A virtual environment for ultrasound examination learning

References

• Aiger D, Cohen-Or D. 1998. Real-time ultrasound imaging simulation. Real-Time Imaging. 4(4):263–274.
   Google Scholar
• Alessandrini M, de Craene M, Bernard O, Giffard-Roisin S, Allain P, Waechter-Stehle I, Weese J, Saloux E, Delingette H, Sermesant M, et al. 2015. A pipeline for the generation of realistic 3D synthetic echocardiographic sequences: methodology and open-access database. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 34(7):14361451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arkhurst W, Pommert A, Richter E, Frederking H, Kim SI, Schubert R, Höhne KH. 2001. A virtual reality training system for pediatric sonography. In: International congress series. Vol. 1230. Elsevier; p. 483–487. Accessed at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531513101000619
   Google Scholar
• Aulignac D, Laugier C, Troccaz J, Vieira S. 2006. Towards a realistic echographic simulator. Med Image Anal. 10(1):71–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bamber JC, Dickinson RJ. 1980. Ultrasonic B-scanning: a computer simulation. Phys Med Biol. 25(3):463.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Block DJ, Michelotti MB, Sreenivas RS. 2013. Application of the Novint Falcon haptic device as an actuator in real-time control. Paladyn J Behav Robotics. 4(3):182–193.
   Google Scholar
• Breitkreutz R, Schellhaas S, Schmitz-Rixen T, Kessler P, Walcher F. 2009. Ultrasound simulation of peripheral nerves: development of a novel technology for training in regional anaesthesia. Crit Ultrasound J. 1(1):5–11.
   Google Scholar
• Carter FJ, Schijven MP, Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Francis NK, Hanna GB, Jakimowicz JJ. 2005. Consensus guidelines for validation of virtual reality surgical simulators. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 19(12):1523–1532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaoui J, Dardenne G, Hamitouche C, Stindel E, Roux C, 2009. Virtual movements-based calibration method of ultrasound probe for computer assisted surgery. Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro. ISBI’09. IEEE International Symposium on 1207–1210.
   Google Scholar
• Courtecuisse H, Jung H, Allard J, Duriez C, Lee DY, Cotin S. 2010. GPU-based real-time soft tissue deformation with cutting and haptic feedback. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 103(2):159–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dardenne G, Chaoui J, Hamitouche C, Stindel E, Aliotti A, Roux C. PCT/EP08855881. 2008. Method for calibrating ultrasound probes.
   Google Scholar
• Delgorge C, Courrges F, Bassit LA, Novales C, Rosenberger C, Smith-Guerin N, Vieyres P. 2005. A tele-operated mobile ultrasound scanner using a light-weight robot. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 9(1):50–58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Driscoll J. 2007. Practising clinical supervision: A reflective approach for healthcare professionals. Elsevier Health Sciences. UK: bailliere tindall elsevier
   Google Scholar
• Ehricke HH. 1998. SONOSim3D: a multimedia system for sonography simulation and education with an extensible case database. Eur J Ultrasound. 7(3):225–230.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• El-Sana J, Varshney A. 2000. Continuously-adaptive haptic rendering. Virtual Environments. Vienna: Springer; p. 135–144.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs P, Moreau G, Guitton P. 2011. Virtual reality: concepts and technologies. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Gao H, Choi HF, Claus P, Boonen S, Jaecques S, van Lenthe GH, van der Perre G, Lauriks W, D’hooge J. 2009. A fast convolution-based methodology to simulate 2-D/3-D cardiac ultrasound images. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 56(2):404–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillies DF, Williams CB. 1987. An interactive graphic simulator for the teaching of fibrendoscopic techniques. In: Eurographics. Eurographics Association p. 127–138.
   Google Scholar
• Goksel O, Sapchuk K, Salcudean SE. 2011. Haptic simulator for prostate brachytherapy with simulated needle and probe interaction. IEEE Trans Haptics. 4(3):188–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon MS. 1974. Cardiology patient simulator: development of an animated manikin to teach cardiovascular disease. Am J Cardiol. 34(3):350–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottschalk S, Lin MC, Manocha D, 1996. OBBTree: A hierarchical structure for rapid interference detection. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, 171–180.
