 with the University of Texas at Austin, and I will be presenting our work towards telemetering for needle insertion, looking at the effects of haptic and visual feedback on mental perception of training forces. The primary application of our telemetering haptic system is for needle decompression. This procedure involves inserting a needle into an affected area such as the lungs are hard to remove excess air. When done correctly, the procedure is lifesaving, but failure rates have been reported as high as 76%, which is why it's important to develop an effective training system. Current training protocols do involve automated patient simulations. However, none of these allow a mentor to directly monitor forces exerted by a trainee, which was what we want to do while minimizing distracting interaction. Our system is composed of two sides. So the training side where the training inserts the needle into a chest pad and force measurements are taken. For this, a custom needle attachment was made, which has a force sensing resistor and also a 3D printed cap which transmits the force from the trainee's finger to the force sensor. And then on the mentor side, the mentor would receive some form of feedback which will go over now. First is positive haptic feedback, so that when the trainee pushes down on the needle, the geomagic touch device would push up on the mentor's hand. Then negative haptic feedback. When the trainee pushes down on the needle, the haptic device would pull the mentor's hand towards itself. And finally, graphic feedback. So when the trainee pushes down on the needle, the mentor can use exploratory motion to determine the force at which they were pushing at. And for the experiment, there are five conditions that we're evaluating. One, graphics and pushing, two, graphics and pulling, and any of the three individual types of feedback. For the experiment, participants who were naive to needle decompression. And we also evaluated three force levels for insertion. For pre-training, the subject will memorize themselves with needle insertion. And then for each condition, there was a training block where the experimenter would insert the needle. And once they reached the force level, they would inform the subject to the force level. And then there was testing. The experimenter would insert the needle. And once they reached the force level, the subject would verbalize the perception of the force level. Participants were evaluated based on their ability to correctly identify the force levels. And these confusion matrices show that they did this the best for conditions one, graphics and pushing, and condition three, just graphics. When we performed the pairwise Wilkinson sign rate test, we saw that there was a statistically significant difference between the two top performing groups and the rest of the groups. However, not all participants performed with 100% accuracy. And so we wondered why that was. So we looked at the exploratory motion, which the mentors took to distinguish the forces. And when we looked at one of the highest performing subjects and the lowest performing subject, we saw that when there was a greater range of vertical motion that the participants performed better. We are currently extending the evaluation to include expert surgeons and intermediate residents. And there will be an additional survey to evaluate the practicality of this system. We are also refining the haptic glove, which would provide guidance cues to the trainee. And we will study the effectiveness of this in the future. Thank you.