Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Tactile-based force estimation for interaction control with robot fingers

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 This paper shows that a single calibration step on push-plate indenters lets a robotic hand estimate interaction forces from raw tactile array data well enough to close a 100 Hz force control loop, achieving as low as 0.12±0.08 N error.

desk verdict Solid pipeline paper: single-step full-array calibration with 100 Hz closed-loop force control works on held-out geometry, but the material-generalization claim is stretched by non-collocated object trials. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13335 v2 pith:2ICA3JFN submitted 2024-11-20 cs.RO

Elie Chelly , Andrea Cherubini , Philippe Fraisse , Faiz Ben Amar , Mahdi Khoramshahi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords tactilesensingforceestimationrobotichandinteractioncontroladmittanceuSkinsensorcalibrationclosed-loop
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

This paper aims to make tactile sensor arrays on a robotic hand directly usable for closed-loop interaction force control, without per-sensor pre-calibration. It claims that a single data-collection step, pressing the hand's tactile arrays against a few 3D-printed push-plates, is enough to train a mapping from raw sensor activations to 3D contact force, and that this mapping holds across curved fingertips and flat phalanxes as well as objects not in the training set. The payoff is practical: a force estimate that runs at 100 Hz and can be fed back into an admittance controller, letting the finger apply a desired force trajectory with errors as low as 0.12±0.08 N. If true, this removes a major bottleneck in using rich tactile feedback for dexterous manipulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the estimator H(x; θ), a parametric map from a whole array's raw tactile activations to a 3D force vector, trained with ordinary least squares or Adam on data collected by pressing each sensor array against 3D-printed push-plates while an external force-torque sensor records ground truth. Two versions carry the results: M3λ, a damped linear model on the raw concatenated taxel vector, and M4, a one-hidden-layer MLP with 16 ReLU units. The controller is an integral force feedback law (Eq. 8) built on a position-controlled Allegro Hand, with the estimator's output f̂ replacing a physical force sensor in the loop; the integral term plus anti-windup and torque saturation make the contact force converge to the desired value.

What would settle it

Press a new object with known stiffness far outside the five training plates (for example a very soft foam or a highly curved rigid surface) against the finger while a calibrated reference sensor measures the true force, and check whether the closed-loop controller's estimation error stays below about 0.25 N; the paper's own Table III already shows errors reaching 0.25±0.29 N on an abrasive sponge, so a dedicated out-of-distribution test would determine the limit of the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that uncalibrated uSkin tactile arrays mounted on a full robotic hand can be calibrated as a whole, in one pass, by training a parametric model H that maps the concatenated raw taxel activations x to the resultant contact force f. The paper evaluates five such models, from a rotation-assisted linear model to a convolutional network, and shows on a 5-fold cross-validation over push-plate geometries that the nonlinear MLP (M4) and the damped linear model (M3λ) give the best accuracy. The decisive demonstration is closed-loop: the estimated force is used as the feedback signal in an integral force controller (Eq. 8) running at 100 Hz, and against four deformable YCB objects plus an unseen spherical indenter, the M3λ-based controller reduces true force tracking error by about 74% compared to the open-loop version, with average absolute errors around 0.12–0.17 N. The paper also reports that the linear model generalizes better to out-of-distribution objects than the neural network, an observation it ties to training-set composition.

