Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Joint-repositionable Inner-wireless Planar Snake Robot

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 A snake robot with just three motorized units reproduces many-jointed snake locomotion and draws its power wirelessly through a soft skin.

desk verdict Genuinely new actuation concept and clean kinematic model, but the robot is tethered to an external power supply despite the 'untethered' claim, and the DoF count in Table I is inflated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13916 v3 pith:MAAKP7SS submitted 2024-11-21 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Ayato Kanada , Ryo Takahashi , Keito Hayashi , Ryusuke Hosaka , Wakako Yukita , Yasutaka Nakashima , Tomoyuki Yokota , Takao Someya
show 3 more authors
Mitsuhiro Kamezaki Yoshihiro Kawahara Motoji Yamamoto
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords snakerobotunderactuatedmechanismjointrepositioningwirelesspowertransfersoftskinserpentinelocomotionobstacle-aidedvariable-lengtharcmodel
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 claims that a snake robot can perform multi-joint-like locomotion with only three motorized units if those units are free to move along the body instead of being fixed at joints. The motors reposition themselves along two rack gears inside a chain of flexible passive links, so the same motor can bend different segments at different times. A soft skin with a stretchable coil wirelessly powers the moving units, avoiding wires that would tangle. Experiments demonstrate two gaits — serpentine at about 2.25 cm/s and obstacle-aided at 0.76 cm/s — with a 1.3 kg robot consuming at most 3.6 W. The result is a snake robot that breaks the usual trade-off between number of actuators, weight, and postural flexibility.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the variable-length arc-shaped joint model, a piecewise-constant-curvature description in which each of the N body segments is a circular arc whose centerline length $L_i$ and angle $\theta_i$ are controlled by the rack displacements $d$ of the neighboring motor units (Equations 1-3). The inverse relation (Equation 4) converts a desired robot shape into motor commands. This model is what turns a handful of moving motors into a device that can approximate a serpenoid curve by flexible arc segmentation and can hold and shift a fixed shape for obstacle-aided locomotion. The second key mechanism is the repositionable joint unit itself: two motors that rotate in the same direction bend the racks into an S-shape, while opposite rotation moves the unit along the rack gears.

What would settle it

Place the physical robot on a motion-capture floor, run the serpenoid controller from Section III-B, and compare the measured backbone curvature of each segment with the constant-curvature prediction from Equations 1-4; if the per-segment error is large enough that the robot's shape visibly deviates from the target serpenoid curve, the kinematic assumption fails. A simpler decisive test: run the same gait with the repositionable units locked at different positions along the body and measure forward speed — if speed and shape do not change with unit position, the repositioning mechanism is not contributing to locomotion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that joint repositioning — letting motor-driven joint units ride along flexible rack gears inside a passive-link body — gives an underactuated snake robot the postural flexibility of a many-jointed one. The robot's N motor units divide the body into N variable-length arc segments, and the kinematic model maps motor rotations to each segment's length and bending angle (Equations 1-4). With only three motorized units, the prototype reproduces serpenoid serpentine motion without precise joint positioning, and it also performs obstacle-aided crawling by holding a fixed shape and shifting it along the trunk. Wireless power through the liquid-metal skin coil delivers up to 3.6 W to the units with above 50% efficiency across bending postures. The paper concludes that lightweight, low-powered, untethered snake locomotion is achievable without a long chain of motorized joints.

