| Literature DB >> 26528160 |
Daniel R Leff1, David R C James1, Felipe Orihuela-Espina2, Ka-Wai Kwok1, Loi Wah Sun1, George Mylonas1, Thanos Athanasiou1, Ara W Darzi1, Guang-Zhong Yang1.
Abstract
Minimally invasive and robotic surgery changes the capacity for surgical mentors to guide their trainees with the control customary to open surgery. This neuroergonomic study aims to assess a "Collaborative Gaze Channel" (CGC); which detects trainer gaze-behavior and displays the point of regard to the trainee. A randomized crossover study was conducted in which twenty subjects performed a simulated robotic surgical task necessitating collaboration either with verbal (control condition) or visual guidance with CGC (study condition). Trainee occipito-parietal (O-P) cortical function was assessed with optical topography (OT) and gaze-behavior was evaluated using video-oculography. Performance during gaze-assistance was significantly superior [biopsy number: (mean ± SD): control = 5.6 ± 1.8 vs. CGC = 6.6 ± 2.0; p < 0.05] and was associated with significantly lower O-P cortical activity [ΔHbO2 mMol × cm [median (IQR)] control = 2.5 (12.0) vs. CGC 0.63 (11.2), p < 0.001]. A random effect model (REM) confirmed the association between guidance mode and O-P excitation. Network cost and global efficiency were not significantly influenced by guidance mode. A gaze channel enhances performance, modulates visual search, and alleviates the burden in brain centers subserving visual attention and does not induce changes in the trainee's O-P functional network observable with the current OT technique. The results imply that through visual guidance, attentional resources may be liberated, potentially improving the capability of trainees to attend to other safety critical events during the procedure.Entities:
Keywords: collaborative gaze; functional near infrared spectroscopy; graph theory; mentoring; neuroergonomics; optical topography; skills assessment; visual attention
Year: 2015 PMID: 26528160 PMCID: PMC4604246 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Hum Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5161 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1Experimental task set up. Both the trainee (A) and trainer (B) control the virtual instruments, each with two haptic manipulators (Phantom Omni, SensAble Tech, USA). The trainer’s right hand manipulator is highlighted (yellow). Gaze behavior is detected with portable eyetracker (X50 eyetracker, Tobii Technologies, Sweden) situated below both monitors (trainer eyetracker highlighted yellow). An Optical topography (OT) system (ETG-4000, Hitachi Medical Corp. Japan) positioned outside the trainee’s field of view (left, highlighted) records cortical hemodynamic data from 24 cortical loci (channels). Appropriate channel locations (yellow circles) are understood by projecting 3D positional data onto a T1 weighted MRI image (upper subplot). The lowermost row of channels was centered on Oz of the International 10–10 system (Jurcak et al., 2007). Task images can be appreciated on trainer and trainee monitors and sample screen shots are represented in which the trainee’s instruments are located inferiorly (i–iv). With the collaborative gaze channel (CGC) enabled, the trainee regards the blue cross indicating the intended biopsy target (i). The trainee then grasps the nodule (black circle) (ii) and passes it to the trainer’s instrument (iii–iv). With the channel disabled, the trainee performs identical maneouvres but only with verbal instructions from the trainer.
Figure 2(A) Technical performance as indexed by the number of biopsies retrieved (I) and instrument path length (II). Box plots indicate mean and error bars represent 95% confidence interval. (B) Gaze plots from a representative subject under control (I) and gaze guidance (II) demonstrate more focussed fixations during gaze-assistance.
The influence of guidance mode on technical performance, visual search behavior, changes in cortical hemodynamics, network topological properties and systemic effects.
| Outcome variable | Control condition (Mean ± SD) | CGC condition (Mean ± SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biopsy number | 5.6 ± 1.8 | 6.6 ± 2.0 | −3.394 | |
| Instrument path length (m) | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.7 | 11.765 | |
| Gaze latency (s) | 1.4 ± 0.3 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 7.292 | |
| ΔHbO2 (mMol × cm) | 2.5 (12.0) | 0.6 (11.2) | −4.049 | |
| ΔHHb (mMol × cm) | −1.4 (5.0) | −1.0 (4.5) | −1.098 | 0.272 |
| ΔHbT (mMol × cm) | 3.6 (13) | 1.1 (11.6) | −6.064 | |
| Normalized cost (a.u.) | 0.10 (0.13) | 0.19 (0.43) | −0.722 | 0.470 |
| Global efficiency (a.u.) | 0.03 (0.05) | 0.02 (0.08) | −0.220 | 0.826 |
| Network burden (a.u.) | 0.09 (0.14) | 0.18 (0.46) | −0.847 | 0.397 |
| Network edges (a.u.) | 56.0 (304.0) | 81.0 (120.0) | −0.589 | 0.556 |
| Heart rate (beatsmin-1) | 71.2 (10.0) | 73.4 (8.1) | −0.392 | 0.695 |
| SDNN | 57.7 (42.0) | 47.2 (36.9) | −0.784 | 0.433 |
p < 0.05 = bold, p < 0.001 = bold italic.
Figure 3Topograms derived from task averaged HbO.
Figure 4Figure depicting group averaged (O-P) channel activation for verbal (left) and gaze guidance (right). Magnitude of statistical changes in cortical hemodynamics reflect intensity of brain activation as follows: (A) statistically significant (p < 0.05) increase in HbO2 coupled to statistically significant (p < 0.05) decrease in HHb (red circles); (B) increase HbO2 and decrease HHb with one species reaching statistical significance, p < 0.05 (spots); (C) increase HbO2 and decrease HHb with neither species reaching statistical significance (stripes); and (D) no coupled increase HbO2 and decrease HHb (clear circles). Verbal guidance resulted in a greater number of activating channels (control vs. CGC = 19/24 vs. 11/24).
Results of univariate random effect models (REM), evaluating the influence of the independent variable (mode of guidance) on dependent variables including performance, changes in cortical hemodynamics, cortical network metrics, heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV).
| Dependent variable | Coefficient | 95% | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biopsy number | 0.090 | 0.040 | 0.011 to −0.168 | |
| Instrument pathlength (m) | −3.20 | 0.312 | −3.808 to −2.586 | |
| Gaze latency (s) | −0.761 | 0.118 | −0.992 to −0.530 | |
| ΔHbO2 (mMol × cm) | −1.294 | 0.326 | −1.933 to −0.654 | |
| ΔHHb (mMol × cm) | −0.198 | 0.151 | 0.188 | −0.494 to −0.097 |
| ΔHbT (mMol × cm) | −1.094 | 0.303 | −1.689 to −0.500 | |
| No. of connections | −0.000 | 0.000 | 0.754 | −0.002 to −0.001 |
| Normalized cost (a.u.) | −0.036 | 0.101 | 0.720 | −0.234 to −0.161 |
| Network burden (a.u.) | −0.333 | 0.097 | 0.732 | −0.244 to −0.157 |
| Global efficiency (a.u.) | −0.106 | 0.282 | 0.706 | −0.659 to −0.446 |
| Mean HR (beatsmin-1) | 0.008 | 0.009 | 0.353 | −0.009 to −0.025 |
| SDNN | −0.002 | 0.003 | 0.595 | −0.008 to −0.004 |
(p < 0.05 = bold, p < 0.001 = bold italic).
Figure 5Activity-guided cortical networks for a representative subject during the control condition (A) and study condition (B). Approximate channel locations (black circles) are overlain onto reference MRI atlas. The strength of functional associations between nodes in the network is represented by the boldness of network edges.