Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

WiReSens Toolkit: An Open-source Platform towards Accessible Wireless Tactile Sensing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read WiReSens Toolkit claims novices can wirelessly configure a resistive tactile sensor to over 95% accuracy in under five minutes, auto-calibrate 10x faster than manual methods, and read pressure data more effectively through a web GUI and…

desk verdict Useful open-source wireless tactile sensing toolkit with real engineering, but the auto-calibration claim is narrower than advertised and the code isn't actually linked. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00247 v3 pith:NQ6PNXX7 submitted 2024-11-29 cs.HC

Devin Murphy , Junyi Zhu , Paul Pu Liang , Wojciech Matusik , Yiyue Luo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords ResistiveTouchSensingToolkitsTangibleUserInterfacesWirelessDevicesAuto-calibrationLow-poweroperation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that the WiReSens Toolkit, an open-source combination of an adaptive readout circuit and a web-based programming interface, makes wireless resistive tactile sensing accessible to people with no prior experience in such hardware. The argument is that hardware and firmware details—choosing a wireless protocol, calibrating sensitivity, managing power, and making sense of raw matrix data—are the real barriers to deploying touch-sensing gloves, mats, pillows, and other interactive objects. A sympathetic reader should care because the toolkit claims to dissolve those barriers: in the reported user study, novices configured a new sensor in under five minutes with over 95% accuracy, calibrated it more than ten times faster than manual tuning, and read pressure visualizations more accurately and confidently.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the adaptive zero-potential readout circuit: a row/column scanning front end, of the kind established for resistive matrix sensors, in which the readout op-amp is followed by a second inverting op-amp whose gain is set by a digital potentiometer, Rpot. That second stage is what gives the circuit its adaptability—firmware can change sensitivity on the fly, and the auto-calibration routine (Eq. 3) converts a 10-second user interaction into the Rpot value that spans the ADC. The other mechanism is intermittent transmission: the MCU and the Python backend share a linear predictor for each sensor node, transmission is suppressed when the predicted frame is within a threshold, and the backend reconstructs missing frames from the same predictor; a grid-search utility picks the predictor gain and threshold from a user's existing recording. Together these mechanisms are what let a novice treat the sensor as a plug-and-play wireless device rather than a custom circuit design problem.

What would settle it

Run the auto-calibration routine while deliberately applying only half the intended peak force during the calibration window, then apply the full intended force and look at the ADC output; if the full-force output saturates or compresses, the routine's implicit behavioral premise is violated, and the calibration's stated 95% accuracy would not hold for that user.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a variable-gain zero-potential readout circuit—a standard matrix-scanning front end augmented with a digital potentiometer (Rpot)—can be auto-calibrated in 10 seconds to keep the entire ADC range usable for whatever resistive sensor and force range the user actually exercises. The calibration records the minimum voltage observed while the user interacts with the sensor, then sets Rpot according to Vout = Vref − (Rpot/264 Ω)(Vref − Vmin), mapping the minimum pressure to the reference voltage and the maximum pressure to zero volts. The same hardware platform also runs an intermittent transmission scheme that predicts each next sample with a first-order difference equation and only sends frames when the prediction error exceeds a threshold, cutting data transmission dramatically and extending device lifetime by up to 42% (Wi-Fi estimate) while keeping frame error near 1.2% of full scale. The paper validates both mechanisms in a technical evaluation across four sensor fabrication methods and three wireless protocols, and in an 11-participant user study showing fast configuration, 10x faster calibration, and improved spatial reasoning about pressure data.

