Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Leveraging Tactile Sensing to Render both Haptic Feedback and Virtual Reality 3D Object Reconstruction in Robotic Telemanipulation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that a blindfolded operator can perform precise pick-and-place teleoperation of a real robot using only tactile sensing to provide both haptic feedback and a real-time VR 3D reconstruction, with no camera input…

desk verdict A genuine first system integration of tactile-based VR reconstruction and haptic feedback for camera-free teleop, but the reconstruction accuracy that the central claim leans on is never measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02644 v1 pith:TCNTDS4W submitted 2024-12-03 cs.RO

Gabriele Giudici , Aramis Augusto Bonzini , Claudio Coppola , Kaspar Althoefer , Ildar Farkhatdinov , Lorenzo Jamone This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords tactilesensinghapticfeedbackvirtualrealityteleoperationGaussianprocessshapereconstructionpick-and-placeblindbilateraltelemanipulationsigneddistancefield
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 asks whether a human operator can teleoperate a robot to pick up and place objects when they have no visual access to the real workspace, no cameras, no direct sight, relying instead on touch alone. It claims yes: by using tactile sensors on the robot hand both to render kinesthetic haptic feedback to the operator's fingers and to build a real-time 3D shape estimate displayed in a VR headset, a trained operator completed 80% of 90 pick-and-place trials across three object configurations, with average placement errors below 3 cm and 6 degrees. The significance is that teleoperation could keep working in conditions where cameras fail, such as smoke, poor light, occlusions, or radiation, without sacrificing precision. The paper treats this as a first demonstration of feasibility rather than an optimized system.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gaussian Process implicit surface: contact points on the object, obtained from magnetic tactile sensors and forward kinematics, are treated as observations of a signed distance field whose zero level set is the estimated surface. A spherical prior (the red semi-sphere in the VR scene) supplies the mean function without artificial interior or exterior points, a thin-plate spline covariance sets the smoothness, and the GP predictive mean feeds a marching-cubes mesh that is streamed into the Meta Quest 2 headset. The same tactile contacts drive the HGlove force feedback, so a single sensing channel produces both the visual shape and the haptic feel.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to place objects of known geometry in the workspace, record the reconstructed GP surface during the exploration phase, and compare it to a high-precision ground-truth scan after accounting for the robot's kinematic pose. If the reconstruction-to-ground-truth distance is comparable to or larger than the observed placement errors of 2–3 cm, the claimed link between tactile reconstruction and task success would be weakened; conversely, small reconstruction errors would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a bilateral telemanipulation system can be run entirely without visual sensing by fusing two uses of tactile data: haptic feedback rendered through an exoskeletal glove and a Gaussian-process-based 3D reconstruction of the touched object shown in a VR visor. The system reconstructs the object surface as a signed distance field from contact points collected during a 20-second exploration phase, displays the evolving surface with uncertainty coloring, and then lets the operator align the real object with a pre-placed virtual target marker using only that display and the haptic feel. Across 90 trials with a rectangular box in three poses, the operator achieved mean position errors of 2.28–3.15 cm and mean orientation errors of 4.55–7.28 degrees, with an overall success rate of 80% and improvement from 71.1% on day one to 88.9% on day two.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the Gaussian-process surface reconstructed from a limited set of contact points is accurate enough, and aligned well enough with the VR target frame, for the operator to use it as reliable guidance for placement; the paper never validates this reconstruction against a ground-truth scan, reporting only task-level placement errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claimed feasibility holds, teleoperation can continue in environments that defeat vision, such as smoke, haze, darkness, radiation, or blocked lenses, without adding camera hardware.
  • The demonstrated improvement from day one to day two (71% to 89% success) indicates operators can learn to work with the tactile-only interface, so the approach does not require innate skill.
  • The same tactile stream can serve both human-in-the-loop haptics and the shape estimate, meaning future systems could add autonomy features, such as grasp selection, without new sensors.
  • The method is currently limited to a simple rigid box; extending to complex or deformable objects would require denser sensing and a richer reconstruction model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not measure reconstruction accuracy against ground truth; an obvious next step is to scan the object and compare the GP surface, which would isolate whether placement errors come from shape estimation or from the operator's alignment in VR.
  • The reported per-trial failure rate varied by object pose, with the vertical configuration hardest; this suggests a testable hypothesis that reconstruction quality depends on the number and spread of contacts, so task success might be predicted from exploration-phase contact statistics.
  • Because the operator had prior vision-supervised experience, the results may understate the learning burden for naive users; a user study with untrained participants would clarify how much of the success is due to transfer of skill.
