the intended pairings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the re-sliced preview is the intervention under test, and all outcome metrics derive from independent recorded live data.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. The visual-haptic model is generated from a pre-acquired US sweep and used to render an immediate preview to the operator; this is the proposed intervention, not a hidden fit or a renamed measurement. The outcome metrics — completion time, NASA-TLX scores, vessel-following RMSE, and eccentricity-derived force consistency — are computed from recorded live ultrasound images and task performance, which are distinct from the model sweep used for the preview. Equation (2) only defines the calibration transforms needed to co-locate the haptic, visual, and robot frames; it is not used to predict the experimental outcomes. The 'complete compensation' claim is based on the absence of a statistically significant difference between the 0 ms control and 500 ms VH-MMT condition; this is a statistical-inference concern (no equivalence test, low power), not a circularity concern. The paper's self-citations ([2], [5], [8]) are background references and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The acknowledged static-model limitation concerns external validity, not circularity. Overall, the claim is empirically testable and not definitionally forced.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an experimental system evaluation rather than a derivation, so there are no fitted physical constants or invented entities. The central claim rests on engineering assumptions: static anatomy, calibration accuracy, simulated-delay fidelity, and proxy metrics for force and accuracy. These are acknowledged in the text but not independently verified, and they cap the generality of the 'complete compensation' claim.

free parameters (2)
  • Joint impedance controller gains Kp, Kd, Ke = Not reported
    Hand-chosen constant gains in Eq. 1 and Algorithm 1 to give reasonable compliant behavior across the workspace; they affect tracking but are not fitted to outcome metrics.
  • Haptic virtual fixture spring-damper constants = Not reported
    Proxy-point virtual spring and damper in Section II-B.4 determine the feel of the fixture; values are not reported and are not fitted to subject performance.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The patient and environment are static or slowly varying during the exam, so the pre-acquired US sweep and point cloud remain valid.
    Section II-A notes the method may suffer from patient motion and dynamic factors such as bowel gas; Section IV calls the static model the primary limitation. If false, the preview can mislead rather than help.
  • domain assumption The re-sliced US preview approximates the live image at the commanded probe pose with sufficient accuracy.
    Section II-A derives the preview plane from hand-eye and robot-US calibration (Eq. 2); accuracy is checked by a pivot test to within 1 mm, but the phantom is not deformed or moved.
  • domain assumption Fixed queue-based delays reproduce the effect of real Internet delays on operator performance.
    Section II-C delays all messages in software by fixed amounts; real networks have jitter, loss, and asymmetry that are not modeled.
  • domain assumption Vessel centroid offset and eccentricity in the recorded US images are valid proxies for motion accuracy and applied force.
    Section II-C states eccentricity is proportional to applied force but does not validate this against a force sensor or cite a calibration study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Visual-Haptic Model Mediated Teleoperation for Remote Ultrasound." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3GEAYE7U

@misc{pith2026250207922,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Visual-Haptic Model Mediated Teleoperation for Remote Ultrasound},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3GEAYE7U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07922}
}
read the original abstract

Tele-ultrasound has the potential greatly to improve health equity for countless remote communities. However, practical scenarios involve potentially large time delays which cause current implementations of telerobotic ultrasound (US) to fail. Using a local model of the remote environment to provide haptics to the expert operator can decrease teleoperation instability, but the delayed visual feedback remains problematic. This paper introduces a robotic tele-US system in which the local model is not only haptic, but also visual, by re-slicing and rendering a pre-acquired US sweep in real time to provide the operator a preview of what the delayed image will resemble. A prototype system is presented and tested with 15 volunteer operators. It is found that visual-haptic model-mediated teleoperation (MMT) compensates completely for time delays up to 1000 ms round trip in terms of operator effort and completion time while conventional MMT does not. Visual-haptic MMT also significantly outperforms MMT for longer time delays in terms of motion accuracy and force control. This proof-of-concept study suggests that visual-haptic MMT may facilitate remote robotic tele-US.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07922 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The local visual and haptic models shown to the expert during teleoperation. (A) shows the hand-eye and phantom calibration which allows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the visual-haptic MMT system. The “live” streams here are those sent directly to the expert console, so they may be significantly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Point cloud-based haptics for model-mediated teleoperation. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Telerobotic ultrasound to provide obstetrical ultra- sound services remotely during the covid-19 pandemic,

