World Scientific
  • Search
Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
Our website is made possible by displaying certain online content using javascript.
In order to view the full content, please disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website

System Upgrade on Tue, Oct 25th, 2022 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.
Special Issue on “Soft Computing and Intelligent Systems for Robotics”; Guest Editors: Y.-J. Ryoo and A. A. O. NassiraeiNo Access

A Microsurgical Robotic System that Induces a Multisensory Illusion by:2 (Source: Crossref)

    Intuitiveness in robotic surgery is highly desirable when performing highly elaborate surgical tasks using surgical master–slave systems (MSSs), such as suturing. To increase the operability of such systems, the time delay of the system response, haptic feedback, and eye–hand coordination are the issues that have received the most attention. In addition to these approaches, we propose a surgical robotic system that induces a multisensory illusion. In our previous study, we reported that a robotic instrument we devised enhances the multisensory illusion. In this paper, we determine the requirements for inducing this multisensory illusion in a multi-degree-of-freedom (DOF) MSS, and the first stage of prototype implementation based on the given requirements is described.


    • 1. Guthart G. S. and Salisbury J. K. Jr. [2000] The intuitive telesurgery system: Overview and application, Proc. Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, pp. 618–621. Google Scholar
    • 2. Anderson R. J. and Spong M. W. [1989] Bilateral control of teleoperators with time delay, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 34 (5), 494–501. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 3. Kim W. S., Hannaford B. and Bejczy A. K. [1992] Force-reflection and shared compliant control in operating telemanipulators with time delay, IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 8 (2), 176–185. Google Scholar
    • 4. Ando N., Lee J. H. and Hashimoto H. [1999] A study on influence of time delay in teleoperation, Proc. Int. Conf. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 5, pp. 1111–1116. Google Scholar
    • 5. Lum M. J. H., Rosen J., King H., Friedman D. C. W., Lendvay T. S., Wright A. S., Sinanan M. N. and Hannaford B. [2009] Teleoperation in surgical robotics — Network latency effects on surgical performance, Proc. Int. Conf. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 6860–6863. Google Scholar
    • 6. Hannaford B., Wood L., McAffee A. and Zak H. [1991] Performance evaluation of a six-axis generalized force-reflecting teleoperator, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 21 (3), 620–633. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 7. Arata J., Takahashi H., Yasunaka S., Onda K., Tanaka K., Sugita N., Tanoue K., Konishi K., Ieiri S., Fujino Y., Ueda Y, Fujimoto H., Mitsuishi M. and Hashizume M. [2008] Impact of network time-delay and force feedback in telesurgery, Int. J. CARS 3 (3–4), 371–378. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 8. Hou M., Yeo S. H., Wu L. and Zhang H. B. [1996] Teleoperation characteristics and human response factor in relation to a robotic welding system, Proc. Int. Conf. Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1195–1202. Google Scholar
    • 9. Botvinick M. and Cohen J. [1998] Rubber hands “feel” touch that eyes see, Nature 391, 756. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 10. Arata J., Hattori M., Ichikawa S. and Sakaguchi M. [2014] Robotically enhanced rubber hand illusion, IEEE Trans. Haptics 7–4, 526–532. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 11. Arata J., Kondo H., Ikedo N. and Fujimoto H. [2011] Haptics device using a newly development redundant parallel mechanism, IEEE Trans. Robot. 27 (2), 201–214. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 12. Ouerfelli M. and Kuma V. [1994] Optimization of a Spherical five-bar Parallel Drive linkage, IEEE Trans. ASME J. Mech. Des. 116, 166–173. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 13. Armel K. C. and Ramachandran V. S. [2003] Projecting sensations to external objects: Evidence from skin conductance response, Proc. Roy. Soc. B, Biol. Sci. 207, 1499–1506. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 14. Ehrsson H. H., Spence C. and Passingham R. E. [2004] That’s my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb, Science 305, 875–877. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 15. Ehrsson H. H., Holmes N. P. and Passingham R. E. [2005] Touching a rubber hand: Feeling of body ownership is associated with activity in multisensory brain areas, J. Neurosci. 25 (45), 10,564–10,573. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 16. Tsakiris M. and Haggard P. [2005] The rubber hand illusion revisited: Visuotactile integration and self-attribution, J. Exp. Psychol., Human Percept. Perform. 31 (1), 80–91. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 17. Durgin F. H., Evans L., Dunphy N., Klostermann S. and Simmons K. [2007] Rubber hands feel the touch of light, Psychol. Sci. 18 (2), 152–157. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 18. Dummer T., Picot-Annand A., Neal T. and Moore C. [2009] Movement and the rubber hand illusion, Perception 38, 271–280. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 19. Shimada S., Fukuda K. and Hiraki K. [2009] Rubber hand illusion under delayed visual feedback, PLoS One 4 (7), e6185. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 20. Walsh L. D., Moseley G. L., Taylor J. L. and Gandevia S. C. [2011] Proprioceptive signals contribute to the sense of body ownership, J. Physiol. 589 (12), 3009–3021. ISIGoogle Scholar
    Remember to check out the Most Cited Articles!

    Check out these Notable Titles in Robotics