  • The virtual fixture and fixed viewpoint were chosen empirically; systematic variation of viewpoint and fixture constraints would be a direct way to test how much each component contributes to the accuracy.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents an integrated bilateral telemanipulation system in which tactile sensors on a robotic hand are used for two purposes simultaneously: rendering kinesthetic haptic feedback to the operator through an exoskeletal glove, and feeding a Gaussian Process (GP) implicit-surface reconstruction that is displayed in a VR headset. No cameras are used, and the operator is blindfolded. The authors evaluate the system on a real UR5/Allegro platform with one experienced operator performing pick-and-place of a rectangular cardboard object in three orientations. Across 90 trials they report 72 successes (80%), mean position errors of 2.28–3.15 cm, mean orientation errors of 4.55–7.28 deg, and mean completion times below 19 s. The paper claims that this demonstrates the feasibility of precise camera-free telemanipulation using tactile-based VR reconstruction and haptic feedback.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable proof-of-concept for teleoperation in vision-degraded environments such as smoke, poor lighting, or occlusions. The system is genuinely real-world rather than simulated, and the task-level evaluation with 90 trials and two days of data is a reasonable feasibility corpus. The authors integrate established components (magnetic tactile sensing, GP implicit surfaces, VR visualization, haptic rendering) in a new configuration, and they report quantitative metrics and basic statistics. The main gap is that the reconstruction component is never evaluated on its own: no ground-truth comparison of the GP mesh with the known box geometry, and no registration error between the reconstructed object and the VR target frame. Consequently the specific mechanism highlighted in the title—that tactile-based 3D reconstruction enables the placement accuracy—is plausible but not yet demonstrated. The work also rests on a single experienced operator, which limits the strength of the general feasibility claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B, Eq. (1); Section IV-B; Table I] The central claim that tactile-based 3D reconstruction enables precise camera-free placement is not supported by any direct measurement of the reconstructed surface. The object is a known rectangular box (15.5×5.5×8.25 cm, Sec. IV-B), so an offline comparison is straightforward: compute the distance between the GP mesh and the true surface, as well as the centroid and orientation offset between the reconstructed mesh and the real object in the workspace. The task-level errors in Table I do not establish this, because an operator could achieve the reported placement errors by relying on haptic contact and the green target marker even if the VR reconstruction were biased or grossly inaccurate. Please add such a ground-truth reconstruction/registration evaluation and discuss how the remaining reconstruction error propagates into the displayed VR scene.
  2. [Section III-B and III-C] The GP reconstruction uses a spherical prior of unreported radius and an unreported measurement noise sigma_n in Eq. (1). Both are free parameters that can strongly affect the SDF and the resulting marching-cubes mesh; the red semi-sphere in Fig. 3 shows the prior but no numerical value is given. In addition, the VR viewpoint in Sec. III-C is chosen by 'empirical considerations,' and the coordinate transformation that registers the FK-based contact points, the reconstructed mesh, and the VR target marker is not specified. Without these quantities the reconstruction subsystem is not reproducible and its accuracy cannot be assessed. Please report the exact parameters and the registration pipeline.
  3. [Section IV-A; Table I] The feasibility conclusion is based on a single operator who had prior vision-supervised teleoperation experience but no blind-scenario training, and there is no comparison condition with cameras, with haptic feedback alone, or with VR alone. This design cannot separate the contributions of the GP reconstruction, the haptic feedback, and the integrated interface, and it provides no evidence that the result would transfer to another operator. To support the stated general 'feasibility' claim, the authors should either add at least a second operator and a minimal ablation (e.g., VR-on/off or reconstruction-on/off), or explicitly narrow the conclusion to a single-user integrated-system demonstration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V and Discussion] The text refers to 'Table V' twice; the referenced table is Table I.
  2. [Section V] 'ANOV A' should be 'ANOVA' (the spacing is a typo).
  3. [Section IV-C] The session count is inconsistent: the text mentions 'three distinct sessions' and then 'totalling six experimental sessions' over two days. Clarify whether there are three sessions per day or three total.
  4. [Section IV-B] The base dimensions for O3 are listed as 15.5 × 8.25 cm, the same as O2; given the description 'smaller base' and the object dimensions, this is likely a typo and should be corrected (e.g., 8.25 × 5.5 cm).
  5. [Section III-C] The text says the object's colour changes to reflect shape reconstructions updated via GP techniques, but the preceding description of the VR scene says the semi-sphere changes to blue after contact measurements; please make the colour-change and update descriptions consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the feasibility result is an empirical outcome measured by task-level placement error, not a quantity re-derived from its inputs.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical teleoperation feasibility study, not a formal derivation, so the circularity patterns enumerated in the review are largely inapplicable. The GP surface estimate (Eq. 1) is generated from tactile contact points plus a spherical prior from Martens et al. [36], and the reconstructed mesh is displayed in VR; success is measured by the operator's placement position and orientation errors (Table I), which are independent of the reconstruction parameters and are not fed back into the GP. No parameter of the reconstruction is fitted to the reported success metrics, and no equation is defined in terms of the outcome it is claimed to explain. The prior system [11] is self-cited for the tactile sensors, calibration, and haptic rendering, but it was independently validated in a vision-supervised setting and is used as a hardware/software component rather than as a premise that logically forces the present conclusion. The main weakness of the paper, namely that the accuracy and registration of the GP reconstruction to the VR target frame is never checked against ground truth, is a correctness/validation gap, not circularity: the claim could in principle be falsified by an offline reconstruction comparison, which is exactly what makes the experiment non-circular. The central feasibility claim therefore rests on empirical evidence rather than on a reduction of the conclusion to its inputs.

