2009•ErgonomicsRequires access

Evaluation of a two cursor control device for development of a powered laparoscopic surgical tool

Scarlett R. Herring, M. Susan Hallbeck

Open publisher page 8 citations

Abstract

The current study was performed to test two electronic cursor control devices (a Touchpad and a MicroJoystick) for use in an articulating powered laparoscopic tool. A simple target acquisition test was conducted to test how well the cursor control devices could be manipulated and how accurate they were (including endpoint and movement path). The study varied the width (0.27, 0.54 and 1.07 cm) of the target as well as the hand position used (thumb and index finger control). Additionally, each participant was able to choose their ideal operating cursor speed for each cursor control device. The MicroJoystick had a higher throughput and movement variability than the Touchpad. In all other categories tested, the cursor control devices did not differ significantly. The speed of the cursor control devices did not affect the performance of the devices; therefore, the ideal cursor speed could be chosen by the participant. Finally, the hand position did not affect the performance of the devices. This experiment found both hand positions, cursor control devices and all speeds could be used to effectively manipulate an articulating end-effector in a powered, cauterising, laparoscopic tool. This article addresses the advantages and limitations of two control mechanisms for laparoscopic tool controls considering both the subjective and objective data. The controls are tested in two hand positions to test how well the participants can manipulate the device while minimising perceived fatigue.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The current study was performed to test two electronic cursor control devices (a Touchpad and a MicroJoystick) for use in an articulating powered laparoscopic tool. A simple target acquisition test was conducted to test how well the cursor control devices could be manipulated and how accurate they were (including endpoint and movement path). The study varied the width (0.27, 0.54 and 1.07 cm) of the target as well as the hand position used (thumb and index finger control). Additionally, each participant was able to choose their ideal operating cursor speed for each cursor control device. The MicroJoystick had a higher throughput and movement variability than the Touchpad. In all other categories tested, the cursor control devices did not differ significantly. The speed of the cursor control devices did not affect the performance of the devices; therefore, the ideal cursor speed could be chosen by the participant. Finally, the hand position did not affect the performance of the devices. This experiment found both hand positions, cursor control devices and all speeds could be used to effectively manipulate an articulating end-effector in a powered, cauterising, laparoscopic tool. This article addresses the advantages and limitations of two control mechanisms for laparoscopic tool controls considering both the subjective and objective data. The controls are tested in two hand positions to test how well the participants can manipulate the device while minimising perceived fatigue.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The current study was performed to test two electronic cursor control devices (a Touchpad and a MicroJoystick) for use in an articulating powered laparoscopic tool. A simple target acquisition test was conducted to test how well the cursor control devices could be manipulated and how accurate they were (including endpoint and movement path). The study varied the width (0.27, 0.54 and 1.07 cm) of the target as well as the hand position used (thumb and index finger control). Additionally, each participant was able to choose their ideal operating cursor speed for each cursor control device. The MicroJoystick had a higher throughput and movement variability than the Touchpad. In all other categories tested, the cursor control devices did not differ significantly. The speed of the cursor control devices did not affect the performance of the devices; therefore, the ideal cursor speed could be chosen by the participant. Finally, the hand position did not affect the performance of the devices. This experiment found both hand positions, cursor control devices and all speeds could be used to effectively manipulate an articulating end-effector in a powered, cauterising, laparoscopic tool. This article addresses the advantages and limitations of two control mechanisms for laparoscopic tool controls considering both the subjective and objective data. The controls are tested in two hand positions to test how well the participants can manipulate the device while minimising perceived fatigue.

Key concepts: Cursor (databases), Human–computer interaction, Movement control, Laparoscopic surgery, Laparoscopy, Computer science, Surgical robot, Simulation

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Evaluation of a two cursor control device for development of a powered laparoscopic surgical tool — Research Paper | ScholarLens