Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T18:24:14.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Algorithms for autonomous exploration and estimation in compliant environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2012

R. E. Goldman ,
A. Bajo  and
N. Simaan
R. E. Goldman
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027USA
A. Bajo
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235USA
N. Simaan*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper investigates algorithms for enabling surgical slave robots to autonomously explore shape and stiffness of surgical fields. The paper addresses methods for estimating shape and impedance parameters of tissue and methods for autonomously exploring perceived impedance during tool interaction inside a tissue cleft. A hybrid force-motion controller and a cycloidal motion path are proposed to address shape exploration. An adaptive exploration algorithm for segmentation of surface features and a predictor-corrector algorithm for exploration of deep features are introduced based on discrete impedance estimates. These estimates are derived from localized excitation of tissue coupled with simultaneous force measurements. Shape estimation is validated in ex-vivo bovine tissue and attains surface estimation errors of less than 2.5 mm with force sensing resolutions achievable with current technologies in minimally invasive surgical robots. The effect of scan patterns on the accuracy of the shape estimate is demonstrated by comparing the shape estimate of a Cartesian raster scan with overlapping cycloid scan pattern. It is shown that the latter pattern filters the shape estimation bias due to frictional drag forces. Surface impedance exploration is validated to successfully segment compliant environments on flexible inorganic models. Simulations and experiments show that the adaptive search algorithm reduces overall time requirements relative to the complexity of the underlying structures. Finally, autonomous exploration of deep features is demonstrated in an inorganic model and ex-vivo bovine tissue. It is shown that estimates of least constraint based on singular value decomposition of locally estimated tissue stiffness can generate motion to accurately follow a tissue cleft with a predictor-corrector algorithm employing alternating steps of position and admittance control. We believe that these results demonstrate the potential of these algorithms for enabling “smart” surgical devices capable of autonomous execution of intraoperative surgical plans.