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

No new physical entities or mathematical constructs are introduced. The system reuses existing sensors, GP methods, VR hardware, and prior teleoperation infrastructure from [11]. The main undisclosed inputs are the GP hyperparameters and the VR viewpoint, which are fitted by hand and could affect the measured performance.

free parameters (3)
  • GP prior radius = not reported
    The red semi-sphere displayed as the GP prior must have a radius that approximates the object's extent; the paper does not state how this radius is chosen, and it directly shapes the reconstructed SDF.
  • GP measurement noise sigma_n = not reported
    Equation (1) includes sigma_n squared as the measurement noise; the value is not given, and it controls how much the contact points are trusted versus the prior.
  • VR viewpoint = hand-chosen
    The fixed observation point in the VR scene was selected by empirical considerations (Section III-C) and affects depth perception and alignment.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Gaussian Process implicit surface equations (1) and (2) correctly model the object surface from contact points.
    The paper relies on the standard GP regression framework from Rasmussen and Williams [38] without deriving it.
  • domain assumption Forward kinematics of the UR5/Allegro system accurately map tactile contact locations to world coordinates.
    Section III-B states contact locations are obtained by calculating forward kinematics, but no calibration accuracy is reported.
  • domain assumption The magnetic tactile sensors' normal force estimates are accurate enough for both haptic rendering and contact detection.
    Section III-A references the sensors from [11],[33],[34] and assumes their behavior is consistent with prior validation.
  • ad hoc to paper The spherical prior from [36] is an appropriate surface prior for a rectangular cardboard object.
    Section III-B says spherical priors are used, but the object is a rectangular box; the mismatch is not discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leveraging Tactile Sensing to Render both Haptic Feedback and Virtual Reality 3D Object Reconstruction in Robotic Telemanipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TCNTDS4W