Load-bearing premise

The learned mapping from tactile signals to force, trained on five push-plate geometries, is assumed to transfer to unseen objects with different stiffness and curvature without retraining.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single calibration session can produce force feedback for all 18 arrays of an Allegro Hand, since both selected models run in about 0.05 ms per prediction, well within the 100 Hz control rate.
  • Force estimates are validated against an external sensor, so the reported 0.12±0.08 N error is a statement about real applied force, not just about the model's internal consistency.
  • When the controller is closed with the estimated force, actual tracking error drops roughly 74% versus open-loop, showing the estimation is accurate enough to be used as feedback, not just monitoring.
  • The linear model M3λ is more robust than the neural network on objects outside the training distribution, suggesting simpler models may be preferable for unseen materials and geometries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the calibration relies on a small set of push-plate indenters, the method could likely be extended to other magnetic or capacitive arrays by re-using the same training pipeline, provided the taxel layout is known.
  • The observed out-of-distribution advantage of the linear model hints that the raw taxel sum z (Eq. 1) already encodes most of the force information, and that nonlinear models mainly help on in-distribution shapes; this could be tested by ablating M4's hidden layer on a broader set of objects.
  • If the 100 Hz rate and 0.12 N accuracy hold under dynamic motion (sliding, fast contact changes), the approach could enable force-controlled manipulation tasks like assembly or fragile-object handling; the paper only tests quasi-static presses, so dynamic validation is a natural next step.
  • Combining the linear model's generalization with a small online adaptation step (e.g., a correction on the residual) might close the gap on highly deformable objects, though the paper itself does not explore this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a data-driven calibration method for estimating 3D interaction forces from raw tactile array activations on a robotic hand (Allegro Hand with Xela uSkin sensors). The authors compare five models—M1 to M5—ranging from linear and quadratic regressions to fully connected and convolutional neural networks. Models are trained on data collected from five PLA push-plate indenters with different geometries, evaluated offline with 5-fold cross-validation, tested online on a held-out spherical indenter, and then used inside a closed-loop integral admittance force controller (Eq. 8) for interaction force tracking against the held-out sphere and four YCB objects. The paper reports that the best models achieve low estimation errors in the spherical test (e.g., M3λ with 0.12±0.08 N) and that closed-loop control reduces true tracking error by about 74% compared with open-loop control. The central claim is that a single calibration step on a limited set of rigid indenters yields full-array force estimates accurate enough for closed-loop force control across varying geometries and materials.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful contribution: it directly addresses practical barriers in tactile-based interaction control, namely cumbersome element-wise calibration and slow inference, by providing an on-hand full-array calibration method with fast prediction (sub-millisecond) and an explicit integration into an interaction force control loop. The authors also provide code, data, and videos, which supports reproducibility. The offline cross-validation over indenter geometries, the held-out spherical-plate online test with an external ATI force-torque sensor, and the comparison against an open-loop controller are appropriate validation steps. However, the evidence for generalization across materials and deformable objects is weaker than the abstract implies: the closed-loop trials on YCB objects use non-collocated reference measurements, and the controller feedback path can mask estimation bias. The discussion candidly acknowledges some of these limitations, which is to the authors' credit, but the load-bearing generalization claim needs stronger, cleaner evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [V-C and Table III] The closed-loop experiments (2)–(5) on YCB objects cannot cleanly support the generalization claim because the ground-truth force-torque sensor is not collocated with the fingertip-object contact: each deformable object is taped between the finger and the sensor, so the measured force includes the object's internal dynamics and the mounting interface. The paper itself acknowledges in V-C that the estimated finger forces and measured sensor forces were not collocated and in the Discussion that this 'likely degraded our average estimation performance.' Therefore, the differing errors for M4 and M3λ on Softball (0.25±0.16 vs. 0.13±0.07 N) and Abrasive sponge (0.25±0.29 vs. 0.18±0.11 N) cannot be attributed to the learned mapping H alone; they may reflect the measurement setup. A cleaner test would be to obtain collocated ground truth at the fingertip-object contact for the deformable objects, or to validate H open-loop on the same objects with a collocated reference and only then assess closed-loop behavior.