Load-bearing premise

The auto-calibration routine assumes the user applies the full intended force range during the 10-second calibration window, because it computes the gain from the minimum voltage observed in that window; if the user presses too lightly or mistimes the motion, the calibrated sensitivity will not match the application.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • First-time users can take a bare 32×32 embroidered resistive array and configure it to read and record over Bluetooth in under five minutes, with about 96% readout-area accuracy on the first attempt.
  • Auto-calibration finds the same gain a manual expert would find, but in a fixed 10 seconds instead of roughly two minutes, and it works across taped, embroidered, knitted, and FPCB-based sensor fabrics.
  • Intermittent sending can cut transmitted packets below 5% during idle periods, extending device lifetime by over 20% for BLE and an estimated 42% for Wi-Fi, while keeping normalized frame error near 1.2% of full scale.
  • A user can switch between Wi-Fi, BLE, and ESP-NOW, or run up to five sending devices, without changing firmware, and the GUI lets them drag-and-drop sensor visualizations to match the physical device shape.
  • Custom visualization that mirrors the sensor's real geometry reduces the time and difficulty of reproducing a pressed shape, and increases the accuracy of that reproduction compared with a default square layout.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 10-second calibration window is a behavioral contract: the routine only knows the force range that was actually applied during that window, so a user who presses too lightly will get an over-gained sensor; probing that failure mode is the first replicable check we would run.
  • The same readout and calibration abstraction should transfer to any resistive or piezoresistive transducer the paper lists as future work (thermistors, photoresistors, moisture sensors), because the hardware only sees a resistance change; this is an extension the paper suggests but does not test.
  • The 42% lifetime extension is an estimate derived from Wi-Fi current-draw measurements, not an end-to-end battery discharge test; a direct run-down measurement under intermittent sending would settle how much real battery life is gained.
  • A longitudinal or cross-sensor replication of the user study (same participants re-configuring a different sensor later, or a larger sample) would test whether the five-minute configuration claim is a one-time learning effect or a durable property of the toolkit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents WiReSens Toolkit, an open-source hardware and software platform for resistive matrix-based tactile sensing. The system comprises a zero-potential readout circuit with an adaptive digital-potentiometer gain stage, a web-based GUI for device configuration, wireless streaming over Wi-Fi/BLE/ESP-NOW, an auto-calibration routine, and an intermittent-transmission power-saving mode. The authors report three technical evaluations: multi-sender wireless throughput and packet loss, calibration across four sensor fabrication types and two pressure regimes, and current-draw measurements validating the intermittent-sending model. They also report an 11-participant user study measuring device-programming time and accuracy, manual versus auto-calibration time, and visualization-assisted pressure-press reproduction, along with example applications. The central claims are that novices can configure a functional wireless tactile sensor in under five minutes, calibrate it over 10x faster than manual baseline, and interpret tactile data more effectively.