@misc{pith2026241202644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leveraging Tactile Sensing to Render both Haptic Feedback and Virtual Reality 3D Object Reconstruction in Robotic Telemanipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TCNTDS4W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02644}
}
read the original abstract

Dexterous robotic manipulator teleoperation is widely used in many applications, either where it is convenient to keep the human inside the control loop, or to train advanced robot agents. So far, this technology has been used in combination with camera systems with remarkable success. On the other hand, only a limited number of studies have focused on leveraging haptic feedback from tactile sensors in contexts where camera-based systems fail, such as due to self-occlusions or poor light conditions like smoke. This study demonstrates the feasibility of precise pick-and-place teleoperation without cameras by leveraging tactile-based 3D object reconstruction in VR and providing haptic feedback to a blindfolded user. Our preliminary results show that integrating these technologies enables the successful completion of telemanipulation tasks previously dependent on cameras, paving the way for more complex future applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. View of the human-operator setup (haptic interface with the glove [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Control Scheme for Blind Bilateral Teleoperation : The operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Virtual Reality Scene: This series of images captures various stages of an experiment from the operator’s viewpoint, recorded using the Meta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pick and Place Results: Each object is distinctly coloured, and the virtual representation of the target’s base is depicted with a black dashed line. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pick and Place Errors. Each of the three bar charts displays, for a specific object, the position error (d) in blue (mean and standard deviation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

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. 3D Cal: An Open-Source Software Library for Depth Reconstruction on Vision-Based Tactile Sensors

    cs.RO 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    3D Cal repurposes a 3D printer as an automated calibration rig and trains a lightweight CNN, TouchNet, to reconstruct depth maps for DIGIT and GelSight Mini.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A review of bilateral teleoperation control strategies with soft environment,

    Y . Deng, Y . Tang, B. Yang, W. Zheng, S. Liu, and C. Liu, “A review of bilateral teleoperation control strategies with soft environment,” in 2021 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Mechatronics (ICARM). IEEE, 2021, pp. 459–464

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Teleoperation of humanoid robots: A survey,

    K. Darvish, L. Penco, J. Ramos, R. Cisneros, J. Pratt, E. Yoshida, S. Ivaldi, and D. Pucci, “Teleoperation of humanoid robots: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Robotic development for the nuclear environment: challenges and strategy,

    R. Smith, E. Cucco, and C. Fairbairn, “Robotic development for the nuclear environment: challenges and strategy,” Robotics, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 94, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    The impact of adverse weather conditions on autonomous vehicles: How rain, snow, fog, and hail affect the performance of a self-driving car,

    S. Zang, M. Ding, D. Smith, P. Tyler, T. Rakotoarivelo, and M. A. Kaafar, “The impact of adverse weather conditions on autonomous vehicles: How rain, snow, fog, and hail affect the performance of a self-driving car,” IEEE vehicular technology magazine , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 103–111, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    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, vol. 48, pp. 54–67, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    A review of tactile information: Perception and action through touch,

    Q. Li, O. Kroemer, Z. Su, F. F. Veiga, M. Kaboli, and H. J. Ritter, “A review of tactile information: Perception and action through touch,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1619–1634, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Leveraging symmetry detection to speed up haptic object exploration in robots,

    A. A. Bonzini, L. Seminara, S. Macci `o, A. Carfı, and L. Jamone, “Leveraging symmetry detection to speed up haptic object exploration in robots,” in 2022 IEEE Int. Conf. on Development and Learning (ICDL), 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Improving haptic exploration of object shape by discovering symmetries,