    S. J. Adams, B. Burbridge, L. Chatterson, V . McKinney, P. Babyn, and I. Mendez, “Telerobotic ultrasound to provide obstetrical ultra- sound services remotely during the covid-19 pandemic,” Journal of telemedicine and telecare , vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 568–576, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Human teleoperation-a haptically enabled mixed reality system for teleultrasound,

    D. Black, Y . Oloumi Yazdi, A. H. Hadi Hosseinabadi, and S. Salcud- ean, “Human teleoperation-a haptically enabled mixed reality system for teleultrasound,” Human–Computer Interaction , pp. 1–24, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    A robot system for medical ultrasound,

    S. E. Salcudean, W. H. Zhu, P. Abolmaesumi, S. Bachmann, and P. D. Lawrence, “A robot system for medical ultrasound,” in Robotics Research: The Ninth International Symposium , pp. 195–202, Springer, 2000

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Robotic ultrasound imaging: State-of-the-art and future perspectives,

    Z. Jiang, S. E. Salcudean, and N. Navab, “Robotic ultrasound imaging: State-of-the-art and future perspectives,” Medical image analysis , p. 102878, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Robot- assisted medical imaging: A review,

    S. E. Salcudean, H. Moradi, D. G. Black, and N. Navab, “Robot- assisted medical imaging: A review,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 110, no. 7, pp. 951–967, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Machine learning in robotic ultrasound imaging: Challenges and perspectives,

    Y . Bi, Z. Jiang, F. Duelmer, D. Huang, and N. Navab, “Machine learning in robotic ultrasound imaging: Challenges and perspectives,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 7, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    An overview of systems and techniques for autonomous robotic ultrasound acquisitions,

    K. Li, Y . Xu, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “An overview of systems and techniques for autonomous robotic ultrasound acquisitions,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 510– 524, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Low-profile 6-axis differential magnetic force/torque sensing,

    D. Black, N. R. Pradnyawira, M. Nogami, A. H. H. Hosseinabadi, and S. Salcudean, “Low-profile 6-axis differential magnetic force/torque sensing,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics , 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Space teleoperation through time delay: Review and prognosis,

    T. B. Sheridan, “Space teleoperation through time delay: Review and prognosis,” IEEE Transactions on robotics and Automation , vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 592–606, 1993

    1993

  2. [10]

    Stable adaptive teleoperation,

    G. Niemeyer and J.-J. Slotine, “Stable adaptive teleoperation,” IEEE Journal of oceanic engineering , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 152–162, 1991

    1991

  3. [11]

    Time-domain passivity control of haptic interfaces,

    B. Hannaford and J.-H. Ryu, “Time-domain passivity control of haptic interfaces,” IEEE transactions on Robotics and Automation , vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2002

    2002

  4. [12]

    Interface design and control strategies for a robot assisted ultrasonic examination system,

    F. Conti, J. Park, and O. Khatib, “Interface design and control strategies for a robot assisted ultrasonic examination system,” inExper- imental Robotics: The 12th International Symposium on Experimental Robotics, pp. 97–113, Springer, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    An ultrasound robotic system using the commercial robot ur5,

    K. Mathiassen, J. E. Fjellin, K. Glette, P. K. Hol, and O. J. Elle, “An ultrasound robotic system using the commercial robot ur5,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 3, p. 1, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Remote echography between a ground control center and the international space station using a tele-operated echograph with motorized probe,

    P. Arbeille, D. Chaput, K. Zuj, A. Depriester, A. Maillet, O. Belbis, P. Benarroche, and S. Barde, “Remote echography between a ground control center and the international space station using a tele-operated echograph with motorized probe,” Ultrasound in medicine & biology , v...

