End Of Tool Research Articles

Design of the Novel Single Incision, Free Motion Laparoscopic Surgical System

Abstract Laparoscopic surgery is a common minimally invasive surgery that uses specialized tools to access the abdominal cavity and pelvic regions via small incisions called ports. Compared to open surgery, laparoscopy's small incision size better protects a patient's health and reduces recovery time. However, restricted rotation of the tools around chosen port locations can limit a surgeon's mobility while operating. To address this, the novel single incision, free motion (SIFM) laparoscopic surgical system was created, and its design was explored through three experiments. Experiment 1 analyzed different permanent magnetic configurations to optimize the magnetic force between a tool on the inside of the abdominal wall and an external tool. The chosen configuration was a single-pole external magnet, coupled to an axially magnetized internal magnet. Experiment 2 analyzed the experimental and theoretical forces applied by the internal tool. The tool was able to provide sufficient cutting forces at 26.1 mm of separation between the tools. Experiment 3 measured the precision of the tool's end effector which was controlled by a stepper motor-powered cable system. The tool's end effector rotates no more than 1 deg about the y-axis and no more than 2 deg about the x-axis. The SIFM system combines the health benefits of minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery, with the free motion and ease of open surgery.

Functional tool actions in near and far space affect the distribution of visual attention along the tool.

Researchers propose 2 opposing views regarding visuospatial attentional distributions of tool space. Tool-use in far space either (a) remaps peripersonal space leading to distributed attention along the tool, or (b) shifts attention to the tool's functional end. However, most studies employ only one type of functional tool action to support their view. This study assessed whether attentional distributions are explained by different tool action types performed in space relative to the body. In Experiment 1, participants used a curved tool to push objects in far space or pull objects from far-to-near space, n = 96. Visual attention (mean correct RT, d') was measured at three equidistant target locations (tool handle, middle shaft, functional end) in far space, before and after tool actions using a 50/50, go/no-go target discrimination task. In Experiment 2, push actions were confined to near space and pull actions to far space, n = 96. Regardless of pushing or pulling, tool actions in far space improved attention only at the tool's end. Pulling objects into near space distributed attentional facilitation along the tool's length. Thus, tool-use peripersonal space remapping and attentional shifts may be dependent on specific functional tool actions in near and far space. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Haptic over visual information in the distribution of visual attention after tool-use in near and far space.

Despite attentional prioritization for grasping space near the hands, tool-use appears to transfer attentional bias to the tool's end/functional part. The contributions of haptic and visual inputs to attentional distribution along a tool were investigated as a function of tool-use in near (Experiment 1) and far (Experiment 2) space. Visual attention was assessed with a 50/50, go/no-go, target discrimination task, while a tool was held next to targets appearing near the tool-occupied hand or tool-end. Target response times (RTs) and sensitivity (d-prime) were measured at target locations, before and after functional tool practice for three conditions: (1) open-tool: tool-end visible (visual + haptic inputs), (2) hidden-tool: tool-end visually obscured (haptic input only), and (3) short-tool: stick missing tool's length/end (control condition: hand occupied but no visual/haptic input). In near space, both open- and hidden-tool groups showed a tool-end, attentional bias (faster RTs toward tool-end) before practice; after practice, RTs near the hand improved. In far space, the open-tool group showed no bias before practice; after practice, target RTs near the tool-end improved. However, the hidden-tool group showed a consistent tool-end bias despite practice. Lack of short-tool group results suggested that hidden-tool group results were specific to haptic inputs. In conclusion, (1) allocation of visual attention along a tool due to tool practice differs in near and far space, and (2) visual attention is drawn toward the tool's end even when visually obscured, suggesting haptic input provides sufficient information for directing attention along the tool.

To the end! Distribution of attention along a tool in peri- and extrapersonal space

This study investigated the distribution of visual attention along a handheld tool depending on functional tool practice and its position in peripersonal or extrapersonal space. We created a tool with two functional parts placed at the tool's middle and end. Participants held the tool over a display such that functional parts were aligned with stimuli for a 50/50, go/no-go, target detection task. In Experiment 1, two groups with no prior tool experience performed the task either in peripersonal (near the body; tool held horizontally) or extrapersonal space (beyond arms' reach; tool held straight). Faster response times (RTs) were found for targets at the tool's end and for the peripersonal space group. In Experiment 2, participants used the tool's middle part in a hockey-like game prior to the task to assess functional practice effects. Again, faster RTs were found for targets at the tool's end and in peripersonal space. However, a tool part × space interaction suggested that mid-tool practice reduced performance differences between tool parts but only in peripersonal space. Experiment 3 confirmed the interaction effect when mid-tool practice was constrained to only extrapersonal space. Results suggest that visual attention is naturally drawn to the tool's end but that functional tool use can redistribute attention when positioned in peripersonal space. In extrapersonal space, no change was found suggesting that the extension of peripersonal space is not uniform in regards to visual attention and that the visual attention component is perhaps dissociable from the remapping of spatial representation by tools.

To the end! Distribution of attention along a tool in peri- and extrapersonal space

This study investigated the distribution of visual attention along a handheld tool depending on functional tool practice and its position in peripersonal or extrapersonal space. We created a tool with two functional parts placed at the tool's middle and end. Participants held the tool over a display such that functional parts were aligned with stimuli for a 50/50, go/no-go, target detection task. In Experiment 1, two groups with no prior tool experience performed the task either in peripersonal (near the body; tool held hori- zontally) or extrapersonal space (beyond arms' reach; tool held straight). Faster response times (RTs) were found for targets at the tool's end and for the peripersonal space group. In Experiment 2, participants used the tool's mid- dle part in a hockey-like game prior to the task to assess functional practice effects. Again, faster RTs were found for targets at the tool's end and in peripersonal space. However, a tool part × space interaction suggested that mid-tool prac- tice reduced performance differences between tool parts but only in peripersonal space. Experiment 3 confirmed the interaction effect when mid-tool practice was constrained to only extrapersonal space. Results suggest that visual atten- tion is naturally drawn to the tool's end but that functional tool use can redistribute attention when positioned in perip- ersonal space. In extrapersonal space, no change was found

UNITEST - A New Device For The Static AndDynamic Testing Of Unconventional MachineStructures

A new measuring device for volumetric measurement of machine tools developed at the Department of Production Engineering at the Technical University Graz integrates static and dynamic test principles in a single instrument. Linear positioning test, circular test and freeform test can be applied to unconventional machine structures like industrial robots and hexapods, measuring simultaneously position and orientation of the machine tool's end effector during the motion.