Significance. If the claims hold, the toolkit addresses a real gap: prior open-source tactile-sensing toolkits lack automatic sensitivity calibration, multi-device wireless support, and power-saving operation, and none have been evaluated with first-time users. The paper's strengths include externally validated technical measurements: physical current draw for the power model, throughput/packet-loss measurements across three protocols, calibration tests on four independently fabricated sensor types, and an 11-participant usability study. The user-study setup-time result (4.15 minutes average, 96% readout-area accuracy) and SUS score (82.5) are credible and useful for the community. However, the most distinctive claim—adaptive, range-covering auto-calibration—is only weakly validated in the user study, and the visualization benefit rests on a single significant comparison. These issues are fixable and do not undermine the technical measurements themselves.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, §5.4, Fig. 6B] The auto-calibration algorithm in §4.2 records only the minimum observed output voltage during the calibration window and sets Rpot via Eq. 3 so that Vout = 0 at that minimum. This assumes the user has applied the full intended pressure range within the window; otherwise later, larger forces will saturate the ADC. User-study Task 2 (§5.4) does not exercise a force range: a constant 3.0 kg force is applied, and the manual baseline is defined as the minimum amplification such that all six nodes display an ADC reading of zero. Eq. 3 is designed to achieve exactly that criterion, so the 'auto-calibration always found the same user-identified optimal gain' result is close to tautological. The only evaluation involving a true force range, Fig. 6B, used a 5-minute calibration period, not the user-facing 10 s default. Thus the 10x-faster claim is supported only for single-threshold gain matching, not for the adaptive, range-covering sensitivity that distinguishes the toolkit from prior work. The paper should either validate the 10 s routine with a force-range task (e.g., a sweep where the actual applied maximum is measured), or explicitly limit the claim and add this behavioral dependency to the limitations in §7.1.
  2. [§5.4, Fig. 9] The claim that the custom visualization 'improves spatial reasoning of tactile data' is overstated relative to the statistics. Only the square-press task completion time reached p < 0.05 with Welch's t-test; the circle-press task differences in time, SSIM accuracy, difficulty, and confidence are reported only 'on average' with no significance tests. With n = 11 and multiple comparisons, a single uncorrected p-value is weak support for the broad conclusion in the abstract of 'enhanced tactile data sense-making.' The authors should report effect sizes and confidence intervals, apply a correction for multiple comparisons, and temper the wording accordingly.
  3. [§1, §8] The paper repeatedly calls the platform 'open-source' and lists open-source hardware and software as a contribution, but I could not locate a repository URL, data-availability statement, or hardware-release link anywhere in the manuscript. For a toolkit paper whose central value is that others can adopt and extend the system, the absence of a concrete availability mechanism is a load-bearing omission. Please add the repository/DOI link and a statement of what is released (schematics, PCB files, firmware, and GUI code).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §5.3] The 'up to 42% increase in device lifetime' is an estimate based on the intermittent-sending model, not a measured lifetime. The abstract and §5.3 should consistently label this as an estimate and report the underlying measurement uncertainty.
  2. [§5.4, Task 3] The SSIM accuracy metric is described as 'between binary thresholded participant and ground truth presses,' but the thresholding procedure and the SSIM window parameters are not specified. Please provide enough detail for reproducibility, or cite a standard implementation.
  3. [§5.2] There is an inconsistency in the ordering of sensor types: the text says 'taped, embroidered, and knitted sensors' in one sentence and then lists calibrated Rpot values as 'taped, knitted, embroidered, and FPCB.' Please align the order to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Figure captions and body text] Several small typos and formatting issues should be corrected: 'sensitvity' in §2.2, 'matt' in the Fig. 3 caption, 'wt/ calibration' in Fig. 6A, and 'Li/t_tle' in Fig. 10B. Also, the user-study constant force of 3.0 kg should be stated in Newtons for consistency with §5.2.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

User-study validation that auto-calibration matches the manual optimum is definitional: both use the same zero-ADC criterion under a constant force.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2 Eq. (3); Section 5.4 Task 2 and Results]
    "At the end of the calibration duration, the method then calculates the average of these minimum sensor output voltages Vmin and determines the value of Rpot that will make the output of the opamp in the adaptive module Vout equal to 0 volts according to equation 3 (Sec. 4.2). Task 2: participants "manually adjust the digital potentiometer value through the web GUI to find the minimum amplification such that all six nodes displayed an ADC reading of zero." Results: "The auto-calibration always found the same user-identified optimal gain.""

    Task 2 applies a constant 3.0 kg force. Under that condition, the Vmin tracked by Eq. (3) is simply the sensor voltage at the test load, so Eq. (3) solves for the Rpot that makes Vout (i.e., the ADC reading) exactly zero. The manual 'optimal' gain is defined as the minimum amplification that makes six ADC readings zero under that same constant load. The two procedures therefore optimize the identical zero-output criterion, so the reported equality is forced by construction rather than being an independent confirmation that the auto-calibrated gain is correct. The 10x speed comparison remains a valid timing measurement, and the variable-force tests in Sec. 5.2 independently support range adaptivity, making the circularity partial and confined to the user-study 'same optimal gain' claim.