  2. [Eq. (8) and Table III] Using the estimated force as the feedback signal in the integral controller can make the estimated force track the desired force even when H is biased, because the integral action acts on the error between fd and f-hat. Thus a low tracking error etrack does not establish low estimation bias, and the true tracking error ~e is a joint property of H and the controller. For example, in the Softball and Abrasive sponge trials, M4 has etrack of 0.12±0.05 and 0.13±0.10 N while ~e is 0.22±0.14 and 0.25±0.25 N, suggesting that the controller is driving the estimate toward the reference despite a larger true error. The paper should either report open-loop estimation accuracy on the YCB objects with collocated sensing or explicitly analyze how controller gain and estimator bias interact before concluding that M4's performance indicates weak generalization.
  3. [Abstract and Section V-C] The abstract's headline error of 'up to 0.12±0.08 [N]' is taken from a single favorable condition, the closed-loop spherical-indenter trial with M3λ (Table III, row 1). Across the YCB-object trials, the same model's absolute errors are 0.13–0.18 N and M4's errors reach 0.25±0.16 N and 0.25±0.29 N. The phrase 'up to' is technically defensible but the overall narrative in the abstract and introduction implies that a single calibration generalizes well across varying geometries and materials. The reported evidence only supports strong generalization across rigid PLA indenter geometries (offline CV and the online spherical test); material and deformable-object generalization is currently confounded by non-collocated measurement. The authors should qualify the claim in the abstract or provide additional empirical support for material generalization.
  4. [Section VI and Table III] The paper notes in the Discussion that 'neural network performance for this type of task depends more strongly on training set composition than linear models do.' This is consistent with Table III, where M4 outperforms M3λ on the spherical indenter but degrades on the Softball and Abrasive sponge. However, because those YCB-object trials are non-collocated, the paper cannot conclude that M3λ has 'superior generalization capabilities' for out-of-distribution objects. The model ranking in closed-loop YCB trials may be substantially affected by the measurement setup. Please provide a collocated open-loop comparison on the same objects to separate estimator generalization from controller and measurement effects.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There are several typos and formatting issues, including 'vairants' and 'Fingertac -' in the references section, and the caption of Fig. 4 contains a stray 's. that H(x) = f-hat.' Please proofread.
  2. [Section IV-A] The description of data collection says 'For each plate geometries, except the spherical one which is kept for online validation, four sequences of 100 seconds each are collected,' which yields 40,000 samples per plate, yet the text later states 200,000 data points per array. Clarify whether the 200,000 figure includes all plates and arrays, and specify the exact total per array.
  3. [Table I] The first row block is labeled 'Flat Curved Array' which appears to be a typo; it should be 'Curved Array.' Also, the table would be easier to read with separate rows for each model rather than grouping the two array types under a single heading.
  4. [Section V-B] The online evaluation reports results after retraining M4 and M3λ on the complete dataset, including the spherical plate. This is reasonable for testing the online pipeline, but it means the online numbers are not directly comparable to the cross-validated offline numbers in Table I. Please state this explicitly.
  5. [Eq. (9) and Eq. (10)] The definitions of er and e-hat are clear, but note that the relative error in Eq. (9) excludes points with |f_i| < 0.5 N only for the denominator; it would be helpful to state whether such points are also excluded from the numerator and from e-hat computation in the closed-loop results.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Closed-loop 'estimation error' reduces to the tracking error by the integral control law; the core learning benchmark on held-out geometry is independent.