Load-bearing premise

The model treats every body segment as a perfect circular arc whose bending is set exactly by motor rotation, even though the real flexible links, gear slack, and ground friction can distort the shape; the paper verifies shape accuracy only in simulation, not on the physical robot.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A snake robot can be built with far fewer actuators than joints, reducing weight and power demand while keeping short joint spacing (20 mm in the prototype) and high effective degrees of freedom.
  • Serpentine locomotion can be generated without precise positioning of the joints, simplifying control in obstacle-free narrow terrains.
  • Obstacle-aided locomotion is achievable for an underactuated snake by fixing a body shape and translating it along the trunk, using reaction forces from obstacles.
  • Wireless power through a soft skin can keep moving internal units tether-free at watt-class power with over 50% efficiency, avoiding wire tangling and breakage.
  • The variable-length arc model gives a control pipeline that converts a desired continuous curvature into motor commands for any number of repositionable units.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The actuator-count-versus-DoF decoupling generalizes: any mechanism whose actuators can be repositioned along the structure (racks, belts, or fluid channels) may inherit the same trade-off breaking, so the idea could transfer to continuum arms or reconfigurable manipulators, not just snake robots.
  • Because the model assumes ideal circular arcs and exact rack transmission, physical shape errors from link compliance and backlash are unmeasured; a motion-capture study of the actual backbone shape would test how much the constant-curvature assumption limits closed-loop accuracy.
  • The wireless-skin powering scheme suggests a path to fully embedded power delivery for soft reconfigurable robots, but the 13.4% efficiency drop near metal pipes indicates that real debris-filled environments would need ferromagnetic shielding or field shaping.
  • The demonstrated speeds are in the cm/s range, much slower than prior wheeled or wheel-less snake robots; the paper's own outlook points to learning-based control and higher-power motors, implying the current model-based controller is a proof of concept rather than a final locomotion policy.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a planar snake robot whose three motorized joint units (two repositionable units with two motors each plus one fixed unit with one motor) travel along internal rack gears, reconfiguring the effective joint coupling while a liquid-metal-based soft skin transmits power inductively to the joint units. A variable-length arc-shaped kinematic model is derived in Eqs. (1)–(4), and two control strategies are presented: joint-position-free serpentine locomotion and joint-position-based obstacle-aided locomotion. Experiments measure wireless power transfer efficiency and demonstrate both locomotion gaits, with velocities of about 2.25 cm/s and 0.76 cm/s. The central design idea is novel, and the kinematic derivation is elegant and parameter-free, but several headline claims are overstated relative to the actual prototype and experiments.