   Google Scholar
• Henry D, 2009. Outils pour la modelisation de structure et la simulation d’examens echographiques, PhD thesis, University Joseph Fourier Grenoble France.
   Google Scholar
• Hollinger A, Wanderley MM, 2006. Evaluation of commercial force-sensing resistors. In Proceedings of International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen JA. 1996. Field: A program for simulating ultrasound systems. In: Medical & Biological Engineering and Computing, editor. Tampere, Finland: 10th Nordicbaltic Conference on Biomedical Imaging. Vol. 4, 351–353. supplement 1, part 1.
   Google Scholar
• Kohn S, Van Lengen RH, Reis G, Bertram M, Hagen H. 2004. Ves: virtual echocardiography system. The 4th IASTED International Conference on Visualization, Imaging, and Image Processing (VIIP-04).
   Google Scholar
• Lam CK, Sundaraj K, Sulaiman MN. 2014. Computer-based virtual reality simulator for phacoemulsification cataract surgery training. Virtual Real. 18(4):281–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehmann TM, Gnner C, Spitzer K. 1999. Survey: interpolation methods in medical image processing. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 18(11):1049–1075.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lertwiram S, Tanprayoon D, Prateepmanovong C, Treratanakulwong T, Charoenwet W, Kanongchaiyos P, 2011. A design and implementation for ultrasound practice system for fetal echocardiography. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Virtual Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry. 367–370. ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Levine AI, DeMaria S Jr, Schwartz AD, Sim AJ. 2013. The comprehensive textbook of healthcare simulation. Verlag, NY: Springer Science and Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Liu L, Kutarnia J, Belady P, Pedersen P. 2015. Obstetric ultrasound simulator with task-based training and assessment. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 99(1):1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantke R, Peitz U. 2011. Surgical ultrasound: an interdisciplinary approach for surgeons, internists, and ultrasound technicians. India: Thieme.
   Google Scholar
• Martin S, Hillier N, 2009. Characterisation of the Novint Falcon haptic device for application as a robot manipulator. In Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation (ACRA), 291–292.
   Google Scholar
• Maul H, Scharf A, Baier P, Wstemann M, Gnter HH, Gebauer G, Sohn C. 2004. Ultrasound simulators: experience with the SonoTrainer and comparative review of other training systems. Ultrasound Obstetrics Gynecology. 24(5):581–585.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzella F, Montgomery K, Latombe JC, 2002. The forcegrid: a buffer structure for haptic interaction with virtual elastic objects. In Robotics and Automation, 2002. Proceedings. ICRA’02. IEEE International Conference on, 939–946.
   Google Scholar
• Ourahmoune A, Hamitouche C, Larabi S, 2014. Learning ultrasound gesture database: building and application to musculoskeletal ultrasound exams. In Conference proceedings: Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual Conference 1809–1812.
   Google Scholar
• Ourahmoune A, Larabi S, Hamitouche C. 2012. A survey of echographic simulators. In: Computational modelling of objects represented in images III: fundamentals, methods and applications. p. 273–276. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Pan Z, Cheok AD, Yang H, Zhu J, Shi J. 2006. Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments. Comput Graphics. 30(1):20–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payr S. 2003. The virtual university’s faculty: an overview of educational agents. Appl Artif Intelligence. 17(1):119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persoon MC, Schout B, Martens EJ, Tjiam IM, Tielbeek AV, Scherpbier AJ, Hendrikx AJ. 2010. A simulator for teaching transrectal ultrasound procedures: how useful and realistic is it? Simul Healthcare. 5(5):311–314.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peterlik I, Nouicer M, Duriez C, Cotin S, Kheddar A. 2011. Constraint-based haptic rendering of multirate compliant mechanisms. IEEE Trans Haptics. 4(3):175–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters TM. 2014. Real-time simulation of transesophageal echocardiography. Med Meets Virtual Reality 21: NextMed/MMVR. 21(196):436.
   Google Scholar
• Petrinec K. 2013. Patient-specific interactive ultrasound image simulation based on the deformation of soft tissue. University of California. PHD of Philosophy in Computer Science.