  1. other [Section V-C, Eq. (8), Eq. (10), Table III]
    "τcmd = J T (fd−Ki R ef dt)+τg −Kd ˙q−Kp(q−qd) ... we only use an integral and no proportional nor derivative term for the force feedback ... For closed-loop controllers, we calculated ... absolute error ˆe (Eq. 10) ... and true tracking error ˜e."

    The control law integrates ef = fd − ˆf, so at steady state the integral action forces ˆf ≈ fd. Then the closed-loop 'absolute error' ˆe = (1/3)Σ|˜fi − ˆfi| converges to (1/3)Σ|˜fi − fdi| = ˜e by the definitions in Eq. (10) and the text. Table III confirms ˆe ≈ ˜e in every row. Thus the closed-loop ˆe is not an independent measure of the learned mapping H; it is determined by the controller's tracking identity. The independent estimator benchmark is the open-loop online test in Table II, where M3λ gives ˆe = 0.31 ± 0.14 N, much larger than the headline 0.12 ± 0.08 N quoted from closed-loop Table III (1)-M3λ. Presenting the closed-loop value as an estimation error substitutes a control-loop identity for a model prediction, although the paper also reports ˜e and the open-loop benchmark.

full rationale

The central force-estimation pipeline is not circular: models M1–M5 are fitted to tactile data from five push-plate geometries and tested on the held-out spherical indenter, with ground truth from an external calibrated ATI Mini45 force-torque sensor. The online evaluation in Table II is a genuine open-loop generalization test, and the YCB-object trials, despite non-collocated reference measurements (honestly acknowledged in Section VI), are external control experiments rather than fitted inputs being renamed as predictions. Self-citations ([2], [25], [32]) are motivational or contrastive and do not carry a load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz argument. The only reduction-by-construction I find is in the closed-loop reporting: because Eq. (8) integrates fd − ˆf, the closed-loop 'estimation error' ˆe is forced to track the true-force tracking error ˜e, so Table III's ˆe does not independently validate H. This is a secondary metric issue, not a collapse of the main learning result, hence a low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result leans on standard regression assumptions (smooth sensor response, unbiased external force sensor, static frame transforms) and on the empirical coverage of the training set. No invented entities are introduced. The main burden is the generalization assumption, which the paper itself shows is only partially satisfied for neural models on out-of-distribution objects.

free parameters (4)
  • Damping factor λ for M3λ = 33
    Chosen via validation; stabilizes the least-squares fit and directly affects M3λ's reported error.
  • Neural network hyperparameters (hidden size, batch size, learning rate, epochs)
    Selected empirically ('various architectures tested'); affect M4 and M5 accuracy.
  • Integral gain Ki of force controller
    Not reported; closed-loop tracking depends on it; presumably tuned for stability.
  • Low-pass filter cutoff frequency = 10 Hz
    Applied to all signals before fitting; chosen by authors and affects the data distribution.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Tactile activities are a smooth function of force, moment, contact location, curvature, and temperature (Eq. 2), with negligible deformation dynamics and hysteresis.
    This motivates the mapping H but is not verified; the linear and quadratic models assume even stronger structure.
  • domain assumption The transformation between the hand base frame and the force-torque sensor frame is static after being measured once.
    Any motion of the chassis would bias the ground truth used for training and evaluation; the paper states this is 'measured once and then supposed static' (Section IV).
  • domain assumption The ATI Mini45 force-torque sensor provides an unbiased ground truth, including in the non-collocated object experiments.
    In Section V.C the paper acknowledges that 'non-collocated reference force measurements and estimates likely degraded our average estimation performance' due to soft object internal dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tactile-based force estimation for interaction control with robot fingers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ICA3JFN

@misc{pith2026241113335,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tactile-based force estimation for interaction control with robot fingers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ICA3JFN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13335}
}
read the original abstract

Fine dexterous manipulation requires reactive control based on rich sensing of manipulator-object interactions. Tactile sensing arrays provide rich contact information across the manipulator's surface. However their implementation faces two main challenges: accurate force estimation across complex surfaces like robotic hands, and integration of these estimates into reactive control loops. We present a data-efficient calibration method that enables rapid, full-array force estimation across varying geometries, providing online feedback that accounts for non-linearities and deformation effects. Our force estimation model serves as feedback in an online closed-loop control system for interaction force tracking. The accuracy of our estimates is independently validated against measurements from a calibrated force-torque sensor. Using the Allegro Hand equipped with Xela uSkin sensors, we demonstrate precise force application through an admittance control loop running at 100Hz, achieving up to 0.12+/-0.08 [N] error margin-results that show promising potential for dexterous manipulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13335 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The tactile observation x is mapped by function H to estimate interaction force fˆ. This fˆ is fed back to the force controller, to adjust the force’s orientation and magnitude, ensuring the finger applies desired force fd. The measured force f˜ serves as ground truth for the estimator. two complementary paradigms: model-based and model￾free approaches. In model-based methods, physical features extracted from tactil… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fingertip with a curved tactile array. Each taxel (30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Hardware setup: we use a uSkin covered Allegro hand and an ATI 45mini force torque sensor for calibration. Both are mounted on a rigid chassis. (b) Interaction control setup: Object inserted between fingertip and reference force torque sensor. (c) Selected YCB objects: Foam brick, Softball, Abrasive sponge and Bleach cleanser. (d) Push￾plates: Button, Flat, Fillet, Convex, Edge and Spherical. IV. EXPERIMENTAL SE… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Closed loop task space force controller. The tactile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left) Closed loop force controller performances. The force estimation is computed with M3λ. (Right) Closed loop force controller performances, with a soft object in between the finger and the force sensor (YCB foam brick). The force estimation is computed with M3λ. Ea…