Significance. The joint-repositionable mechanism is a genuinely new way to obtain multi-joint-like bending from very few motors, and the wireless power delivery through a stretchable skin addresses a real problem for movable internal units. The kinematic model is derived from geometry without fitted constants, the wireless efficiency measurements include a check against electromagnetic interference from motors, and the authors provide explicit speed measurements and a clear statement of limitations. These are strengths that support publication after revision. However, the paper currently claims 'untethered snake-like locomotion' even though the robot receives power through an external cable, and Table I misrepresents passive links as actuated degrees of freedom. Both issues affect the central contribution as stated and need to be corrected.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. II-C, IV-C, Abstract] The claim of 'two types of untethered snake-like locomotion' is not supported by the reported experiments. As stated in Sec. II-C, the TX coil is connected via a USB-PD cable to an external 6.78 MHz D-class amplifier and a 22.5 W battery, and the only onboard battery is a 100 mAh backup cell that cannot sustain 3.6 W for meaningful locomotion. The demonstrations therefore show wirelessly powered joint units inside a robot that remains tethered to an external power module. Please revise the headline to 'inner-wireless' or 'wirelessly powered joint units' rather than 'untethered snake-like locomotion,' or add an experiment in which all power is carried onboard.
  2. [Table I, Sec. II-C] The entry '30' in the 'Joint number (DoF)' column overstates the actuated degrees of freedom of the prototype. The robot has three joint units with five motors total; the 30 links are passive flexible elements with wheels and are not independently actuated. Since all other rows of Table I report actuated joint counts for conventional snake robots, listing '30' makes the comparison misleading and directly supports the paper's 'highly articulated' claim. Please report the number of actuated DoF (five) and describe the passive-link articulation separately, or clearly justify the alternative counting.
  3. [Secs. III-A, IV-B, IV-C] The kinematic model assumes that each body segment forms a constant-curvature circular arc and that motor rotations translate exactly into rack length changes. The paper evaluates shape accuracy only in simulation (Sec. IV-B), not on the physical robot, and the locomotion demonstrations in Sec. IV-C do not include any measurement of the actual backbone shape. Because the control law is derived directly from this model, the physical shape error due to flexible links, backlash, and ground friction is unquantified. Please measure the actual body shape during locomotion (e.g., with a camera or motion capture) or temper the claim that the physical experiments validate the model-based locomotion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The phrases '7.6 W wireless charging' and 'wireless power transmission of 7.6 watts' should be reported as 7.6 W DC input to the transmitter with 3.6 W delivered to the receivers; the current wording implies that 7.6 W is the wirelessly delivered power.
  2. [Sec. IV-B] The RMSE results in Fig. 7b are presented only graphically; please report the numerical RMSE values (and ideally confidence intervals) so that the claim that 'the joint number over three achieves approximate fitting accuracy' can be assessed quantitatively.
  3. [Sec. III-B] Eq. (6) defines the segment angles for given segment lengths L_i, but the paper does not explain how the L_i are chosen in the joint-position-free scheme; a sentence describing the segmentation rule would make the control law complete.
  4. [Secs. II-C and IV-C] There are minor textual errors: 'Figure 3de' should be 'Figure 3d–e', and 'regardless of regardless of' should be 'regardless of'; please proofread the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kinematic model is self-contained geometry, the serpenoid target comes from external biology/robotics literature, and the performance claims rest on physical measurements.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the variable-length arc-shaped joint model in Sec. III-A. Equations (1)-(3) convert motor rotations d into segment lengths L_i and angles θ_i using only geometric relations (centerline average, arc-angle formula, rack-length conservation) plus stated boundary assumptions; there are no fitted constants and no target result encoded in the derivation. Equation (4) is the exact inverse of that model and is used to compute motor commands, not to predict an outcome. The serpentine reference curve is sourced from prior external literature [18], and the arc approximation is justified by an external approximation result [20]. Design choices such as N=3 joint units and TX coil width 4 cm are made from separate simulation trade-offs (Sec. IV-B and Sec. II-B), not by fitting to the measured locomotion or power results. Wireless charging efficiency and locomotion speeds are experimentally measured on the physical prototype. The self-citations that appear ([9]-[11], [24]) support fabrication methods, coil tuning, and future-work context; none of them supplies the load-bearing mathematical or experimental claims. The strongest concern about the word 'untethered' is that the prototype is powered through an external 22.5 W battery and USB-PD cable feeding the TX coil, but this is a claim-versus-demonstration mismatch about what 'untethered' means, not a circular reduction of the derivation to its inputs. No step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to the very quantity it claims to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central kinematic model has no fitted constants beyond design choices N=3, TX coil width 4 cm, and TX/RX distance 1 cm. The assumptions are standard modeling idealizations that are explicitly stated. No new theoretical entities are introduced beyond demonstrated hardware.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of joint units N = 3
    Chosen from an RMSE versus motor-number trade-off simulation in Sec. IV-B; a design decision, not fitted to the locomotion outcome.
  • TX coil width = 4 cm
    Selected from FEKO electromagnetic simulation as the width balancing motor interference and coupling strength (Sec. II-B).
  • TX/RX coil distance = 1 cm
    Chosen in wireless charging experiments to avoid collision between RX coil and robot skin while keeping roughly 60 percent efficiency (Sec. IV-A).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Piecewise constant curvature: each body segment is modeled as a circular arc with uniform curvature.
    Sec. III-A, Eq. 1; central to the kinematic model and to the control laws. Real flexible links may deviate from constant curvature.
  • domain assumption Ideal rack transmission: motor rotations map exactly into rack length changes with no slip, backlash, or rack deformation.
    Sec. III-A, Eq. 2; the control law relies on this exact mapping from motor displacement d to segment lengths.
  • domain assumption Initial configuration is straight with evenly spaced joint units and rack lengths equal to Lall/N.
    Sec. III-A; defines the reference configuration from which all d values are measured.
  • domain assumption The fixed joint unit can be modeled as two motors synchronously rotating in the reverse direction.
    Sec. III-A; a modeling simplification of the single-motor fixed joint unit to fit the N-segment arc model.
  • domain assumption A serpenoid curve can be approximated by serial circular arc segments.
    Sec. III-B, Eq. 6; this known approximation from prior work [20] is used to convert the target curve into arc angles.
invented entities (2)
  • Joint-repositionable mechanism with motor-driven joint units traveling on rack gears independent evidence
    purpose: Create multi-joint-like bending postures with fewer motors by repositioning underactuated units along the body
    A working prototype is demonstrated with locomotion experiments; it is a physical mechanism, not an unverified hypothesized entity.
  • Wireless-charging-enabled soft robot skin using a liquid-metal TX coil independent evidence
    purpose: Power moving joint units without physical cables, avoiding tangling and disconnection
    The skin is fabricated and its efficiency measured across distances, bending postures, and environments; the evidence is presented in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint-repositionable Inner-wireless Planar Snake Robot." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MAAKP7SS

@misc{pith2026241113916,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint-repositionable Inner-wireless Planar Snake Robot},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MAAKP7SS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13916}
}
read the original abstract

