Interactive Spatial Augmented Reality in Collaborative Robot Programming: User Experience Evaluation

As smartphones, tablet computers, and other mobile devices have continued to dominate our digital world ecosystem, there are many industries using mobile or wearable devices to perform Augmented Reality (AR) functions in their workplaces in order to increase productivity and decrease unnecessary workloads. Mobile-based AR can basically be divided into three main types: phone-based AR, wearable AR, and projector-based AR. Among these, projector-based AR or Spatial Augmented Reality (SAR) is the most immature and least recognized type of AR for end users. This is because there are a small number of commercial products providing projector-based AR functionalities in a mobile manner. Also, prices of mobile projectors are still relatively high. Moreover, there are still many technical problems regarding projector-based AR that have been left unsolved. Nevertheless, it is projector-based AR that has potential to solve a fundamental problem shared by most mobile-based AR systems. Also the always-visible nature of projector-based AR is one good answer for solving current user experience issues of phone-based AR and wearable AR systems. Hence, in this paper, we analyze what are the user experience issues and technical issues regarding common mobile-based AR systems, recently widespread phone-based AR systems, and rising wearable AR systems. Then for each issue, we propose and explain a new solution of how using projector-based AR can solve the problems and/or help enhance its user experiences. Our proposed framework includes hardware designs and architectures as well as a software computing paradigm towards mobile projector-based AR systems. The proposed design is evaluated by three experts using qualitative and semiquantitative research approaches.

Download Full-text

Augmented reality–assisted pedicle screw insertion: a cadaveric proof-of-concept study

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2018.12.spine181142 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 31 (1) ◽

pp. 139-146 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Camilo A. Molina ◽

Nicholas Theodore ◽

A. Karim Ahmed ◽

Erick M. Westbroek ◽

Yigal Mirovsky ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Augmented Reality ◽

Pedicle Screw ◽

User Experience ◽

Pedicle Screws ◽

Screw Insertion ◽

Pedicle Screw Insertion ◽

Insertion Method ◽

Comparative Accuracy ◽

Placement Accuracy ◽

Surgical Field

OBJECTIVEAugmented reality (AR) is a novel technology that has the potential to increase the technical feasibility, accuracy, and safety of conventional manual and robotic computer-navigated pedicle insertion methods. Visual data are directly projected to the operator’s retina and overlaid onto the surgical field, thereby removing the requirement to shift attention to a remote display. The objective of this study was to assess the comparative accuracy of AR-assisted pedicle screw insertion in comparison to conventional pedicle screw insertion methods.METHODSFive cadaveric male torsos were instrumented bilaterally from T6 to L5 for a total of 120 inserted pedicle screws. Postprocedural CT scans were obtained, and screw insertion accuracy was graded by 2 independent neuroradiologists using both the Gertzbein scale (GS) and a combination of that scale and the Heary classification, referred to in this paper as the Heary-Gertzbein scale (HGS). Non-inferiority analysis was performed, comparing the accuracy to freehand, manual computer-navigated, and robotics-assisted computer-navigated insertion accuracy rates reported in the literature. User experience analysis was conducted via a user experience questionnaire filled out by operators after the procedures.RESULTSThe overall screw placement accuracy achieved with the AR system was 96.7% based on the HGS and 94.6% based on the GS. Insertion accuracy was non-inferior to accuracy reported for manual computer-navigated pedicle insertion based on both the GS and the HGS scores. When compared to accuracy reported for robotics-assisted computer-navigated insertion, accuracy achieved with the AR system was found to be non-inferior when assessed with the GS, but superior when assessed with the HGS. Last, accuracy results achieved with the AR system were found to be superior to results obtained with freehand insertion based on both the HGS and the GS scores. Accuracy results were not found to be inferior in any comparison. User experience analysis yielded “excellent” usability classification.CONCLUSIONSAR-assisted pedicle screw insertion is a technically feasible and accurate insertion method.

Download Full-text