    A. A. Bonzini, L. Seminara, and L. Jamone, “Improving haptic exploration of object shape by discovering symmetries,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 5821–5827

    work page 2022

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    A systematic review of multilateral teleoperation systems,

    M. Shahbazi, S. F. Atashzar, and R. V . Patel, “A systematic review of multilateral teleoperation systems,” IEEE transactions on haptics , vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 338–356, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Haptic and visual feedback assistance for dual-arm robot teleoperation in surface conditioning tasks,

    V . Girbes-Juan, V . Schettino, Y . Demiris, and J. Tornero, “Haptic and visual feedback assistance for dual-arm robot teleoperation in surface conditioning tasks,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 44–56, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Feeling good: Validation of bilateral tactile tele- manipulation for a dexterous robot,

    G. Giudici, B. Omarali, A. A. Bonzini, K. Althoefer, I. Farkhatdinov, and L. Jamone, “Feeling good: Validation of bilateral tactile tele- manipulation for a dexterous robot,” in Annual Conference Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems . Springer, 2023, pp. 443–454

    2023

  4. [12]

    Toward robotic manipulation,

    M. T. Mason, “Toward robotic manipulation,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 1, pp. 1–28, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Trends and challenges in robot manipula- tion,

    A. Billard and D. Kragic, “Trends and challenges in robot manipula- tion,” Science, vol. 364, no. 6446, p. eaat8414, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    A survey of robot manipulation in contact,

    M. Suomalainen, Y . Karayiannidis, and V . Kyrki, “A survey of robot manipulation in contact,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 156, p. 104224, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Learning to grasp with- out seeing,

    A. Murali, Y . Li, D. Gandhi, and A. Gupta, “Learning to grasp with- out seeing,” in International Symposium on Experimental Robotics . Springer, 2018, pp. 375–386

    2018

  8. [16]

    Mat: Multi-fingered adaptive tactile grasping via deep reinforcement learning,

    B. Wu, I. Akinola, J. Varley, and P. Allen, “Mat: Multi-fingered adaptive tactile grasping via deep reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.04787, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Tactofind: A tactile only system for object retrieval,

    S. Pai, T. Chen, M. Tippur, E. Adelson, A. Gupta, and P. Agrawal, “Tactofind: A tactile only system for object retrieval,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13482, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dexskills: Skill segmentation using haptic data for learning autonomous long-horizon robotic manipulation tasks,

    X. Mao, G. Giudici, C. Coppola, K. Althoefer, I. Farkhatdinov, Z. Li, and L. Jamone, “Dexskills: Skill segmentation using haptic data for learning autonomous long-horizon robotic manipulation tasks,” 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Active tactile object exploration with gaussian processes,

    Z. Yi, R. Calandra, F. Veiga, H. van Hoof, T. Hermans, Y . Zhang, and J. Peters, “Active tactile object exploration with gaussian processes,” in 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2016, pp. 4925–4930

    2016

  12. [20]

    A probabilis- tic approach to tactile shape reconstruction,

    M. Meier, M. Schopfer, R. Haschke, and H. Ritter, “A probabilis- tic approach to tactile shape reconstruction,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 630–635, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    Haptics: The present and future of artificial touch sensation,

    H. Culbertson, S. B. Schorr, and A. M. Okamura, “Haptics: The present and future of artificial touch sensation,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 1, pp. 385–409, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    A review on haptic bilateral teleoperation systems,

    S. N. F. Nahri, S. Du, and B. J. Van Wyk, “A review on haptic bilateral teleoperation systems,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems , vol. 104, pp. 1–23, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    An affordable system for the teleoperation of dexterous robotic hands using leap motion hand tracking and vibrotactile feedback,

    C. Coppola, G. Solak, and L. Jamone, “An affordable system for the teleoperation of dexterous robotic hands using leap motion hand tracking and vibrotactile feedback,” in 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO- MAN). IEEE, 2022...