full rationale

Most of the WiReSens evaluation is externally grounded: wireless throughput is measured across Wi-Fi/BLE/ESP-NOW; the power-saving parameters p and d are optimized on a recording and then validated on a separate live mechanical-tester pressure test; sensor adaptivity is tested with a Shimadzu AGX-V2 over applied force ranges; and usability is assessed through SUS, task times, and SSIM. The self-citations to prior sensor-fabrication work are not load-bearing: they merely supply example sensor constructions. The one construction-forced step is the Task 2 comparison: the manual 'optimal' potentiometer value is defined as the gain that zeros the ADC under a constant 3.0 kg load, which is exactly the condition Eq. (3) enforces using Vmin. Thus 'auto-calibration always found the same user-identified optimal gain' is tautological for that task. The paper's Section 7.1 limitations also omit the behavioral premise that the 10 s calibration requires the user to press through the full intended force range, and the Sec. 5.2 range-adaptivity test used a 5-minute calibration period rather than the user-facing 10 s default; these are limitations rather than additional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on a small number of tunable parameters (p, d, alpha, calibration duration), which the paper mostly discloses. No new physical entities are introduced; the toolkit is a combination of known circuit topologies and existing software abstractions.

free parameters (4)
  • p (prediction responsiveness parameter) = 29 (validation example)
    Equation 1; tuned via grid search on a recorded tactile sequence to trade off error vs. transmission rate.
  • d (error threshold) = 26 (validation example)
    Equation 1; tuned alongside p via grid search; determines when packets are skipped.
  • alpha (trade-off weight in objective function) = not specified
    Equation 2; user-adjustable weight between prediction error and transmission percentage; the paper does not report the value used.
  • calibration duration = 10 s (default)
    Section 4.2; fixed duration of the auto-calibration window; chosen by the designers and configurable.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Zero-potential scanning readout reduces crosstalk between neighboring electrodes.
    Section 2.1 and Figure 4B rely on this circuit topology, citing D'Alessio [8]; if this assumption fails, the readout accuracy claim is undermined.
  • domain assumption Resistive sensor output is monotonically and inversely related to applied pressure for supported sensors.
    Section 4.2, Eq. 3 maps minimum observed voltage to 0 V; this relies on a monotonic inverse relationship in the inverting amplifier configuration.
  • domain assumption User applies the full intended pressure range during the calibration window.
    Section 4.2 walkthrough instructs users to 'engage the tactile sensor in a way that reflects the range of pressures it would experience under normal operation'; if not, Rpot is set incorrectly.
  • domain assumption The intermittent-sending predictor (Eq. 1) yields bounded error on real tactile signals when p and d are tuned on a representative recording.
    Section 4.2 Low-Power Mode; the power-saving and NRMSE claims depend on the predictor's validity and on the recording being representative of deployment conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WiReSens Toolkit: An Open-source Platform towards Accessible Wireless Tactile Sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NQ6PNXX7

@misc{pith2026241200247,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WiReSens Toolkit: An Open-source Platform towards Accessible Wireless Tactile Sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NQ6PNXX7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00247}
}
read the original abstract

Past research has widely explored the design and fabrication of resistive matrix-based tactile sensors as a means of creating touch-sensitive devices. However, developing portable, adaptive, and long-lasting tactile sensing systems that incorporate these sensors remains challenging for individuals having limited prior experience with them. To address this, we developed the WiReSens Toolkit, an open-source platform for accessible wireless tactile sensing. Central to our approach is adaptive hardware for interfacing with resistive sensors and a web-based GUI that mediates access to complex functionalities for developing scalable tactile sensing systems, including 1) multi-device programming and wireless visualization across three distinct communication protocols 2) autocalibration methods for adaptive sensitivity and 3) intermittent data transmission for low-power operation. We validated the toolkit's usability through a user study with 11 novice participants, who, on average, successfully configured a tactile sensor with over 95\% accuracy in under five minutes, calibrated sensors 10x faster than baseline methods, and demonstrated enhanced tactile data sense-making.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00247 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. WiReSens Toolkit provides open-source hardware and software to enable the development of portable, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Typical layout of a resistive matrix-based pres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The WiReSens Toolkit web-based programming interface wirelessly records and displays pressure data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (A) Adaptive zero-potential readout circuit open-sourced by WiReSens Toolkit in large (left) and small [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average throughput (A) and average percent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: WiReSens Toolkit calibrates readout for different sensors and application scenarios (A) Average and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Characterization of intermittent sending performance. (A) Simulated and observed average current draw [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mean and standard deviation of time (lower [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Study participants are asked to reproduce one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Wireless Musical Gloves: (A) Depiction of tactile sensing array, with readout circuit affixed to the arm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Gait Monitoring Shoe Sole: (A) Tactile sensing shoe sole form factor and readout circuit. (B) Power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Smart Home Welcome Mat: IoT lamp pro￾cesses tactile sensing data from a welcome mat to turn green when (A) an authorized individual enters the home and red when (B) an unauthorized individual enters the home. 7 Discussion In this section, we discuss the primary limita…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Scaling Fabric-Based Piezoresistive Sensor Arrays for Whole-Body Tactile Sensing

