arXiv subjects

Matthew Benger

Publications and source records attributed to Matthew Benger.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Clinician-AI Collaboration in Endovascular Neurointerventions: In-Vitro User Study of Copilot Assistance Modes for Robotic Navigation Across the Autonomy Spectrum

Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is an effective treatment for acute ischemic stroke, yet access remains limited by the availability of neurointerventional expertise. Telerobotic and AI-assisted systems may help address this challenge, but it remains unclear how clinicians interact with different levels of autonomy and how autonomous navigation systems perform in realistic environments. This work introduces Copilot Assistance Modes (CAMs), a framework for clinician-AI collaboration in robotic endovascular navigation spanning the autonomy spectrum from manual operation to full autonomy. In the first in-vitro user study comparing clinician-AI collaboration strategies, 11 experts and two students evaluated six navigation modes in a patient-specific vascular phantom. Objective performance metrics were combined with subjective assessments, including workload and usability. Autonomous performance was additionally evaluated both in silico and in vitro to investigate sim-to-real transfer. Hands-on manual navigation achieved the strongest overall performance (100% success). While fully autonomous navigation achieved 81% success in simulation, performance dropped to 23% in vitro. In contrast, several clinician-AI shared-autonomy modes achieved success rates of 92-97%, approximately four times higher than full autonomy and comparable to direct robotic control (95%), demonstrating mitigation of sim-to-real domain shift through clinician-AI collaboration. Among the evaluated AI-driven approaches, user-directed task delegation and rotational shared control demonstrated the most favorable balance between performance and clinician acceptance. These findings suggest that effective clinician-AI collaboration and allocation of control authority may currently be more important for reliable robotic neurointerventional navigation than increasing autonomy alone.

cs.RO↗

arXiv2026

Manual, Joystick, or Haptic Control? An In Vitro Comparison of Navigation Strategies for Robotic Interventional Neuroradiology Procedures

Objective: To evaluate robotic controller interfaces for interventional neuroradiology procedures in-vitro incorporating a force-sensing platform to assess safety. Methods: A custom endovascular robot, device-mimicking controller, and sensorized neurovascular phantom were developed. Ten interventional neuroradiologists (4 novices, 6 experts) performed simulated navigations using four control modalities: device-mimicking controllers with and without haptic feedback, joystick-based input, and manual navigation. Navigation time, peak vessel-wall forces, incorrect catheterisations, and prolapse events were assessed, alongside user analyses. Results: Manual navigation was fastest (mean 47.7 s) compared to haptic-on (248.7 s), haptic-off (314.7 s), and joystick (392.6 s) modalities (p<0.001). Regardless of controller type, vessel-wall forces were below the 0.70 N puncture threshold; therefore all modalities were considered safe. Joystick produced significantly more prolapse events than manual control (1.56 vs 0.13; p=0.018). Operator experience was relevant to performance: experts made fewer incorrect catheterisations than novices (0.25 vs 0.62; p=0.035) and applied less vessel-wall force (p<0.0005); these effects were sustained across controllers but accentuated when haptics were on. Users perceived haptic on and haptic off as similarly intuitive, and more intuitive than joystick (p=0.033). Conclusion: Device-mimicking robotic controllers outperform joystick interfaces on most metrics; haptic feedback shows promising but non-significant performance benefits.

cs.RO↗

arXiv2021

Labelling imaging datasets on the basis of neuroradiology reports: a validation study

Natural language processing (NLP) shows promise as a means to automate the labelling of hospital-scale neuroradiology magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets for computer vision applications. To date, however, there has been no thorough investigation into the validity of this approach, including determining the accuracy of report labels compared to image labels as well as examining the performance of non-specialist labellers. In this work, we draw on the experience of a team of neuroradiologists who labelled over 5000 MRI neuroradiology reports as part of a project to build a dedicated deep learning-based neuroradiology report classifier. We show that, in our experience, assigning binary labels (i.e. normal vs abnormal) to images from reports alone is highly accurate. In contrast to the binary labels, however, the accuracy of more granular labelling is dependent on the category, and we highlight reasons for this discrepancy. We also show that downstream model performance is reduced when labelling of training reports is performed by a non-specialist. To allow other researchers to accelerate their research, we make our refined abnormality definitions and labelling rules available, as well as our easy-to-use radiology report labelling app which helps streamline this process.

eess.IV↗