    2022

  16. [24]

    A whole-body integrated avatar system: Implementation of telepresence with intuitive control and immersive feedback,

    S. Park, J. Kim, H. Lee, M. Jo, D. Gong, D. Ju, D. Won, S. Kim, J. Oh, H. Jang, and J. Bae, “A whole-body integrated avatar system: Implementation of telepresence with intuitive control and immersive feedback,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , pp. 2–10, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Commodity telepresence with team avatrina’s nursebot in the ana avatar xprize finals,

    J. M. Marques, J.-C. Peng, P. Naughton, Y . Zhu, J. S. Nam, and K. Hauser, “Commodity telepresence with team avatrina’s nursebot in the ana avatar xprize finals,” in Proc. 2nd Workshop Toward Robot Avatars IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom.(ICRA) , 2023, pp. 1–3

    2023

  18. [26]

    Robust immersive telepresence and mobile telemanipulation: Nimbro wins ana avatar xprize finals,

    M. Schwarz, C. Lenz, R. Memmesheimer, B. P ¨atzold, A. Rochow, M. Schreiber, and S. Behnke, “Robust immersive telepresence and mobile telemanipulation: Nimbro wins ana avatar xprize finals,” in 2023 IEEE-RAS 22nd International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids). IEEE, 2...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Ros reality: A virtual reality framework using consumer-grade hardware for ros-enabled robots,

    D. Whitney, E. Rosen, D. Ullman, E. Phillips, and S. Tellex, “Ros reality: A virtual reality framework using consumer-grade hardware for ros-enabled robots,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–9

    2018

  20. [28]

    Implementation of augmented teleoperation system based on robot operating system (ros),

    D. Lee and Y . S. Park, “Implementation of augmented teleoperation system based on robot operating system (ros),” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 5497–5502

    2018

  21. [29]

    Virtual reality based telerobotics framework with depth cameras,

    B. Omarali, B. Denoun, K. Althoefer, L. Jamone, M. Valle, and I. Farkhatdinov, “Virtual reality based telerobotics framework with depth cameras,” in 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) , 2020, pp. 1217– 1222

    2020

  22. [30]

    Study of multimodal interfaces and the improvements on teleoperation,

    E. Triantafyllidis, C. Mcgreavy, J. Gu, and Z. Li, “Study of multimodal interfaces and the improvements on teleoperation,” IEEE Access , vol. 8, pp. 78 213–78 227, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Haptic trends by haption: larger, stronger, faster,

    J. Perret, “Haptic trends by haption: larger, stronger, faster,” in EuroHaptics Conference, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    Hglove: A wearable force- feedback device for the hand,

    J. Perret, Q. Parent, and B. Giudicelli, “Hglove: A wearable force- feedback device for the hand,” in 14th annual EuroVR conference , 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    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 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2017, pp. 966–971

    2017

  26. [34]

    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 Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 3, no....

    2017

  27. [35]

    Relaxedik: Real-time synthesis of accurate and feasible robot arm motion

    D. Rakita, B. Mutlu, and M. Gleicher, “Relaxedik: Real-time synthesis of accurate and feasible robot arm motion.” in Robotics: Science and Systems, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Ge- ometric priors for gaussian process implicit surfaces,

    W. Martens, Y . Poffet, P. R. Soria, R. Fitch, and S. Sukkarieh, “Ge- ometric priors for gaussian process implicit surfaces,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 373–380, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Gaussian process implicit surfaces,

    O. Williams and A. Fitzgibbon, “Gaussian process implicit surfaces,” in Gaussian Processes in Practice , 2006

    2006

  30. [38]

    C. K. Williams and C. E. Rasmussen, Gaussian processes for machine learning. MIT press Cambridge, MA, 2006, vol. 2, no. 3

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.