    cs.RO 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A daisy-chained SPI bus with hardware-synchronized readout enables a whole-body fabric tactile sensor array with 8,192 taxels at 53 FPS and under 3.3% measured crosstalk.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Roland Aigner, Andreas Pointner, Thomas Preindl, Patrick Parzer, and Michael Haller. 2020. Embroidered Resistive Pressure Sensors: A Novel Approach for Textile Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi....

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Anwer, Nabeel Khan, Muhammad Z

    Ahmed H. Anwer, Nabeel Khan, Muhammad Z. Ansari, Seung-Su Baek, Hwan Yi, Sangjin Kim, Seung-Mo Noh, and Chan Jeong. 2022. Recent Advances in Touch Sensors for Flexible Wearable Devices. Sensors (Basel) 22, 12 (Jun 13 2022), 4460. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22124460

    work page doi:10.3390/s22124460 2022

  3. [3]

    Aaron Bangor, Philip Kortum, and James Miller. 2009. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Studies 4, 3 (May 2009), 114–123

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Kortum, and James T

    Aaron Bangor, Philip T. Kortum, and James T. Miller and

    work page

  5. [5]

    Bijender and Ashok Kumar. 2022. Recent progress in the fabrication and applications of flexible capacitive and resistive pressure sensors. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 344 (2022), 113770. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sna.2022.113770

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG). 2014. Bluetooth Core Specifica- tion Version 4.2. https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/bluetooth- core-specification/ Accessed: 2024-08-16

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Wufan Chen and Xin Yan. 2020. Progress in achieving high- performance piezoresistive and capacitive flexible pressure sensors: A review. Journal of Materials Science & Technology 43 (2020), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2019.11.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2019.11.010 2020

  8. [8]

    Tommaso D’Alessio. 1999. Measurement errors in the scanning of piezoresistive sensors arrays. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 72, 1 (1999), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(98)00204-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0924-4247(98)00204-0 1999

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Paradiso

    Artem Dementyev, Hsin-Liu (Cindy) Kao, and Joseph A. Paradiso

  2. [10]

    Maurin Donneaud, Cedric Honnet, and Paul Strohmeier. 2017. De- signing a Multi-Touch eTextile for Music Performances. InProceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expres- sion. Aalborg University Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 7–12. https://doi...

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Dania Eridani, Adian Fatchur Rochim, and Faiz Noerdiyan Cesara

  4. [12]

    Espressif Systems. 2024. ESP-NOW on ESP32 FAQ . https: //docs.espressif.com/projects/esp-faq/en/latest/software- framework/protocols/lwip.html Accessed: 2024-08-16. Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Murphy et. al

    2024

  5. [13]

    Martin Feick, Cihan Biyikli, Kiran Gani, Anton Wittig, Anthony Tang, and Antonio Krüger. 2023. VoxelHap: A Toolkit for Constructing Proxies Providing Tactile and Kinesthetic Haptic Feedback in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface S...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Niklas Fiedler et al. 2022. Low-cost fabrication of flexible tactile sensor arrays. HardwareX 12 (2022), e00372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ohx. 2022.e00372

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Reynolds, and Joshua R

    Tobias Grosse-Puppendahl, Christian Holz, Gabe Cohn, Raphael Wim- mer, Oskar Bechtold, Steve Hodges, Matthew S. Reynolds, and Joshua R. Smith. 2017. Finding Common Ground: A Survey of Capacitive Sens- ing in Human-Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference...

