A gesture-based design tool: Assessing 2DOF vs. 4DOF steerable instrument control.

E A Arkenbout, J C F de Winter, A Ali, J Dankelman, P Breedveld

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

E A ArkenboutDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6253-5869

J C F de WinterDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

A AliDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

J DankelmanDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

P BreedveldDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Iterative prototyping is costly and time-consuming. Particularly when designing medical instruments, human factors related design choices significantly impact performance and safety. A tool is presented that allows for the evaluation of steerable instrument controls before the onset of the prototyping stage. The design tool couples gestural input to virtually simulated instrument motions using hand motion tracking. We performed a human-subject evaluation of two manual control strategies that differed in their degrees of freedom (DOF). 2DOF thumb control was compared to 4DOF thumb-index finger control. Results identified regions within the instrument workspace that are difficult to reach and showed participants to favor using the thumb for gross and fine-tuning motions at both control strategies. Index finger ab/adduction was found to be least functional. A strong learning effect was observed at 4DOF control. Based on the results, gesture-based instrument design is a viable design tool.

Indexed as

Durable Medical EquipmentEquipment DesignGesturesAdultAutomationFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30024885

DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0199367

PMCPMC6053136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.