Category Archives: Uncategorized

Assessment

Assessment-1

Technical presentation on 20th March 2020

Percentage of marks: 25%

Duration for each presentation: 15 mins

Assessment panel: Four staff members (Thrishantha Nanayakkara, Petar Kormushev, and Nicolas Rojas) will independently award marks for the clarity of each of the following objectives

Nature of feedback: Oral feedback at the end of each presentation

Objectives:

  1. To show what research question was addressed in the short project showing why it is important.
  2. To show what methods were used to address/investigate the question.
  3. To show what results were obtained and what can be concluded.
  4. To show how these insights can be useful to future robot design approaches.

Grade descriptor:

Assessment criteria Pass (D grade) Excellent (A grade)
Research question Broad outline available. A very clear question is articulated with clear evidence of why it is timely and important.
Methods Broad description is available throughout the presentation. Clear analytical and/or experimental methods are shown with clear evidence like figures.
Results Some qualitative and/or quantitative results are available. Insights not readily available in raw data have been derived through analysis.
Insights Student can answer questions about deeper insights. Student presents deeper insights based on own analysis and evidence. Student can relate findings to other work in the field.

Assessment-2

Technical report due on 29th April 2020 by 5pm

Percentage of marks: 75%

Length of report: 6-8 page technical report in IEEE conference paper format (2 column, Arial 11 font).

Assessment panel: At least two staff members (Thrishantha Nanayakkara, Petar Kormushev, Nicolas Rojas, and Weston Baxter) will independently award marks for each report for the clarity of each of the following objectives

Nature of feedback: A collated document of independent written feedback in the format of a technical paper review

Objectives:

  1. To write an abstract showing what research question was addressed in the short project mentioning why it is important.
  2. To write an introduction outlining related work identifying a need to do the chosen project.
  3. To write a methods section showing what research methods were used to address/investigate the question.
  4. To write a results section showing experimental and/or analytical results.
  5. To write a conclusion section clearly articulating what can be concluded from the results.
  6. To write a discussion section showing insights that can be useful to future robot design approaches.

Grade descriptor:

Assessment criteria Pass (D grade) Excellent (A grade)
Abstract Broad outline of the work done is available. A very clear question is articulated highlighting why it is important to address it. The abstract clearly mentions the conclusion with summary findings.
Introduction Gives a broad outline to the project with at least 5 citations to relevant literature. A thorough discussion is done on the background literature citing more than 6 related papers. The introduction identifies an open challenge and outlines how the rest of the report is organized.
Methods Broad description of analytical and/or experimental methods is available. Clear analytical and/or experimental methods are shown with clear evidence like photos, diagrams, tables, and figures.
Results Some qualitative and/or quantitative results are available. Insights not readily available in raw data have been derived through analysis. Plots are clearly presented with labelled axes. Tables are informative and structured. Figure and table captions are concise and self-explanatory.
Conclusion A broad conclusion is available. A clear and concise conclusion is available based on evidence.
Discussions Student discusses broad insights, limitations, and opportunities for improvement. Student presents deeper insights based on own analysis and evidence. Student can relate findings to other work in the field.

If the paper is suitable for a peer-reviewed conference, we will further help you to go that extra mile, which will make a significant difference in your CV.

General practitioners examined our robotic patient

Thrish gives a plenary keynote speech at IEEE PIMRC 2017

Thrish gave a plenary keynote speech at IEEE PIMRC, one of the leading mobile communication conferences in the World. The talk focused on how living beings survive in uncertain environments that require fast responses with a central nervous system (CNS) known to have very slow communication fibers (a signal from fingertip to brain takes about 120msec). Most rapid responses cannot be explained using such slow communication pathways.

The talk using robotic experimental evidence on the role of fast bodily computers (morphological computers) that work in conjunction with the CNS helped to challenge the conventional notion that the slow CNS is entirely responsible for intelligent behavior. This aligned well with the latest trends in 5G communication where field experts argue that some new decentralized solutions are required to go beyond the current bottlenecks. Link

S.M.Hadi Sadati’s two papers accepted in Frontiers in Robotics and AI Journal and TAROS 2017 Conference

Papers on ‘A Geometry Deformation Model for Braided Continuum Manipulators’ and ‘Mechanics of Continuum Manipulators, A Comparative Study of Five Methods with Experiments‘ have been accepted in Frontiers in Robotics and AI Journal and TAROS 2017 Conference, respectively. The findings, described in these papers, provide a deep insight into comprehensive modeling of braided continuum manipulators for surgery applications.

Thrish in a BBC Radio 3 live interview on hands

Psychoanalyst Darian Leader’s new book looks at the culture and psychology of the human hand. He joins Matthew Sweet along with art historian Lisa Le Feuvre, currently curating an exhibition on sculpture and prosthesis at the Henry Moore Institute in Leeds, and robotics scientist Thrishantha Nanayakkara from King’s College London, who works on the problem of engineering a functioning hand from scratch…more