    2017

  8. [16]

    Binghao Huang, Yixuan Wang, Xinyi Yang, Yiyue Luo, and Yunzhu Li. 2024. 3D ViTac:Learning Fine-Grained Manipulation with Visuo- Tactile Sensing. In Proceedings of Robotics: Conference on Robot Learn- ing(CoRL)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Jong-Seok Kim, Dae-Yong Kwon, and Byong-Deok Choi. 2016. High- Accuracy, Compact Scanning Method and Circuit for Resistive Sensor Arrays. Sensors 16, 2 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3390/s16020155

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Vito Kortbeek, Abu Bakar, Stefany Cruz, Kasim Sinan Yildirim, Prze- mysław Pawełczak, and Josiah Hester. 2020. Bfree: Enabling battery- free sensor prototyping with python. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 4, 4 (2020), 1–39

    2020

  11. [19]

    Christopher Kraemer, Amy Guo, Saad Ahmed, and Josiah Hester. 2022. Battery-free makecode: Accessible programming for intermittent com- puting. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 6, 1 (2022), 1–35

    2022

  12. [20]

    David Ledo, Steven Houben, Jo Vermeulen, Nicolai Marquardt, Lora Oehlberg, and Saul Greenberg. 2018. Evaluation Strategies for HCI Toolkit Research. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association f...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Ruiqing Li, Qun Zhou, Yin Bi, Shaojie Cao, Xue Xia, Aolin Yang, Siming Li, and Xueliang Xiao. 2021. Research progress of flexible capacitive pressure sensor for sensitivity enhancement approaches. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 321 (2021), 112425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j....

    2021

  14. [22]

    Jingfeng Liu, Xuan Zhang, Jintao Liu, Xingang Liu, and Chuhong Zhang. 2024. 3D Printing of Anisotropic Piezoresistive Pressure Sen- sors for Directional Force Perception. Advanced Science 11, 24 (2024), 2309607. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202309607

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Xin Liu, Chen Zhao, Bin Zheng, Qinwei Guo, Xiaoqin Duan, Aziguli Wulamu, and Dezheng Zhang. 2021. Wearable Devices for Gait Anal- ysis in Intelligent Healthcare. Frontiers in Computer Science 3 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2021.661676

    2021

  16. [24]

    Yiyue Luo, Yunzhu Li, Michael Foshey, Wan Shou, Pratyusha Sharma, Tomás Palacios, Antonio Torralba, and Wojciech Matusik. 2021. In- telligent carpet: Inferring 3d human pose from tactile signals. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recogn...

    2021

  17. [25]

    Yiyue Luo, Yunzhu Li, Pratyusha Sharma, Wan Shou, Kui Wu, Michael Foshey, Beichen Li, Tomás Palacios, Antonio Torralba, and Wojciech Matusik. 2021. Learning human–environment interactions using con- formal tactile textiles. Nature Electronics 4, 3 (2021), 193–201

    2021

  18. [26]

    Malvade, Atul K

    Payal S. Malvade, Atul K. Joshi, and Swati P. Madhe. 2017. IoT based monitoring of foot pressure using FSR sensor. In 2017 International Conference on Communication and Signal Processing (ICCSP) . 0635–

    2017

  19. [27]

    Devyani McLaren, Jian Gao, Xiulun Yin, Rúbia Reis Guerra, Preeti Vyas, Chrys Morton, Xi Laura Cang, Yizhong Chen, Yiyuan Sun, Ying Li, John David Wyndham Madden, and Karon E MacLean. 2024. What is Affective Touch Made Of? A Soft Capacitive Sensor Array Reveals the Interplay be...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Anat Mirelman, Paolo Bonato, Richard Camicioli, Terry D Ellis, Nir Giladi, Jamie L Hamilton, Chris J Hass, Jeffrey M Hausdorff, Elisa Pelosin, and Quincy J Almeida. 2019. Gait impairments in Parkinson’s disease. The Lancet Neurology 18, 7 (2019), 697–708. https://doi.org/ 10.1...