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. Tactile Genesis: Exploring Tactile Sensors at Scale for Learning Dexterous Tasks

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Whole-hand tactile coverage and per-taxel force/torque dominate sensor type and resolution for learning three dexterous tasks in a new high-throughput tactile simulator.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Robotic tactile perception of object properties: A review,

    S. Luo, J. Bimbo, R. Dahiya, and H. Liu, “Robotic tactile perception of object properties: A review,” Mechatronics, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    A model-free ap- proach to fingertip slip and disturbance detection for grasp stability inference,

    D. Kitouni, M. Khoramshahi, and V . Perdereau, “A model-free ap- proach to fingertip slip and disturbance detection for grasp stability inference,” in IEEE (ICDL). IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Tactile-sensing technologies: Trends, challenges and outlook in agri- food manipulation,

    W. Mandil, V . Rajendran, K. Nazari, and A. Ghalamzan-Esfahani, “Tactile-sensing technologies: Trends, challenges and outlook in agri- food manipulation,” Sensors, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Precise robotic needle-threading with tactile perception and reinforcement learning,

    Z. Yu, W. Xu, S. Yao, J. Ren, T. Tang, Y . Li, G. Gu, and C. Lu, “Precise robotic needle-threading with tactile perception and reinforcement learning,” 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Contact- rich manipulation of a flexible object based on deep predictive learning using vision and tactility,

    H. Ichiwara, H. Ito, K. Yamamoto, H. Mori, and T. Ogata, “Contact- rich manipulation of a flexible object based on deep predictive learning using vision and tactility,” in IEEE ICRA, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Multi-fingered in-hand manipulation with various object properties using graph convolutional networks and distributed tactile sensors,

    S. Funabashi, T. Isobe, F. Hongyi, A. Hiramoto, A. Schmitz, S. Sug- ano, and T. Ogata, “Multi-fingered in-hand manipulation with various object properties using graph convolutional networks and distributed tactile sensors,” IEEE RAL, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Tactile sensors for friction estimation and incipient slip detection—toward dexterous robotic manipulation: A review,

    W. Chen, H. Khamis, I. Birznieks, N. F. Lepora, and S. J. Red- mond, “Tactile sensors for friction estimation and incipient slip detection—toward dexterous robotic manipulation: A review,” IEEE Sensors Journal, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Two-dimensional dynamic modeling of a sliding motion of a soft fingertip focusing on stick-to-slip transition,

    V . A. Ho and S. Hirai, “Two-dimensional dynamic modeling of a sliding motion of a soft fingertip focusing on stick-to-slip transition,” in IEEE ICRA, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Active visuo-tactile interactive robotic perception for accurate object pose estimation in dense clutter,

    P. K. Murali, A. Dutta, M. Gentner, E. Burdet, R. Dahiya, and M. Kaboli, “Active visuo-tactile interactive robotic perception for accurate object pose estimation in dense clutter,” IEEE RAL, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Design of a biomimetic tactile sensor for material classification,

    K. Dai, X. Wang, A. M. Rojas, E. Harber, Y . Tian, N. Paiva, J. Gnehm, E. Schindewolf, H. Choset, V . A. Webster-Wood, and L. Li, “Design of a biomimetic tactile sensor for material classification,” 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Tactile sensing in dexterous robot hands — review,

    Z. Kappassov, J.-A. Corrales, and V . Perdereau, “Tactile sensing in dexterous robot hands — review,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    Dexterity from touch: Self-supervised pre-training of tactile representations with robotic play,

    I. Guzey, B. Evans, S. Chintala, and L. Pinto, “Dexterity from touch: Self-supervised pre-training of tactile representations with robotic play,” 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Learning robot in-hand manipulation with tactile features,

