ArticleScientific reports2023
Perceived realism of haptic rendering methods for bimanual high force tasks: original and replication study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Realistic haptic feedback is a key for virtual reality applications in order to transition from solely procedural training to motor-skill training. Currently, haptic feedback is mostly used in low-force medical procedures in dentistry, laparoscopy, arthroscopy and alike. However, joint replacement procedures at hip, knee or shoulder, require the simulation of high-forces in order to enable motor-skill training. In this work a prototype of a haptic device capable of delivering double the force (35 N to 70 N) of state-of-the-art devices is used to examine the four most common haptic rendering methods (penalty-, impulse-, constraint-, rigid body-based haptic rendering) in three bimanual tasks (contact, rotation, uniaxial transition with increasing forces from 30 to 60 N) regarding their capabilities to provide a realistic haptic feedback. In order to provide baseline data, a worst-case scenario of a steel/steel interaction was chosen. The participants needed to compare a real steel/steel interaction with a simulated one. In order to substantiate our results, we replicated the study using the same study protocol and experimental setup at another laboratory. The results of the original study and the replication study deliver almost identical results. We found that certain investigated haptic rendering method are likely able to deliver a realistic sensation for bone-cartilage/steel contact but not for steel/steel contact. Whilst no clear best haptic rendering method emerged, penalty-based haptic rendering performed worst. For simulating high force bimanual tasks, we recommend a mixed implementation approach of using impulse-based haptic rendering for simulating contacts and combine it with constraint or rigid body-based haptic rendering for rotational and translational movements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.