Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

Dexterity from Touch: Self-Supervised Pre-Training of Tactile Representations with Robotic Play

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.12076 v1 pith:42QV74KK submitted 2023-03-21 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CVcs.LG

classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CVcs.LG
keywords dexteritytactileplaydatadexterouslearningmodelsobservations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Teaching dexterity to multi-fingered robots has been a longstanding challenge in robotics. Most prominent work in this area focuses on learning controllers or policies that either operate on visual observations or state estimates derived from vision. However, such methods perform poorly on fine-grained manipulation tasks that require reasoning about contact forces or about objects occluded by the hand itself. In this work, we present T-Dex, a new approach for tactile-based dexterity, that operates in two phases. In the first phase, we collect 2.5 hours of play data, which is used to train self-supervised tactile encoders. This is necessary to bring high-dimensional tactile readings to a lower-dimensional embedding. In the second phase, given a handful of demonstrations for a dexterous task, we learn non-parametric policies that combine the tactile observations with visual ones. Across five challenging dexterous tasks, we show that our tactile-based dexterity models outperform purely vision and torque-based models by an average of 1.7X. Finally, we provide a detailed analysis on factors critical to T-Dex including the importance of play data, architectures, and representation learning.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Weights or Skills? A Survey of Robot-Learning Techniques: from Action-Predicting Weights to Robots that Write their Own Skills

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A taxonomy of robot learning on a weights-versus-skills axis, with a five-rung self-improvement ladder whose top cell (feedback plus memory plus search) holds only a few recent systems.

  2. FA-RDP: A Frequency-Adaptive Reactive Diffusion Policy for Contact-Rich Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A shared visual-force diffusion policy with a multimodality indicator and manifold consistency distillation raises contact-rich task success to 81.7% while keeping diverse pre-contact modes.

  3. OmniTacTune: Policy-Agnostic Real-World RL for Tactile Residual Adaptation of Visual Policies

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A policy-agnostic two-stage real-world RL method learns tactile residual corrections on frozen visual policies, lifting contact-rich task success from 5–40% to 85–100% in under 80 minutes.

  4. Self-Supervised Multisensory Pretraining for Contact-Rich Robot Reinforcement Learning

    cs.RO 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    MSDP pre-trains a transformer encoder with masked multisensory autoencoding, then uses an asymmetric actor-critic bridge (cross-attention for critic, pooling for actor) to accelerate and robustify contact-rich RL acro...

  5. Touch begins where vision ends: Generalizable policies for contact-rich manipulation

    cs.RO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A localize-then-execute policy that combines vision-language reaching, semantic background augmentation, and residual reinforcement learning with tactile sensing reaches about 90% success on millimeter-precision manip...

  6. Detecting Reading-Induced Confusion Using EEG and Eye Tracking

    cs.HC 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Multimodal EEG plus eye tracking classifies reading-induced confusion at 77.3% average weighted accuracy, beating unimodal models by 4-22%, in an 11-participant study.

Pith tools