Bio-inspired multi-joint snake robots offer the advantages of terrain adaptability due to their limbless structure and high flexibility. However, a series of dozens of motor units in typical multiple-joint snake robots results in a heavy body structure and hundreds of watts of high power consumption. This paper presents a joint-repositionable, inner-wireless snake robot that enables multi-joint-like locomotion using a low-powered underactuated mechanism. The snake robot, consisting of a series of flexible passive links, can dynamically change its joint coupling configuration by repositioning motor-driven joint units along rack gears inside the robot. Additionally, a soft robot skin wirelessly powers the internal joint units, avoiding the risk of wire tangling and disconnection caused by the movable joint units. The combination of the joint-repositionable mechanism and the wireless-charging-enabled soft skin achieves a high degree of bending, along with a lightweight structure of 1.3 kg and energy-efficient wireless power transmission of 7.6 watts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13916 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Concept of joint-repositionable inner-wireless planar snake robot. Our robot enables multi-joint-like locomotion while remaining low-powered and lightweight structure. Inside the robot, joint-repositionable units can move freely, enabling to construct the various joint coupling. The units are powered wirelessly through a soft robot skin. dozens of motor-based joint units and rigid links, we introduce a joint-reposit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Design and operation of a joint-repositionable, inner-wireless planar snake robot. (a) Schematic of the joint-repositionable snake robot, including repositionable joint units and a fixed joint unit. (b) Detailed view of the joint unit components, including a DC motor with an encoder, a flexible rack gear, and a wheel. The joint unit types are categorized as repositionable and fixed, with the basic operations of movi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Design overview of a wireless-charging-enabled soft robot skin. (a) Circuit diagram of the soft robot skin.(b) Simulated inductive field of the soft robot skin model, and (c) power transfer efficiency for the soft robot skin geometry. (d) Photograph of the soft robot skin composed of a liquid-metal-based transmitter coil. (e) Photograph of joint units connected to an RX coil. (f) Fabrication process of the soft robo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic of the variable-length arc-shaped joint model. Our robot, comprising N joint units, is represented as a sequence of arcs with uniform curvature. The rotational movement of the motors (d) changes the length (L) and angle (θ) of each arc segment. fabricated by …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Locomotion control strategy using the variable-length arc-shaped joint model. (a) Illustration of joint-position-free serpentine locomotion along a blue-colored serpenoid curve. (b) Illustration of joint-position-based obstacle-aided locomotion, highlighting orange-col…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Wireless charging capability of the robot skin. AC-to-AC power transfer efficiency is measured for (a) varying distances between TX/RX coils, (b) snake bending postures, and (c) performance in different surrounding environments. velocity of all motors on the right side…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation-based accuracy measurement of serpentine locomotion. (a) Simulation protocol for measuring RMSE of a serpenoid curve using a variable-length arc-shaped joint model. (b) RMSE between the robot’s and the serpenoid curves when varying the number of segments N. …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Demonstration of two types of locomotion control strategies. (a) Time-lapse of joint-position-free serpentine locomotion. The robot’s speed was almost the same in all three cases with different joint lengths. (b) Joint-position-based obstacle-aided locomotion. Based on…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hoffstetter, J

    R. Hoffstetter, J. Gasc, and C. Gans, Biology of the Reptilia, 1969, vol. 1

    work page 1969

  2. [2]

    Snake robots,

    K. Y . Pettersen, “Snake robots,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 44, pp. 19–44, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Review of snake robots in constrained environments,

    J. Liu, Y . Tong, and J. Liu, “Review of snake robots in constrained environments,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 141, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    A novel pneumatic soft snake robot using traveling-wave locomotion in constrained environments,

    X. Qi, H. Shi, T. Pinto, and X. Tan, “A novel pneumatic soft snake robot using traveling-wave locomotion in constrained environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1610–1617, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Soft snake robots: Mechanical design and geometric gait implementation,

    C. Branyan, C. Fleming et al., “Soft snake robots: Mechanical design and geometric gait implementation,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 282–289

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Design, analysis, and real-time simulation of a 3d soft robotic snake,

    Z. Wan, Y . Sun et al., “Design, analysis, and real-time simulation of a 3d soft robotic snake,” Soft Robotics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 258–268, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Wireless power transfer technologies, applications, and future trends: A review,