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Marie Muehlhaus, Jürgen Steimle, and Marion Koelle. 2022. Feather Hair: Interacting with Sensorized Hair in Public Settings. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Virtual Event, Australia) (DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New Yo...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Devin Murphy, Yichen Li, Crystal Owens, Layla Stanton, Young Joong Lee, Paul Pu Liang, Yiyue Luo, Antonio Torralba, and Wojciech Matusik

  23. [31]

    Smith, E

    Maggie Orth, Joshua R. Smith, E. Rehmi Post, J. A. Strickon, and Emily B. Cooper. 1998. Musical jacket. InACM SIGGRAPH 98 Electronic Art and Animation Catalog. 38

    1998

  24. [32]

    Patrick Parzer, Florian Perteneder, Kathrin Probst, Christian Rendl, Joanne Leong, Sarah Schuetz, Anita Vogl, Reinhard Schwoediauer, Martin Kaltenbrunner, Siegfried Bauer, and Michael Haller. 2018. RESi: A Highly Flexible, Pressure-Sensitive, Imperceptible Textile Interface Ba...

    2018

  25. [33]

    Paul Badger. 2016. CapacitiveSensor Library. https://www.arduino. cc/reference/en/libraries/capacitivesensor/ Accessed: 2024-08-25

    2016

  26. [34]

    Narjes Pourjafarian, Anusha Withana, Joseph A Paradiso, and Jür- gen Steimle. 2019. Multi-Touch Kit: A do-it-yourself technique for capacitive multi-touch sensing using a commodity microcontroller. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and ...

    2019

  27. [35]

    Soonjae Pyo, Jaeyong Lee, Wondo Kim, Eunhwan Jo, and Jongbaeg Kim

  28. [36]

    Blaine Rothrock, Alexander Curtiss, Juyang Bai, and Josiah Hester

  29. [37]

    Munehiko Sato, Ivan Poupyrev, and Chris Harrison. 2012. Touché: enhancing touch interaction on humans, screens, liquids, and everyday objects. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI ’12). Association for Computin...

    2012

  30. [38]

    Valkyrie Savage, Xiaohan Zhang, and Björn Hartmann. 2012. Midas: fabricating custom capacitive touch sensors to prototype interactive objects. In Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology . 579–588

    2012

  31. [39]

    Ridha Soua and Pascale Minet. 2011. A survey on energy efficient techniques in wireless sensor networks. In 2011 4th Joint IFIP Wireless and Mobile Networking Conference (WMNC 2011) . 1–9. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/WMNC.2011.6097244

    2011

  32. [40]

    Gidugu Lakshmi Srinivas and Sherjeel Khan. 2024. Improving Soft Capacitive Tactile Sensors: Scalable Manufacturing, Reduced Crosstalk Design, and Machine Learning. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Flexible and Printable Sensors and Systems (FLEPS) . 1–4. https: //doi.o...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Becky Stern. 2013. Firewalker LED Sneakers: Make Velostat Step Sensors. https://learn.adafruit.com/firewalker-led-sneakers/make- velostat-step-sensors. Accessed: 2024-08-27

    2013

  34. [42]

    Subramanian Sundaram, Petr Kellnhofer, Yunzhu Li, Jun-Yan Zhu, Antonio Torralba, and Wojciech Matusik. 2019. Learning the signatures of the human grasp using a scalable tactile glove. Nature 569, 7758 (2019), 698–702

    2019

  35. [43]

    Shikhar Suryavansh, Abu Benna, Chris Guest, and Somali Chaterji

  36. [44]

    Sánchez-Durán, Julián Castellanos-Ramos, and Rafael Navas-González

    Fernando Vidal-Verdú, Óscar Oballe-Peinado, José A. Sánchez-Durán, Julián Castellanos-Ramos, and Rafael Navas-González. 2011. Three Realizations and Comparison of Hardware for Piezoresistive Tactile Sensors. Sensors 11, 3 (2011), 3249–3266. https://doi.org/10.3390/ s110303249

    2011

  37. [45]

    Chi Cong Vu, Seung Ju Kim, and Jongwon Kim. 2021. Flexible wearable sensors - an update in view of touch-sensing. Science and Technology of Advanced Materials 22, 1 (March 2021), 26–36. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14686996.2020.1862629

    2021

  38. [46]

    Irmandy Wicaksono, Don Derek Haddad, and Joseph Paradiso. 2022. Tapis Magique: Machine-knitted Electronic Textile Carpet for Inter- active Choreomusical Performance and Immersive Environments. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (Venice, Italy) (C...