    H. Van Hoof, T. Hermans, G. Neumann, and J. Peters, “Learning robot in-hand manipulation with tactile features,” in 2015 IEEE-RAS (Humanoids), 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    Digit: A novel design for a low-cost compact high-resolution tactile sensor with application to in-hand manipulation,

    M. Lambeta, P.-W. Chou, S. Tian, B. Yang, B. Maloon, V . R. Most, D. Stroud, R. Santos, A. Byagowi, G. Kammerer et al., “Digit: A novel design for a low-cost compact high-resolution tactile sensor with application to in-hand manipulation,” IEEE RAL, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Manipulation by feel: Touch-based control with deep predictive models,

    S. Tian, F. Ebert, D. Jayaraman, M. Mudigonda, C. Finn, R. Calandra, and S. Levine, “Manipulation by feel: Touch-based control with deep predictive models,” in IEEE ICRA, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    The role of tactile sensing in learning and deploying grasp refinement algorithms,

    A. Koenig, Z. Liu, L. Janson, and R. Howe, “The role of tactile sensing in learning and deploying grasp refinement algorithms,” in IEEE/RSJ IROS, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Design and characterization of a three-axis hall effect- based soft skin sensor,

    T. Tomo, S. Somlor, A. Schmitz, L. Jamone, W. Huang, H. Kristanto, and S. Sugano, “Design and characterization of a three-axis hall effect- based soft skin sensor,” Sensors, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Low-cost 3-axis soft tactile sensors for the human-friendly robot vizzy,

    T. Paulino, P. Ribeiro, M. Neto, S. Cardoso, A. Schmitz, J. Santos- Victor, A. Bernardino, and L. Jamone, “Low-cost 3-axis soft tactile sensors for the human-friendly robot vizzy,” in IEEE ICRA, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    A modular, distributed, soft, 3- axis sensor system for robot hands,

    T. P. Tomo, W. K. Wong, A. Schmitz, H. Kristanto, A. Sarazin, L. Jamone, S. Somlor, and S. Sugano, “A modular, distributed, soft, 3- axis sensor system for robot hands,” in 2016 IEEE-RAS (Humanoids), 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Covering a robot fingertip with uskin: A soft electronic skin with distributed 3-axis force sensitive elements for robot hands,

    T. P. Tomo, A. Schmitz, W. K. Wong, H. Kristanto, S. Somlor, J. Hwang, L. Jamone, and S. Sugano, “Covering a robot fingertip with uskin: A soft electronic skin with distributed 3-axis force sensitive elements for robot hands,” IEEE RAL, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    A new silicone structure for uskin—a soft, distributed, digital 3-axis skin sensor and its integration on the humanoid robot icub,

    T. P. Tomo, M. Regoli, A. Schmitz, L. Natale, H. Kristanto, S. Somlor, L. Jamone, G. Metta, and S. Sugano, “A new silicone structure for uskin—a soft, distributed, digital 3-axis skin sensor and its integration on the humanoid robot icub,” IEEE RAL, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Fingertac - an interchangeable and wearable tactile sensor for the fingertips of human and robot hands,

    P. Sathe, A. Schmitz, T. P. Tomo, S. Somlor, S. Funabashi, and S. Shigeki, “Fingertac - an interchangeable and wearable tactile sensor for the fingertips of human and robot hands,” inIEEE/RSJ IROS, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Development of a 3-axis human fingertip tactile sensor based on distributed hall effect sensors,

    H. Kristanto, P. Sathe, A. Schmitz, C. Hsu, T. P. Tomo, S. Somlor, and S. Sugano, “Development of a 3-axis human fingertip tactile sensor based on distributed hall effect sensors,” in IEEE-RAS Humanoids, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Force estimation and slip detec- tion/classification for grip control using a biomimetic tactile sensor,

    Z. Su, K. Hausman, Y . Chebotar, A. Molchanov, G. E. Loeb, G. S. Sukhatme, and S. Schaal, “Force estimation and slip detec- tion/classification for grip control using a biomimetic tactile sensor,” in IEEE-RAS (Humanoids), 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Active calibration of tactile sensors mounted on a robotic hand,