Keywords

Autonomous explorationEnvironment impedance estimationHybrid force-motion controlComputer-assisted surgery
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 71 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Abbott, J. J. and Okamura, A. M., “Stable forbidden-region virtual fixtures for bilateral telemanipulation,” J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 128 (1), 53–64 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Ahmad, S. and Lee, C. N., “Shape recovery from robot contour-tracking with force feedback,” Adv. Robot. 5 (3), 257–273 (Jan. 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Allemann, P., Schafer, M. and Demartines, N., “Critical appraisal of single port access cholecystectomy,” Br. J. Surg. 97 (10), 1476–1480 (Jul. 2010).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Allen, P. and Michelman, P., “Acquisition and interpretation of 3-D sensor data from touch,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 6 (4), 397–404 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Althoefer, K., Zbyszewski, D., Liu, H., Puangmali, P., Seneviratne, L., Challacombe, B., Dasgupt, P. and Murphy, D., “Air-cushion force sensitive probe for soft tissue investigation during minimally invasive surgery,” In: Sensors, 2008 IEEE. Lecce, Italy (2008) pp. 827–830.Google Scholar
6.Araujo, R., Nunes, U., de Almeida, A. T., “3D surface-tracking with a robot manipulator,” J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 15 (4), 401–417 (Apr. 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.ASTM, D2240-00 Standard Test Method for Rubber Propety - Durometer Hardness (2000).Google Scholar
8.Baert, A. L., Knauth, M., Sartor, K., Neri, E., Caramella, D., Bartolozzi, C., Kettenbach, J., Kronreif, G., Melzer, A., Fichtinger, G., Stoianovici, D. and Cleary, K., “Ultrasound-, CT- and MR-Guided robot-assisted interventions,” In: Medical Radiology (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008) pp. 393–409.Google Scholar
9.Crassidis, J. L. and Junkins, J. L., Optimal Estimation of Dynamic Systems (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Dario, P., Hannaford, B. and Menciassi, A., Smart surgical tools and augmenting devices,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 19 (5), 782–792 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Debus, T. J., Dupont, P. E. and Howe, R. D., “Contact state estimation using multiple model estimation and hidden Markov models,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 23 (4), 399–413 (Apr. 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.D'Errico, J.. Surface Fitting using gridfit, MATLAB Central File Exchange. Retrieved April 13, 2009.Google Scholar
13.Doulgeri, Z. and Karayiannidis, Y., “Force/position regulation for a robot in compliant contact using adaptive surface slope identification,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 53 (9), 2116–2122 (Oct. 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Eberman, B., “A model-based approach to cartesian manipulation contact sensing,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 16 (4), 508–528 (Aug. 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Egorov, V. and Sarvazyan, A. P., “Mechanical imaging of the breast,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 27 (9), 1275–1287 (2008).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Erickson, D., Weber, M. and Sharf, I., “Contact stiffness and damping estimation for robotic systems,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 22 (1), 41–57 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Featherstone, R., Thiebaut, S. S. and Khatib, O., “A General Contact Model for Dynamically-Decoupled Force/Motion Control,” In: Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Detroit, Michigan (1999) pp. 3281–3286.Google Scholar
18.Fedele, A., Fioretti, A., Manes, C. and Ulivi, G., “On-Line Processing of Position and Force Measures for Contour Identification and Robot Control,” In: Proceedings of the 1993 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Atlanta, GA (1993) pp. 369–374.Google Scholar
19.Fung, Y. C., Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissues, 2nd ed. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Graham, A., Kronecker Products and Matrix Calculus: With Applications (Halsted Press, New York, 1981).Google Scholar
21.Ho, S. C., Hibberd, R. D. and Davies, B. L., “Robot assisted knee surgery,” IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. 14 (May/June), 292–299 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Jung, S., Hsia, T. and Bonitz, R., “Force tracking impedance control of robot manipulators under unknown environment,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 12 (3), 474–483 (May 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Kalloo, A. N., Singh, V. K., Jagannath, S. B., Niiyama, H., Hill, S. L., Vaughn, C. A., Magee, C. A. and Kantsevoy, S. V., “Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: A novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity,” Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 60 (1), 114–117 (2004).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Kaneko, M., Toya, C. and Okajima, M., “Active Strobe Imager for Visualizing Dynamic Behavior of Tumors” In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Rome, Italy (2007) pp. 3009–3014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Kapoor, A., Li, M. and Taylor, R. H., “Spatial Motion Constraints for Robot Assisted Suturing using Virtual Fixtures,” Vol. LNCS 3750. Springer-Verlag, Palm Springs, CA (2005) pp. 89–96.Google Scholar
26.Khatib, O., “A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. RA–3 (1), 43–53 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Kikuuwe, R. and Yoshikawa, T., “Robot perception of environment impedance,” J. Robot. Syst. 22 (5), 231–247 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Labadie, R. F., Davis, B. M. and Fitzpatrick, J. M., “Image-guided surgery: What is the accuracy?,” Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head and Neck Surg. 13 (1), 27–31 (Feb. 2005).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Lefebvre, T., Bruyninckx, H., De Schutter, J., Nonlinear Kalman Filtering for Force-Controlled Robot Tasks. Vol. 19 (Springer, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Liu, H., Noonan, D. p., Challacombe, B. J., Dasgupta, P., Seneviratne, L. D. and Althoefer, K., “Rolling mechanical imaging for tissue abnormality localization during minimally invasive surgery,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 57 (2), 404–414 (2010).Google ScholarPubMed
31.Ljung, L., System Identification, Theory for the User, 2nd ed. (Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, 1999).Google Scholar
32.Love, L. J. and Book, W. J., “Environment Estimation for Enhanced Impedance Control,” Proc. 1995 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. 2, 1854–1859 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Miller, A. P., Peine, W. J., Son, J. S. and Hammoud, Z. T., “Tactile Imaging System for Localizing Lung Nodules During Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery,” In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2007) pp. 2996–3001.Google Scholar
34.Moll, M. and Erdmann, M. A., “Reconstructing Shape from Motion using Tactile Sensors,” In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 2. Maui, HI, United States (2001) pp. 692–700.Google Scholar
35.Nakamura, Y., Advanced Robotics: redundancy and optimization (Addison Wesley Publishing, Reading, 1991).Google Scholar
36.Okamura, A. M. and Cutkosky, M. R., “Feature Guided Exploration with a Robotic Finger,” In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2001) pp. 589–596.Google Scholar
37.Pottmann, H. and Wallner, J., Computational Line Geometry (Springer, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Richards, W. O. and Rattner, D. W., “Endoluminal and transluminal surgery: No longer if, but when,” Surg. Endoscopy 19 (4), 461–463 (Apr. 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Sabatini, A. M., Dario, P. and Bergamasco, M., “Interpretation of mechanical properties of soft tissues from tactile measurements,” Exp. Robotics 139, 152–162 (1990).Google Scholar
40.Seibold, U., Kubler, B. and Hirzinger, G., “Prototype of Instrument for Minimally Invasive Surgery with 6-Axis Force Sensing Capability,” In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2005) pp. 498–503.Google Scholar
41.Siciliano, B. and Khatib, O., Springer Handbook of Robotics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.Spong, M. W., Hutchinson, S. and Vidyasagar, M., Robot Modeling and Control (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ 2005).Google Scholar
43.Tavakoli, M., Patel, R. and Moallem, M., 2005. “Haptic interaction in robot-assisted endoscopic surgery: A sensorized end-effector,” Int. J. Med. Robot. Comput. Assist. Surg. 01 (02), 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44.Taylor, R. and Stoianovici, D., “Medical robotics in computer-integrated surgery,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 19 (5), 765–781 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45.Tholey, G. and Desai, J. P., “A compact and modular laparoscopic grasper with tridirectional force measurement capability,” J. Med. Devices 2 (3), 031001(1–8) (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46.Trejos, A. L., Patel, R. V., Naish, M. D., Lyle, A. C. and Schlachta, C. M., “A sensorized instrument for skills assessment and training in minimally invasive surgery,” J. Med. Devices 3 (4), 041002 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47.Wellman, P. S. and Howe, R. D., “Extracting Features from Tactile Maps,” In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention Volume 167 (1999) pp. 11–1142.Google Scholar
48.Xu, K. and Simaan, N., Jun. “Intrinsic wrench estimation and its performance index for multisegment continuum robots,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 26 (3), 555–561 (2010).Google Scholar
49.Yamamoto, T., Berhardt, M., Peer, A., Buss, M. and Okamura, A. M., “Techniques for Environment Parameter Estimation During Telemanipulation,” In: Proceedings of the 2nd Biennial IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (2008) pp. 217–223.Google Scholar
50.Yoshikawa, T. and Sudou, A., “Dynamic hybrid position/force control of robot manipulators - on-line estimation of unknown constraint,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 9 (2), 220–226 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51.Yoshikawa, T., Yu, Y. and Koike, M., “Estimation of Contact Position between Object and Environment Based on Probing of Robot Manipulator,” In: Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems '96, IROS 96. Vol. 2 (1996) pp. 769–776.Google Scholar