IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/abf/journl/v13y2019i4p10102-10105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Beats the Expert? Building Precision into Simulators for Surgical Skill Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Birgitta Dresp-Langley

    (Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, ICube Lab, France)

Abstract

Simulator training for image-guided surgical interventions allows tracking task performance in terms of speed and precision of task execution. Simulator tasks are more or less realistic with respect to real surgical tasks, and the lack of clear criteria for learning curves and individual skill assessment if more often than not a problem. Recent research has shown that trainees frequently focus on getting faster at the simulator task, and this strategy bias often compromises the evolution of their precision score. As a consequence, and whatever the degree of surgical realism of the simulator task, the first and most critical criterion for skill evolution should be task precision, not the time of task execution. This short opinion paper argues that individual training statistics of novices from a simulator task should therefore always be compared with the statistics of an expert surgeon from the same task. This implies that benchmark statistics from the expert are made available and an objective criterion, i.e. a parameter measure, for task precision is considered for assessing learning curves of novices.

Suggested Citation

  • Birgitta Dresp-Langley, 2019. "Who Beats the Expert? Building Precision into Simulators for Surgical Skill Assessment," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 13(4), pages 10102-10105, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:abf:journl:v:13:y:2019:i:4:p:10102-10105
    DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2019.13.002429
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://biomedres.us/pdfs/BJSTR.MS.ID.002429.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://biomedres.us/fulltexts/BJSTR.MS.ID.002429.php
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26717/BJSTR.2019.13.002429?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:abf:journl:v:13:y:2019:i:4:p:10102-10105. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Angela Roy (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.