The effect of visual and haptic feedback on computer-assisted needle insertion

Figures & data

Figure 1. Needle insertion simulator graphical user interface showing layer deflection for visual feedback.

Table I Simulation parameters.

Tissue type	Stiffness coefficient (k) [N/m]	Damping coefficient per unit length (b) [Ns/m^2]
Skin	331	3
Fat	83	1
Muscle	497	3
Bone	2483	0

Table II Test conditions.

Test	Simulation	L	N	D	F
1	Real-time image overlay and needle tracking for telerobotic or autonomous insertion (no force feedback to the human operator)	X	X	X
2	Real-time needle tracking for manual or telerobotic insertion with force feedback and pre-operative image overlay	X	X		X
3	Real-time image overlay and needle tracking for manual or telerobotic insertion with force feedback	X	X	X	X
4	Insertion based on anatomical knowledge with preoperative image overlay for telerobotic or autonomous insertion (no force feedback to the human operator)	X
5	Telerobotic or autonomous insertion (no force feedback to the human operator) based on anatomical knowledge with real-time image overlay	X		X
6	Manual or telerobotic insertion with force feedback based on anatomical knowledge with pre-op image overlay	X			X
7	Manual or telerobotic insertion with force feedback based on anatomical knowledge with real-time image overlay	X		X	X
8	Manual or telerobotic insertion with force feedback based on anatomical knowledge, with only the skin surface shown				X
9	Manual or telerobotic insertion with force feedback for the case of complete occlusion of the needle insertion site (subjects blindfolded)				X

(L=Layers, N=Needle, D=Deflection, F=Force). “X” indicates the presence of the corresponding visual cue and/or force feedback.

Figure 2. Average error in mm when force feedback is present, with different types of visual feedback, for a) Group I, and b) Group II. ND=no deflection, WD=with deflection, NN=no needle, and WN=with needle.

Table III Average overshoot error for skin, fat and muscle puncture for Group I (subjects with no needle insertion experience) and Group II (subjects with needle insertion experience). The visual and force feedback cues correspond to the tests described in Table II.

		Average error [mm]
		Group I			Group II
Test	Visual and/or force feedback included in the simulation	Skin	Fat	Muscle	Skin	Fat	Muscle
1	Layer boundaries, needle and deflection. No force feedback	0.48	0.39	0.37	0.17	0.11	0.20
2	Layer boundaries and needle with force feedback	1.57	0.66	1.33	1.36	0.73	1.32
3	Layer boundaries, needle and deflection with force feedback	1.33	0.34	1.06	1.01	0.23	1.07
4	Layer boundaries only. No force feedback	4.42	3.11	3.64	4.70	2.79	3.77
5	Layer boundaries and deflection. No force feedback	0.57	0.27	0.44	0.36	0.15	0.14
6	Layer boundaries only with force feedback	1.76	1.39	1.54	2.03	1.33	1.61
7	Layer boundaries and deflection with force feedback	1.29	0.38	1.14	1.25	0.33	1.28
8	Force feedback only	1.90	1.16	1.44	1.62	1.43	1.74
9	Blindfolded with force feedback	1.95	1.78	1.45	1.41	2.98	1.92

Figure 3. Average error in mm when force feedback is absent, with different types of visual feedback. ND=no deflection, WD=with deflection, NN=no needle, and WN=with needle.

Figure 4. Average error in mm when visual feedback is limited, with and without force feedback. NN=no needle, WN=with needle, NF=no force, and WF=with force.