    2022

  39. [47]

    Irmandy Wicaksono, Peter G Hwang, Samir Droubi, Franny Xi Wu, Allison N Serio, Wei Yan, and Joseph A Paradiso. 2022. 3dknits: Three- dimensional digital knitting of intelligent textile sensor for activity recognition and biomechanical monitoring. In 2022 44th Annual In- ternat...

    2022

  40. [48]

    Irmandy Wicaksono and Joseph Paradiso. 2020. KnittedKeyboard: Dig- ital Knitting of Electronic Textile Musical Controllers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression , Romain Michon and Franziska Schroeder (Eds.). Birmingham City U...

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    Raphael Wimmer, Matthias Kranz, Sebastian Boring, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2007. A capacitive sensing toolkit for pervasive activity detection and recognition. In Fifth Annual IEEE International Confer- ence on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom’07) . IEEE, 171–180

    2007

  42. [50]

    Wenzhen Yuan, Siyuan Dong, and Edward H. Adelson. 2017. GelSight: High-Resolution Robot Tactile Sensors for Estimating Geometry and Force. Sensors 17, 12 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/s17122762

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    Scientific Reports 11, 1 (2021), 22459

    A data-driven approach to increasing the lifetime of IoT sensor nodes. Scientific Reports 11, 1 (2021), 22459. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-021-01431-y

    2021

  44. [52]

    Junyi Zhu, Jackson C Snowden, Joshua Verdejo, Emily Chen, Paul Zhang, Hamid Ghaednia, Joseph H Schwab, and Stefanie Mueller. 2021. EIT-kit: An electrical impedance tomography toolkit for health and motion sensing. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and...

    2021

  45. [59]

    Shulin Zhao, Prasanna Venkatesh Rengasamy, Haibo Zhang, Sandeepa Bhuyan, Nachiappan Chidambaram Nachiappan, Anand Sivasubrama- niam, Mahmut Taylan Kandemir, and Chita Das. 2019. Understanding Energy Efficiency in IoT App Executions. In 2019 IEEE 39th Interna- tional Conference...

    2019

  46. [639]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSP.2017.8286435

    2017

  47. [2008]

    International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 24, 6 (2008), 574–594

    An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 24, 6 (2008), 574–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776

    2008 doi

  48. [2015]

    InProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology (Charlotte, NC, USA)(UIST ’15)

    SensorTape: Modular and Programmable 3D-Aware Dense Sensor Network on a Tape. InProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology (Charlotte, NC, USA)(UIST ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 649–658. https://doi.org...

  49. [2019]

    Advanced Functional Materials 29, 35 (2019), 1902484

    Multi-Layered, Hierarchical Fabric-Based Tactile Sensors with High Sensitivity and Linearity in Ultrawide Pressure Range. Advanced Functional Materials 29, 35 (2019), 1902484. https://doi.org/10.1002/ adfm.201902484

    2019

  50. [2021]

    In 2021 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication (iSemantic)

    Comparative Performance Study of ESP-NOW, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth Protocols based on Range, Transmission Speed, Latency, Energy Usage and Barrier Resistance. In 2021 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication (iSemantic) . 322–328. https://do...

    2021

  51. [2023]

    Towards a Toolkit for Free Living Wearable Development. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2022 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and the 2022 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (Cambridge, United Kingdom) (UbiComp/ISWC ’22 Adju...

    2022

  52. [2025]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06349 (2025)

    Fits like a Flex-Glove: Automatic Design of Personalized FPCB- Based Tactile Sensing Gloves. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06349 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.