Robotic versus Human Teleoperation for Remote Ultrasound
David Black, Septimiu Salcudean

TL;DR
This study compares robotic and human teleoperation methods for remote ultrasound, finding that human teleoperation is more practical and provides more consistent force application without sacrificing accuracy or speed.
Contribution
It provides the first experimental comparison of robotic versus human teleoperation for ultrasound, highlighting practical advantages of human teleoperation.
Findings
Human teleoperation has similar completion time to robotic methods.
Force application is more consistent in human teleoperation.
Human teleoperation is more practical and accessible.
Abstract
Diagnostic medical ultrasound is widely used, safe, and relatively low cost but requires a high degree of expertise to acquire and interpret the images. Personnel with this expertise are often not available outside of larger cities, leading to difficult, costly travel and long wait times for rural populations. To address this issue, tele-ultrasound techniques are being developed, including robotic teleoperation and recently human teleoperation, in which a novice user is remotely guided in a hand-over-hand manner through mixed reality to perform an ultrasound exam. These methods have not been compared, and their relative strengths are unknown. Human teleoperation may be more practical than robotics for small communities due to its lower cost and complexity, but this is only relevant if the performance is comparable. This paper therefore evaluates the differences between human and robotic…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsTeleoperation and Haptic Systems · Soft Robotics and Applications · Tactile and Sensory Interactions