    A. Alabsi, A. Hawbani et al. , “Wireless power transfer technologies, applications, and future trends: A review,” IEEE Transactions on Sus- tainable Computing, pp. 1–18, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Maximum achievable efficiency in near- field coupled power-transfer systems,

    M. Zargham and P. G. Gulak, “Maximum achievable efficiency in near- field coupled power-transfer systems,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 228–245, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Meander coil++: A body-scale wireless power transmission using safe-to-body and energy-efficient transmitter coil,

    R. Takahashi, W. Yukita et al., “Meander coil++: A body-scale wireless power transmission using safe-to-body and energy-efficient transmitter coil,” in Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , ser. CHI ’22, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    picoring: battery-free rings for subtle thumb-to-index input,

    R. Takahashi, E. Whitmire et al. , “picoring: battery-free rings for subtle thumb-to-index input,” in Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology , 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Friction jointing of distributed rigid capacitors to stretchable liquid metal coil for full-body wireless charging clothing,

    T. Sato, S. Watanabe et al. , “Friction jointing of distributed rigid capacitors to stretchable liquid metal coil for full-body wireless charging clothing,” in 2025 IEEE 38th International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) , 2025, p. 181–184

    2025

  4. [12]

    Amphibot i: an amphibious snake-like robot,

    A. Crespi, A. Badertscher, A. Guignard, and A. J. Ijspeert, “Amphibot i: an amphibious snake-like robot,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 163–175, 2005, biomimetic Robotics

    2005

  5. [13]

    Snake robot obstacle-aided locomo- tion: Modeling, simulations, and experiments,

    A. A. Transeth, R. I. Leine et al., “Snake robot obstacle-aided locomo- tion: Modeling, simulations, and experiments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 88–104, 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    Design and control of bio- logically inspired wheel-less snake-like robot,

    Z. Bayraktaroglu, A. Kilicarslan et al. , “Design and control of bio- logically inspired wheel-less snake-like robot,” in The First IEEE/RAS- EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomecha- tronics, 2006, pp. 1001–1006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Design and architecture of the unified modular snake robot,

    C. Wright, A. Buchan et al. , “Design and architecture of the unified modular snake robot,” in 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2012, pp. 4347–4354

    2012

  8. [16]

    Gait design for a snake robot by connecting curve segments and experimental demonstration,

    T. Takemori, M. Tanaka, and F. Matsuno, “Gait design for a snake robot by connecting curve segments and experimental demonstration,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1384–1391, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Plate-springed parallel elastic actuator for efficient snake robot movement,

    A. Kakogawa, T. Kawabata, and S. Ma, “Plate-springed parallel elastic actuator for efficient snake robot movement,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 3051–3063, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Serpentine locomotion with robotic snakes,

    M. Sato, M. Fukaya, and T. Iwasaki, “Serpentine locomotion with robotic snakes,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 64–81, 2002

    2002

  11. [19]

    Analysis of snake movement forms for realization of snake- like robots,

    S. Ma, “Analysis of snake movement forms for realization of snake- like robots,” in Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , vol. 4, 1999, pp. 3007–3013 vol.4

    1999

  12. [20]

    Approximations to continuous curves of active cord mechanism made of arc-shaped joints or double joints,

    H. Yamada and S. Hirose, “Approximations to continuous curves of active cord mechanism made of arc-shaped joints or double joints,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2010, pp. 703–708

    2010

  13. [21]

    Obstacle- aided locomotion of a snake robot using piecewise helixes,

    T. Takanashi, M. Nakajima, T. Takemori, and M. Tanaka, “Obstacle- aided locomotion of a snake robot using piecewise helixes,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 10 542–10 549, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Tegotae-based decentralised control scheme for autonomous gait transition of snake-like robots,

    T. Kano, R. Yoshizawa, and A. Ishiguro, “Tegotae-based decentralised control scheme for autonomous gait transition of snake-like robots,” Bioinspiration & biomimetics , vol. 12, no. 4, p. 046009, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Mechanical intelligence simplifies control in terrestrial limbless locomotion,

    T. Wang, C. Pierce et al. , “Mechanical intelligence simplifies control in terrestrial limbless locomotion,” Science Robotics , vol. 8, no. 85, p. eadi2243, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Geared rod-driven continuum robot with woodpecker-inspired extension mechanism and imu-based force sensing,

    U. Mavinkurve, A. Kanada et al., “Geared rod-driven continuum robot with woodpecker-inspired extension mechanism and imu-based force sensing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 135– 142, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

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