Towards natural 3D interaction for laparoscopic augmented reality registration

Figures & data

Figure 1. Interaction modes for InstControl registration. These include a translation mode, rotation mode with a free rotation axis, and a rotation mode around the tool’s axis

Figure 2. Prototype materials

Figure 3. Overall study setup. The left screen displays the unaltered laparoscopic video. The right screen shows our software with the AR overlaid kidney model. The optical tracking camera is to the top left, outside the photograph’s field of view

Figure 4. Statistical results for all dependent variables. Error bars show standard errors. The asterisks in (d) indicate pairwise significance in the post-hoc t-tests

Table 1. Descriptive results for all dependent variables with $N=10$

Method	TCT in s	Translation error in mm	Rotation error in	SUS
InstControl	224.68 (89.70) [28.37]	11.74 (4.91) [1.55]	23.77 (18.82) [5.95]	63.25 (18.41) [5.82]
LapControl	270.39 (128.11) [40.51]	12.44 (4.76) [1.51]	29.73 (19.39) [6.13]	49.75 (21.71) [6.87]
PairedPoint	207.57 (75.19) [23.78]	11.12 (4.78) [1.51]	12.87 (6.46) [2.04]	77.75 (11.27) [3.56]

All entries are in the format: < mean value (standard deviation) [standard error]>

Table 2. ANOVA results for the registration method’s effects on all dependent variables

Variable	Sphericity violated	GG correction	Test statistic	p	${\eta }^2$
TCT	Yes	Yes	$F(1.15,10.31)=1.21$	0.306	0.072
		($\epsilon =.573$)
Translation error	No	No	$F(2,18)=0.171$	0.844	0.014
Rotation error	No	No	$F(2,18)=2.682$	0.096	0.174
SUS	No	No	$F(2,18)=11.82$	$<0.001$*	0.317