JACIII Vol.19 No.1 pp. 143-151
doi: 10.20965/jaciii.2015.p0143


Evaluation of Hand-Eye Coordination Based on Brain Activity

Satoshi Miura*, Yo Kobayashi*, Kazuya Kawamura**,
Masatoshi Seki*, Yasutaka Nakashima*, Takehiko Noguchi*,
Yuki Yokoo*, and Masakatsu G. Fujie*

*Faculty of Science and Engineering, Waseda University, 59-309, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan**Graduate School and Faculty of Engineering, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage Ward, Chiba-shi, Chiba 263-8522, Japan

October 15, 2013
July 25, 2014
Online released:
January 20, 2015
January 20, 2015
medical robotics, surgical robot, intuitive operability, user interface, brain activity

Surgical robots have improved considerably in recent years, but their intuitive operability, and thus their user interoperability, has yet to be quantitatively evaluated. Thus, we propose a method for measuring a user’s brain activity while operating such a robot, to better enable the design of a robot with intuitive operability. The objective of this study was to determine the angle and radius between an endoscope and manipulator that best allows the user to perceive the manipulator as being part of their own body. In the experiments, a subject operated a hand controller to position the tip of a virtual slave manipulator onto a target in a surgical simulator while his/her brain activity was measured using a brain imaging device. The experiment was carried out several times with the virtual slave manipulator configured in a variety of ways. The results show that the amount of brain activity is significantly greater with a particular slave manipulator configuration. We concluded that the hand-eye coordination between the body image and the robot should be closely matched in the design of a robot having intuitive operability.

  1. [1] J. Leven, D. Burschka, R. Knmar, M. Choti, C. Hasser, and R. H. Taylor, “Da Vinci Canvas: a telerobotic surgical system with integrated, robot-assisted, laparoscopic ultrasound capability,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), Vol.3749, pp. 811-818, 2005.
  2. [2] T. Osa, C. Staub, and A. Knoll, “Framework of automatic robotic surgery system using visual servoing,” Proc. 2010 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Taipei, Taiwan, 2010.
  3. [3] G. H. Ballantyne, “Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring - review of early clinical results,” Surg. Endosc., Vol.16, pp. 1389-1402, 2002.
  4. [4] I. Suh, M. Mukherjee, D. Oleynikov, and K.-C. Siu, “Training program for fundamental surgical skill in robotic laparoscopic surgery,” Int. J. Med. Robotics Computer Assist. Surg., Vol.7, pp. 327-333, 2011.
  5. [5] S.Miura, Y. Kobayashi, M. Seki, T. Noguchi, M. Kasuya, Y. Yokoo, and M. G. Fujie, “Intuitive Operability Evaluation of Robotic Surgery Using Brain Activity Measurement to Identify Hand-Eye Coordination,” Proc. of 2012 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’12), pp. 4546-4552, St. Paul, MN, USA, 14-18 May, 2012.
  6. [6] A. Maravita and A. Iriki, “Tools for the body,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol.8, No.2, pp. 79-86, 2004.
  7. [7] A. Farne, A. Serino, and E. Ladavas, “Dynamic size-change of perihand space following tool-use: determinants and spatial characteristics revealed through cross-model extinction,” Cortex, Vol.43, No.3, pp. 436-443, 2007.
  8. [8] T. R.Makin, N. P. Holmes, and E. Zohary, “Is That Near My Hand ? Multisensory Represenation of Peripersonal Space in Human Intraparietal Sulcus,” The J. of Neuroscience, Vol.27, No.4, pp. 731-740, January 2007.
  9. [9] A. N. Fader and P. F. Escobar, “Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) in gynecologic oncology: technique and initial report,” Gynecologic Oncology, Vol.114, 2009.
  10. [10] M. Miyazaki, M. Hiroshima, and D. Nozaki, “The Cutaneous Rabbit Hopping out of the Body,” J. Neurosci., Vol.30, No.5, pp. 1856-1860, 2010.
  11. [11] H. Imamizu, S. Miyauchi, T. Tamada, Y. Sasaki, R. Takino, B. Pz, T. Yoshioka, and M. Kawato, “Human Cerebellar Activity Reflecting an Acquired Internal Model of a New Tool,” Nature, Vol.403, pp. 192-195, 2000.
  12. [12] D. M. Clower and D. Boussaound, “Selective Use of Perceptual Recalibration versus Visuomotor Skill Acquisition,” J. Neurophysiol., Vol.84, pp. 2703-2708, 2000.
  13. [13] S. Taya, G. Maehara, and H. Kojima, Hemodynamic changes in response to the stimulated visual quadrants: a study with 24-channel near-infrared spectroscopy,” Jpn. J. Psychonomic Sci., 2009.
  14. [14] G. Maehara, S. Taya, and H. Kojima, “Changes in hemoglobin concentration in the lateral occipital regions during shape recognition: a near-infrared spectroscopy study,” J. of Biomedical Optics, Vol.12, No.6, 062109, 2007.
  15. [15] R. W. Human, J. Herman, and P. Purdy, “Cerebral location of international 10-20 system electrode placement,” Electroen. Clin. Neurophysiol., Vol.66, pp. 376-382, 1987.
  16. [16] C. E. Colby and M. E. Golberg, “Space and attention in parietal cortex,” Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 12, pp. 319-349, 1999.
  17. [17] R. A. Anderson, “Visual and eye movement functions of the posterior parietal cortex,” Annu. Rev. Neurosci., Vol.12, pp. 377-403, 1989.
  18. [18] J. C. Culham and N. G. Kanwisher, Neuroimaging of cognitive functions in human parietal cortex,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, Vol.11, pp. 157-163, 2001.
  19. [19] SensAble Technology, Inc.,
    available at: [Accessed August 25, 2014]
  20. [20] H. Head and G. Holmes, Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions,” Brain, Vol.34, pp. 102-245, 1911.
  21. [21] J. Paillard, The Use of Tools by Human and Non-human Primates, Oxford University Press, New York , 1993.
  22. [22] R. A. Fisher and J. H. Bennett (ed.), “Statistical methods, experimental design, and scientific inference,” Oxford Univ. Press, 1990.
  23. [23] C. Nabeshima, Y. Kuniyoshi, and M. Lungarella, “Adaptive Body Scheme for Robotic Tool-Use,” Advanced Robotics, Vol.20, No.10, pp. 1105-1126, 2006.
  24. [24] M. Hoffman, H. G. Marques, A. H. Arieta, H. Sumioka, M. Lungarella, and R. Pefeifer, “Body Scheme in Robotics: a Review,” IEEE Trans. Autonomous Mental Development, Vol.2, No.4, pp. 304-324, 2010.
  25. [25] E. Cassirer, Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, pp. 1923-1929, 1923.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, IE9,10,11, Opera.

Last updated on Mar. 28, 2017