While many advances have been made in surgical robotics technology, even for surgeons with relatively high levels of robotic surgery experience, many tasks take less time to perform manually. Although there are other benefits to surgical robotics that may outweigh task completion time, relatively lower efficiency will hinder the adoption of this technology. This study focused on two interface parameters: Control-Display Gain (CDG, i.e., the amount of robot movement resulting from a given robot controller movement) and the optical Zoom level that defines the working field of view. Results from a study with 10 participants suggest that CDG is a promising interface parameter for optimizing movement time in robot-assisted surgical tasks. The results have implications for the development and implementation of intelligent surgeon-robot interface technology and hold the potential to greatly improve the efficiency of robotic-assisted surgery techniques.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AaronsonO. S.TulipanN. B.CywesC.SundellH.DavisG. H.BrunerJ. P. (2002). Robot-assisted endoscopic intrauterine myelomeningocele repair: A feasibility study. Pediatric Neurosurgery, 36, 85–89.
2.
AccotJ.ZhaiS. (2001). Scale effects in steering law tasks. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–8). New York: ACM.
3.
ArnaultL. Y.GreensteinJ. S. (1990). Is display/control gain a useful metric for optimizing an interface?Human Factors, 32(6), 651–664.
4.
ArnautL. Y.GreensteinJ. S. (1988). Optimizing control-display interfaces: An evaluation of display/control gain (Report No. NOCS- TD-1219). San Diego, CA: Naval Ocean Systems Center. (NTIS No. AD-A198/148/9/HDM).
5.
BuckL. (1980). Motor performance in relation to control-display gain and target width. Ergonomics, 23, 579–589.
6.
ChapanisA.KinkadeR. G. (1972). Design of controls. In Van CottH. P.KinkadeR. G. (Eds.), Human engineering guide to equipment design (revised ed., pp. 345–379). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
7.
DakinG. F.GagnerM. (2003). Comparison of laparascopic skills performance between standard instruments and two surgical robotic systems. Surgical Endoscopy, 17(4), 574–579.
8.
FalconeT.GoldbergJ.MargossianH.StevensL. (2000). Robotic-assisted laproscopic microsurgical tubal anstomosis: A human pilot study. Fertility and Sterility, 73(5), 1040–2042.
9.
FittsP. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 381–391.
10.
Garcia-RuizA.GagnerM.MillerJ. H.SteinerC. P.HahnJ. F. (1998). Manual vs robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of basic manipulation and suturing tasks. Arch Surg., 133(9), 957–961.
11.
GiorgiC.SalaR.RivaD.CossuA.EisenbergH. (2000). Robotics in child neurosurgery. Nervous System, 16(10-11), 832–834.
12.
GuttC. N.MarkusB.KimZ. G.KimD. M.BrinkmannL.HellerK. (2002). Early experiences of robotic surgery in children. Surgical Endoscopy, 16(7), 1182–1186.
13.
JacksonA. (1984). Performance of rolling ball and isometric joystick on a 2-D target alignment task. (Report No. RSRE-MEMO-3695; DRIC-BR- 95202). Orpington, England: Defence Research Information Centre. (NTIS No. AD-157 735/2/HDM).
14.
JagacinksiR. J.FlachJ. M. (2003). Control theory for humans. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
JakopecM.HarrisS. J.y BaenaRodriguez F.GomesP.CobbJ.DaviesB. L. (2001). The first clinical application of a “hands-on” robotic knee surgery system. Computer Aided Surgery, 6(6), 329–339.
16.
JellinekH. D.CardS. K. (1990). Powermice and user performance. In Proceedings of the CHI 1990 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 213–220). New York: ACM.
17.
JenkinsW.ConnorM. B. (1949). Some design factors in making settings on a linear scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 457–461.
18.
KantowitzB. H.ElversG. C. (1988). Fitts' law with an isometric controller: Effects of order of control and control-display gain. Journal of Motor Behavior, 20(1), 53–66.
19.
KappertU.CichonR.SchneiderJ.GulielmosV.TugtekinS. M.MatschkeK. (2000). Closed-Chest Coronary Artery Surgery on the Beating Heart with the Use of a Robotic System. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 120(4), 809–811.
20.
LangolfG. D.ChaffinD. B.FoulkeJ. A. (1976). An investigation of Fitts' law using a wide range of movement amplitudes. Journal of Motor Behavior, 8(2), 113–128.
21.
LiR. A.JensenJ.BowersoxJ. C. (2000). Microvascular anastomoses performed in rats using a microsurgical telemanipulator. Comput Aided Surg, 5(5), 326–332.
22.
MenonM.TewariA.BaizeB.GuillonneauB.VallancienG. (2002). Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: The Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology, 60(5), 864–868.
23.
OlsonW. A. (1986). Effects of logarithmically rescaling display gain on a Fitts' law task (Report No. AFIT/CI/NR-87-6T). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Air Force Institute of Technology. (NTIS No. AD- A176 507/2/HDM).