    B. Navarro, P. Kumar, A. Fonte, P. Fraisse, G. Poisson, and A. Cheru- bini, “Active calibration of tactile sensors mounted on a robotic hand,” in IEEE/RSJ IROS Workshop, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    9dtact: A compact vision-based tactile sensor for accurate 3d shape reconstruction and generalizable 6d force estimation,

    C. Lin, H. Zhang, J. Xu, L. Wu, and H. Xu, “9dtact: A compact vision-based tactile sensor for accurate 3d shape reconstruction and generalizable 6d force estimation,” IEEE RAL, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Gelsight: High-resolution robot tactile sensors for estimating geometry and force,

    W. Yuan, S. Dong, and E. Adelson, “Gelsight: High-resolution robot tactile sensors for estimating geometry and force,” Sensors, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Dense tactile force estimation using gelslim and inverse fem,

    D. Ma, E. Donlon, S. Dong, and A. Rodriguez, “Dense tactile force estimation using gelslim and inverse fem,” in 2019 (ICRA). IEEE

    2019

  21. [29]

    Grasping force control of multi-fingered robotic hands through tactile sensing for object stabilization,

    Z. Deng, Y . Jonetzko, L. Zhang, and J. Zhang, “Grasping force control of multi-fingered robotic hands through tactile sensing for object stabilization,” Sensors, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Robust adaptive safe robotic grasping with tactile sensing,

    Y . Kim, J. Kim, A. H. Li, A. D. Ames, and C. Sloth, “Robust adaptive safe robotic grasping with tactile sensing,” 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Effective estimation of contact force and torque for vision-based tactile sensors with helmholtz–hodge decomposition,

    Y . Zhang, Z. Kan, Y . Yang, Y . A. Tse, and M. Y . Wang, “Effective estimation of contact force and torque for vision-based tactile sensors with helmholtz–hodge decomposition,” IEEE RAL, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Fingertip contact force direction control using tactile feedback,

    D. Kitouni, E. Chelly, M. Khoramshahi, and V . Perdereau, “Fingertip contact force direction control using tactile feedback,” in IEEE CASE, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Force adaptation in contact tasks with dynamical systems,

    W. Amanhoud, M. Khoramshahi, M. Bonnesoeur, and A. Billard, “Force adaptation in contact tasks with dynamical systems,” in IEEE ICRA, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,

    Y . Lecun, L. Bottou, Y . Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,” Proceedings of the IEEE, 1998

    1998

  27. [35]

    Variable in-hand manipulations for tactile-driven robot hand via cnn-lstm,

    S. Funabashi, S. Ogasa, T. Isobe, T. Ogata, A. Schmitz, T. P. Tomo, and S. Sugano, “Variable in-hand manipulations for tactile-driven robot hand via cnn-lstm,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ (IROS), 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Meier, F

    M. Meier, F. Patzelt, R. Haschke, and H. J. Ritter, Tactile Convolutional Networks for Online Slip and Rotation Detection. Springer International Publishing, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    The ycb object and model set: Towards common benchmarks for manipulation research,

    B. Calli, A. Singh, A. Walsman, S. Srinivasa, P. Abbeel, and A. M. Dollar, “The ycb object and model set: Towards common benchmarks for manipulation research,” in International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR). IEEE, 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    Ros: an open-source robot operating system,

    M. Quigley, K. Conley, B. Gerkey, J. Faust, T. Foote, J. Leibs, R. Wheeler, and A. Ng, “Ros: an open-source robot operating system,” in ICRA Workshop, 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high- performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. K ¨opf, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy, B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala, “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-...

    2019

  32. [40]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,” 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    Kitech- hand: A highly dexterous and modularized robotic hand,

    D.-H. Lee, J.-H. Park, S.-W. Park, M.-H. Baeg, and J.-H. Bae, “Kitech- hand: A highly dexterous and modularized robotic hand,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Integral force control with robustness enhancement,

    L. Wilfinger, J. Wen, and S. Murphy, “Integral force control with robustness enhancement,” in IEEE ICRA, 1994

    1994

Pith tools

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