    2018

  7. [15]

    Robot- assisted teleoperation ultrasound system based on fusion of augmented reality and predictive force,

    Y . Fu, W. Lin, X. Yu, J. J. Rodr ´ıguez-Andina, and H. Gao, “Robot- assisted teleoperation ultrasound system based on fusion of augmented reality and predictive force,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Elec- tronics, vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 7449–7456, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Model-mediated telemanipulation,

    P. Mitra and G. Niemeyer, “Model-mediated telemanipulation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 253– 262, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    Haptic interaction in virtual environments,

    D. C. Ruspini, K. Kolarov, and O. Khatib, “Haptic interaction in virtual environments,” in Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robot and Systems. Innovative Robotics for Real-World Applications. IROS’97 , vol. 1, pp. 128–133, IEEE, 1997

    1997

  10. [18]

    Model-based space robot tele- operation of ets-vii manipulator,

    W.-K. Yoon, T. Goshozono, H. Kawabe, M. Kinami, Y . Tsumaki, M. Uchiyama, M. Oda, and T. Doi, “Model-based space robot tele- operation of ets-vii manipulator,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 602–612, 2004

    2004

  11. [19]

    Model-based passive bilateral teleoperation with time delay,

    H. Li, K. Tadano, and K. Kawashima, “Model-based passive bilateral teleoperation with time delay,” Transactions of the Institute of Mea- surement and Control , vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 1010–1023, 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    Model-mediated teleoperation: Toward stable and transparent teleoperation systems,

    X. Xu, B. Cizmeci, C. Schuwerk, and E. Steinbach, “Model-mediated teleoperation: Toward stable and transparent teleoperation systems,” IEEE Access , vol. 4, pp. 425–449, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Human factors in virtual reality system design for mobility and haptic task performance,

    D. B. Kaber and T. Zhang, “Human factors in virtual reality system design for mobility and haptic task performance,” Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 323–366, 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    Delayed visual and haptic feedback in a reciprocal tapping task,

    C. Jay and R. Hubbold, “Delayed visual and haptic feedback in a reciprocal tapping task,” in World Haptics Conference , pp. 655–656, IEEE, 2005

    2005

  15. [23]

    Experiment of wireless tele-echography system by controlling echo- graphic diagnosis robot,

    K. Masuda, N. Tateishi, Y . Suzuki, E. Kimura, Y . Wie, and K. Ishihara, “Experiment of wireless tele-echography system by controlling echo- graphic diagnosis robot,” in MICCAI, pp. 130–137, Springer, 2002

    2002

  16. [24]

    Virtual reality-based time-delayed haptic teleoperation using point cloud data,

    D. Valenzuela-Urrutia, R. Mu ˜noz-Riffo, and J. Ruiz-del Solar, “Virtual reality-based time-delayed haptic teleoperation using point cloud data,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems , vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 387–400, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Jerk-limited real-time trajectory gener- ation with arbitrary target states,

    L. Berscheid and T. Kr ¨oger, “Jerk-limited real-time trajectory gener- ation with arbitrary target states,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04830 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Trac-ik: An open-source library for improved solving of generic inverse kinematics,

    P. Beeson and B. Ames, “Trac-ik: An open-source library for improved solving of generic inverse kinematics,” in 2015 IEEE-RAS 15th Inter- national Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids) , pp. 928–935, IEEE, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,

    O. Khatib, “A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,” IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 43–53, 1987

    1987

  20. [28]

    Webrtc: Real- time communication in browsers,

    C. Jennings, F. Castelli, H. Bostr ¨om, and J.-I. Bruaroey, “Webrtc: Real- time communication in browsers,” Mar 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Webrtc technology overview and signaling solution design and implementation,

    B. Sredojev, D. Samardzija, and D. Posarac, “Webrtc technology overview and signaling solution design and implementation,” in MIPRO, IEEE, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    A framework for fast automatic robot ultrasound calibration,

    R. Li, K. Niu, and E. Vander Poorten, “A framework for fast automatic robot ultrasound calibration,” in 2021 International Symposium on Medical Robotics (ISMR) , pp. 1–7, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Simultaneous robot/world and tool/flange calibration by solving homogeneous transformation equations of the form ax= yb,

    H. Zhuang, Z. S. Roth, and R. Sudhakar, “Simultaneous robot/world and tool/flange calibration by solving homogeneous transformation equations of the form ax= yb,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 549–554, 1994

    1994

  24. [32]

    Proxy method for fast haptic rendering from time varying point clouds,

    F. Ryden, S. N. Kosari, and H. J. Chizeck, “Proxy method for fast haptic rendering from time varying point clouds,” in IEEE/RSJ IROS, pp. 2614–2619, IEEE, 2011

    2011

  25. [33]

    Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,

    S. Hart, “Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,” Human mental workload/Elsevier , 1988

    1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.