   Google Scholar
• Pirkowski A, Kempny A. 2013. The transesophageal echocardiography simulator based on computed tomography images. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 60(2):292–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rickel J, Johnson WL. 1999. Animated agents for procedural training in virtual reality: perception, cognition and motor control. Appl Artif Intelligence. 13:343382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohling R, Gee A, Berman L. 1999. A comparison of freehand three-dimensional ultrasound reconstruction techniques. Med Image Anal. 3(4):339–359.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Santos CT, Osrio FS, (2004). An intelligent and adaptive virtual environment and its application in distance learning. In Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces, 362–365. ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Sclaverano S, Chevreau G, Vadcard L, Mozer P, Troccaz J. 2009. BiopSym: a simulator for enhanced learning of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Stud Health Technol Inform. 142:301–306.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shin D. 2017. The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: technological and affective affordances in virtual reality. Telematics Inform. Elseiver: Amsterdam. 34(8): 1826–1836
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin D, Biocca F, Choo H. 2013. Exploring the user experience of three dimensional virtual learning environments. Behaviour Inf Technol. 32(2):203–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidhu HS, Olubaniyi BO, Bhatnagar G, Shuen V, Dubbins P. 2012. Role of simulation-based education in ultrasound practice training. J Ultrasound Med. 31(5):785–791.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stallkamp J, Wapler M. 1997. UltraTrainer a training system for medical ultrasound examination. Stud Health Technol Inform. 50:298–301.
   Google Scholar
• Storve S, Torp H. 2017. Fast simulation of dynamic ultrasound images using the GPU, in IEEE transactions on ultrasonics. Ferroelectr Freq Control. 64(10):1465–1477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun B, McKenzie FD. 2011. Real-time sonography simulation for medical training. Int J Educ Inf Technol. 5(3):328–335.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal FP, John NW, Healey AE, Gould DA. 2008. Simulation of ultrasound guided needle puncture using patient specific data with 3D textures and volume haptics. Comput Animat Virtual Worlds. 19(2):111–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang D, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Xiao J. 2013. Configuration-based optimization for six degree-of-freedom haptic rendering for fine manipulation. IEEE Trans Haptics. 6(2):167–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weidenbach M, Drachsler H, Wild F, Kreutter S, Razek V, Grunst G, Janousek J. 2007. EchoComTEEa simulator for transoesophageal echocardiography. Anaesthesia. 62(4):347–353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weidenbach M, Trochim S, Kreutter S, Richter C, Berlage T, Grunst G. 2004. Intelligent training system integrated in an echocardiography simulator. Comput Biol Med. 34(5):407–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weller R, Zachmann G, 2009. A unified approach for physically-based simulations and haptic rendering. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Video Games, 151–159. ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Williams CJ, Edie JC, Mulloy B, Flinton DM, Harrison G. 2013. Transvaginal ultrasound simulation and its effect on trainee confidence levels: a replacement for initial clinical training? Ultrasound. 21(2):50–56.
   Google Scholar
• Xu D, Wang H. 2006. Intelligent agent supported personalization for virtual learning environments. Decis Support Syst. 42(2):825–843.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yipeng H, Eli G, Li-Lin L, Weidi X, Barratt C, Vercauteren T, Alison Noble J. 2017. Freehand ultrasound image simulation with spatially-conditioned generative adversarial networks. CMMI/RAMBO/SWITCHMICCAI. editor. Molecular imaging, reconstruction and analysis of moving body organs, and stroke imaging and treatment, RAMBO 2017, CMMI 2017, SWITCH. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 10555, Quebec City, QC, Canada: Springer:Cham.
   Google Scholar
• Zhuang Y, Canny J, 2000. Haptic interaction with global deformations. in robotics and automation, 2000. Proceedings. ICRA’00. IEEE International Conference on (3),2428–2433.
   Google Scholar
• Zilles CB, Salisbury JK, 1995. A constraint-based god-object method for haptic display. In Intelligent Robots and Systems 95.’Human Robot Interaction and Cooperative Robots’, Proceedings. 1995 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (3), 146–151.
   Google Scholar