Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Expert subjective comparison of haptic models for bone–drill interaction

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

A haptic algorithm to simulate the interaction between a surgical drill and bone using a constraint-based algorithm has been previously demonstrated. However, there has been no blinded study to determine whether this algorithm is preferred by professionals who commonly use this type of system

Methods

Fourteen otologic surgeons were presented with a spring–damper model and a constraint-based model of drill–bone interaction rendered on a low-cost haptic device with only linear feedback. The participants were blinded as to what algorithm they were using. They then answered survey questions about their opinions of the models.

Results

The surgeons overwhelmingly preferred the constraint-based model. They generally preferred the constraint-based model in the individual questions as well.

Conclusions

Follow-up work can be done to fine-tune the parameters in the model, but this study shows that a sophisticated algorithm can make a significant difference even on a low-fidelity haptic device.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wiet GJ, Stredney D, Kerwin T, Hittle B, Fernandez SA, Abdel-Rasoul M, Welling DB (2012) Virtual temporal bone dissection system: OSU virtual temporal bone system: development and testing. Laryngoscope 122(Suppl 1):S1–S12. doi:10.1002/lary.22499

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Arora A, Hall A, Kotecha J, Burgess C, Khemani S, Darzi A, Singh A, Tolley N (2015) Virtual reality simulation training in temporal bone surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 40:153–159. doi:10.1111/coa.12352

  3. Musbahi O, Aydin A, Al Omran Y, Skilbeck CJ, Ahmed K (2016) Current status of simulation in otolaryngology: a systematic review. J Surg Educ. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.09.007

  4. Petersik A, Pflesser B, Tiede U, Höhne K-H, Leuwer R (2003) Realistic haptic interaction in volume sculpting for surgery simulation. Surgery simulation and soft tissue modeling. Springer, Berlin, pp 194–202

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Acosta E, Liu A (2007) Real-time volumetric haptic and visual burrhole simulation. In: Proceedings of IEEE virtual reality conference, IEEE, pp 247–250

  6. Kim L, Park SH (2006) Haptic interaction and volume modeling techniques for realistic dental simulation. Vis Comput 22:90–98. doi:10.1007/s00371-006-0369-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chan S, Conti F, Blevins NH, Salisbury K (2011) Constraint-based six degree-of-freedom haptic rendering of volume-embedded isosurfaces. In: 2011 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC), IEEE, pp 89–94

  8. Chan S, Li P, Locketz G, Salisbury K, Blevins NH (2016) High-fidelity haptic and visual rendering for patient-specific simulation of temporal bone surgery. Comput Assist Surg 21:85–101. doi:10.1080/24699322.2016.1189966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bryan J, Stredney D, Wiet G, Sessanna D (2001) Virtual temporal bone dissection: a case study. In: IEEE visualization, pp 497–500

  10. Grácio BJC, Wentink M, Valente Pais AR (2011) Driver behavior comparison between static and dynamic simulation for advanced driving maneuvers. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 20:143–161. doi:10.1162/pres_a_00040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Harrington MCR (2012) The virtual trillium trail and the empirical effects of freedom and fidelity on discovery-based learning. Virtual Real 16:105–120. doi:10.1007/s10055-011-0189-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kobayashi M, Ueno K, Ise S (2015) The effects of spatialized sounds on the sense of presence in auditory virtual environments: a psychological and physiological study. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 24:163–174. doi:10.1162/PRES_a_00226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Agus M, Brelstaff G, Giachetti A, Gobbetti E, Zanetti G, Zorcolo A, Picasso B, Franceschini S (2004) Physics-based burr haptic simulation: tuning and evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 12th international symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems. doi:10.1109/HAPTIC.2004.1287187

  14. Forsslund J, Chan S, Selesnick J, Salisbury K, Silva RG, Blevins NH (2013) The effect of haptic degrees of freedom on task performance in virtual surgical environments. Stud Health Technol Inform 184:129–135

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Institute for Deafness and other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, USA, R01DC011321.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ohio Supercomputer Center, 1224 Kinnear Road, Columbus, OH, 43212, USA

    Thomas Kerwin, Brad Hittle & Don Stredney

  2. University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

    Sonny Chan

  3. Department of Otolaryngology, The Ohio State University, 4000 Eye and Ear Institute, 915 Olentangry River Road, Columbus, OH, 43212, USA

    Gregory Wiet

  4. Nationwide Children’s Hospital, 700 Children’s Drive, Columbus, OH, 43205, USA

    Gregory Wiet

Authors
  1. Thomas Kerwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brad Hittle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sonny Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Don Stredney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gregory Wiet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Kerwin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

T. Kerwin, B. Hittle, S. Chan, D. Stredney, and G. Wiet declare there is no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ohio State University Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kerwin, T., Hittle, B., Chan, S. et al. Expert subjective comparison of haptic models for bone–drill interaction. Int J CARS 12, 2039–2045 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-017-1541-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-017-1541-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation