Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Modality-Driven Design for Multi-Step Dexterous Manipulation: Insights from Neuroscience

T0 review · 4 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 The paper establishes that multi-step dexterous manipulation can be built by sequencing sub-skills that each use the sensory modality dominant in the corresponding human behavior, and demonstrates a pick-and-rotate task on a real robot…

desk verdict A real-robot feasibility demo of a modular pick-and-rotate pipeline, but the neuroscience-driven modality assignment is asserted, not tested, so the paper's central claim outruns its evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11337 v1 pith:RRTSOKUI submitted 2024-12-15 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CV

Naoki Wake , Atsushi Kanehira , Daichi Saito , Jun Takamatsu , Kazuhiro Sasabuchi , Hideki Koike , Katsushi Ikeuchi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CV
keywords modality-drivendesigndexterousmanipulationmulti-stepvision-language-actionmodelsreinforcementlearningforcefeedbackin-handrotationsim-to-realtransfer
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 argues that multi-step dexterous manipulation is better addressed by sequencing sub-skills, each designed around the sensory modality that dominates that phase in human performance, than by a single end-to-end model. To demonstrate, a four-fingered robot hand executes a pick-and-rotate task through three stages: vision-driven reaching with a classical controller, vision-plus-force grasping and lifting with a fine-tuned vision-language-action model, and force-only in-hand rotation with reinforcement-learned policies. The real-robot experiment records 35/35 successful reaches, 34/35 grasp-and-lifts, and 5/35 complete rotations, showing the pipeline is feasible. The authors also find that mixing simulated demonstrations with real ones stabilizes the grasp-lift model when object shape and color change. The contribution is the neuroscience-inspired decomposition itself, not a head-to-head comparison against a monolithic model.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the modality-driven decomposition itself, informed by neuroscience: each sub-skill is assigned to the dominant sensory channel and implemented with the method that best exploits that channel. Reach uses a classical inverse-kinematics controller on 3D object position from stereo vision; grasp and lift use the Octo vision-language-action model with a 14-dimensional action space (7 hand joints under the Virtual Finger constraint that synchronizes three fingers to oppose the thumb, 6 wrist pose dimensions, and a termination signal) and observations that add four torque values to the cropped RGB history; in-hand rotation uses the APRICOT decomposition of rotation into four primitive finger motions, trained with a teacher-student reinforcement-learning setup whose student policy receives only force/torque values from four finger joints, deliberately omitting visual input to avoid the vision sim-to-real gap.

What would settle it

Train the in-hand rotation policy with visual input added to the force observations and run the same pick-and-rotate task on the physical setup: a success rate at the final rotation step well above the reported 5/35 would undercut the claim that rotation is force-dominant. Equivalently, run a single vision-language-action model on the entire pick-and-rotate task and show it matches or exceeds the modular pipeline's end-to-end success, which would remove the case for modality-driven decomposition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dividing a dexterous manipulation task according to the sensory modality each phase relies on in human sensorimotor control yields a practical recipe for robot design: reaching is a vision-based spatial planning problem, grasping and lifting need vision combined with force or proprioceptive feedback, and in-hand rotation is contact-rich and can be driven by force feedback alone. The paper implements this recipe as a three-stage pipeline on a real robot, using a classical inverse-kinematics controller for reaching, the Octo vision-language-action model fine-tuned on real and simulated demonstrations for grasping and lifting, and a set of force-only reinforcement-learning policies for four primitive finger motions that make up the rotation. The end-to-end experiment demonstrates feasibility, with the full pick-and-rotate sequence succeeding on 5 of 35 trials and most failures concentrated in the later rotation steps. The authors also show that augmenting 40 real demonstrations with 4,000 simulated ones makes the grasp-lift model generalize to novel box shapes and colors.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that force feedback alone is the right modality for in-hand rotation; the paper never tests this premise by adding vision to the rotation policy or comparing against a single end-to-end model, so if visual feedback would meaningfully improve rotation, the neuroscience-based modality assignment is not validated even if the pipeline still works.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each sub-skill can be built with the simplest method suited to its modality, so practitioners do not have to force one model to handle every phase.
  • Combining 4,000 simulated demonstrations with 40 real ones makes the vision-language-action grasp-lift stage generalize to object shapes and colors absent from the real training set, while real-only or sim-only training fails on at least one test object.
  • Force-only reinforcement-learning policies for in-hand rotation can transfer from simulation to a real hand without visual domain randomization, because the policy never depends on rendered images.
  • Because the stages are trained and debugged independently, the main bottleneck is the transition between stages, specifically the mismatch between the grasp state produced after lifting and the distribution assumed by the rotation policies.
  • On this task the complete pipeline succeeds in 5 of 35 trials, with nearly all failures after the first rotation step, so the decomposition is feasible but the inter-stage handoff is the limiting factor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An ablation the paper does not report, comparing the force-only rotation policy against one with vision added, would directly test whether the neuroscience-based modality assignment or the ease of sim-to-real transfer is what actually drives success.
  • The same modality-driven decomposition principle could be applied to other long-horizon manipulations, segmenting a task by whether the governing information is spatial, contact-based, or proprioceptive, and choosing a control method accordingly.
  • The 5/35 end-to-end rate suggests the modular approach's current value is debuggability rather than immediate performance; a natural follow-up is a learned transition policy that repositions the hand between lift and rotation to match the RL training distribution.
  • Because the robot hand uses joint torque readings rather than distributed tactile sensors, the results also indicate that coarse proprioceptive feedback from four finger joints can support in-hand rotation, which is useful for hands without tactile skins.
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 proposes a modular, modality-driven pipeline for multi-step dexterous manipulation, using a neuroscience-inspired decomposition of a pick-and-rotate task into reaching (classical IK controller), grasping and lifting (fine-tuned Octo VLA with RGB and torque observations), and in-hand rotation (four RL policies trained in IsaacGym with force-only feedback). The system is evaluated on a UR10e robot with a Shadow Dexterous Hand; a real-robot study reports 35/35 reaching, 34/35 grasp-lift, and 5/35 end-to-end success. The paper also reports that augmenting 40 real demonstrations with 4,000 simulated demonstrations improves the robustness of the Octo grasping model across object variants.

Significance. If the central claim held, the paper would offer a practical methodology for decomposing long-horizon dexterous tasks and for selecting sub-skill observation spaces and controllers. The strengths are genuine: a real-robot demonstration, a clean three-stage decomposition, a concrete proposal that force-only policies can aid sim-to-real transfer, and direct evidence that simulated data augmentation helps VLA robustness. The main weakness is that the load-bearing modality assignment for in-hand rotation is never ablated, so the evidence supports the feasibility of the modular pipeline but not the neuroscience-driven choice of force-only observations. The small trial counts, the human-in-the-loop failure termination, and the outsourcing of RL policy details to an in-press paper further limit the strength of the conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II-C and Table II] The central claim is that each sub-skill should use the dominant sensory modality, yet the force-only choice for in-hand rotation is not tested. Section II-C concludes that in-hand rotations are contact-rich tasks where proprioceptive information is dominant and trains the RL policy "relying solely on force feedback," but no experiment varies the observation space by adding vision or removing torque. Table II shows that the pipeline degrades precisely at the rotation steps (33/35 after step 1, 24/35 after step 2, 20/35 after step 3, 5/35 after step 4), so the observed failures are equally compatible with the hypothesis that force feedback is insufficient and that visual feedback would help. This is load-bearing because the paper's contribution is not merely modularity but a neuroscience-based modality assignment.
  2. [Section IV (Experiment)] There is no comparison against a single-model or alternative-modality baseline. The paper explicitly declines to compare with single-model approaches in Section IV, citing prior work by Cheng et al. and Mehta et al., but those prior results do not establish that the force-only modality is optimal or sufficient for the rotation sub-skills. Without an ablation that adds vision to the rotation policy, or a baseline that replaces the force-only policy with a vision-augmented one, the end-to-end success rate cannot be attributed to the neuroscience-inspired modality choice.
  3. [Section V-B] The trial counts are small and the stopping rule is subjective: Table I uses only 5 trials per cell, the end-to-end result is based on 35 trials, and Section V-B states that "if the task was deemed a failure through human visual inspection, the process was immediately terminated at that stage." The reported 5/35 success rate may therefore depend on the experimenter's moment-by-moment judgment of failure; the paper should report at least the criterion for termination and ideally automatic success metrics or inter-rater agreement. In addition, the RL policies for in-hand rotation are described only by reference to the in-press paper [60], so the present manuscript does not specify rewards, hyperparameters, or training details needed for reproduction.
  4. [Section VI (Discussion and Conclusion)] The discussion admits that end-to-end performance remains limited and that a likely cause is the mismatch between the grasping state produced by the Octo model and the state distribution assumed during RL training. This limitation is important because it implies that the main bottleneck may be the interface between sub-skills rather than the modality assignment within any sub-skill. The paper should either provide evidence that the modality assignment is the key factor (e.g., by showing that improved handover reduces rotation failures) or soften the claim that the neuroscience-based modality mapping is validated by the current experiments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-A] There is a typo: "superior parietal lobue" should read "superior parietal lobule."
  2. [References] References [14] and [33] are the same paper by Grafton et al.; the duplicate should be removed or consolidated.
  3. [Table I] The object labels "Orange jello-size box," "Green jello-size box," "Blue diamond," and "Blue spam-size box" are informal; for reproducibility, provide dimensions or YCB identifiers where available.
  4. [Section IV-B] The description of simulated data augmentation does not give the randomization ranges for object position, shape, scale, and lighting; stating these ranges would make the robustness claim more reproducible.
  5. [Section IV-D] The Octo model's observation space includes torque feedback in addition to RGB images, so the phrase "VLA model" in the paper may suggest a purely visual policy; the mixed observation space should be emphasized in the main text to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measured real-robot outcomes and external neuroscience evidence carry the claims; the modality assignment is an untested design choice, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense defined here. Each sub-skill is implemented with a different method (classical IK control, a fine-tuned Octo VLA model, and RL with force feedback) and evaluated by direct real-robot success counts in Tables I and II. The force-only in-hand rotation policy is explicitly introduced as a design proposal ('we consider in-hand rotations as contact-rich tasks where proprioceptive information is dominant and propose an RL approach that relies solely on force feedback', Section II-C), not as a quantity fitted to the same data that is later reported as a prediction. The neuroscience mapping is supported by external citations to the behavioral and imaging literature; these are independent of the present robot results. Self-citations, such as [60] for the rotation-subtask decomposition and reward details, provide implementation provenance rather than evidence of success; the paper's own real-robot experiments supply the performance numbers. The absence of an ablation with vision-augmented rotation policies weakens the modality-assignment claim as a validation matter, but it is not a circularity: no equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain makes the outcome equivalent to the input. The stated limitations in Section VI (offline learning, hand-crafted rewards, sim-to-real distribution mismatch) further indicate the authors report measured difficulties rather than reverse-engineering conclusions from assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the neuroscience-derived mapping between task phase and dominant sensory modality, on the sufficiency of the torque sensors, and on the validity of sim-to-real transfer. None of these are established by this paper; they are assumed from prior literature. There are no invented entities and no data-fitted parameters beyond hand-set implementation constants.

free parameters (2)
  • Pre-grasp reaching offset = unspecified (predetermined relative position)
    The reaching target is a fixed offset relative to the object, chosen by hand rather than learned; this is an implementation choice, not the main claim.
  • RL rollout steps per sub-skill = 1000
    Each RL sub-skill runs for 1000 steps at 10 Hz; this hand-set duration affects whether rotation completes, but is not a fitted parameter of the methodology.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Reaching requires visual spatial awareness
    Section II-A maps neuroimaging evidence to the choice of a vision-based reaching controller; the paper does not test alternative modalities for reaching.
  • domain assumption Grasping and lifting require visual, verbal, and proprioceptive feedback
    Section II-B justifies the VLA-plus-force design for grasping and lifting based on neuroscience literature; no ablation tests whether force is necessary.
  • domain assumption In-hand rotation requires tactile/force feedback and not visual feedback
    Section II-C concludes that in-hand rotation is force-dominant and trains the RL policy with force only; this premise is load-bearing and untested.
  • domain assumption Torque sensors on one joint per finger provide sufficient proprioceptive feedback
    Section IV-A states the hand has no tactile sensors and uses torque at FF3, MF3, RF3, TH2; the sufficiency of this signal is assumed.
  • domain assumption Sim-to-real transfer with domain randomization is valid for the VLA policy
    Section IV-B uses IsaacGym with randomized object position, shape, scale, and lighting; success in Table I supports this, but only over 5 trials per condition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modality-Driven Design for Multi-Step Dexterous Manipulation: Insights from Neuroscience." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RRTSOKUI

@misc{pith2026241211337,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modality-Driven Design for Multi-Step Dexterous Manipulation: Insights from Neuroscience},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RRTSOKUI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11337}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-step dexterous manipulation is a fundamental skill in household scenarios, yet remains an underexplored area in robotics. This paper proposes a modular approach, where each step of the manipulation process is addressed with dedicated policies based on effective modality input, rather than relying on a single end-to-end model. To demonstrate this, a dexterous robotic hand performs a manipulation task involving picking up and rotating a box. Guided by insights from neuroscience, the task is decomposed into three sub-skills, 1)reaching, 2)grasping and lifting, and 3)in-hand rotation, based on the dominant sensory modalities employed in the human brain. Each sub-skill is addressed using distinct methods from a practical perspective: a classical controller, a Vision-Language-Action model, and a reinforcement learning policy with force feedback, respectively. We tested the pipeline on a real robot to demonstrate the feasibility of our approach. The key contribution of this study lies in presenting a neuroscience-inspired, modality-driven methodology for multi-step dexterous manipulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11337 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In this paper, we propose that multi-step dexterous manipulation can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. To collect human demonstrations, we developed a vision-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. A successful example of end-to-end execution, from reaching to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [60]

    Apricot: Action primitives based on contact-state transition for in-hand tool manip- ulation

    Daichi Saito, Atsushi Kanehira, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, Naoki Wake, Jun Takamatsu, Hideki Koike, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. Apricot: Action primitives based on contact-state transition for in-hand tool manip- ulation. In 2024 IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), pages in–press. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebo- tar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choromanski, Tianli Ding, Danny Driess, Avinava Dubey, Chelsea Finn, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Joseph Dabis, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Haus- man, Alex Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, et al. Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  5. [4]

    Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models

    Abby O’Neill, Abdul Rehman, Abhinav Gupta, Abhiram Maddukuri, Abhishek Gupta, Abhishek Padalkar, Abraham Lee, Acorn Pooley, Agrim Gupta, Ajay Mandlekar, et al. Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08864 , 2023

    arXiv

  6. [5]

    Creative robot tool use with large language models

    Mengdi Xu, Peide Huang, Wenhao Yu, Shiqi Liu, Xilun Zhang, Yaru Niu, Tingnan Zhang, Fei Xia, Jie Tan, and Ding Zhao. Creative robot tool use with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13065, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    Generalizable long-horizon manipulations with large language models

    Haoyu Zhou, Mingyu Ding, Weikun Peng, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Lin Shao, and Chuang Gan. Generalizable long-horizon manipulations with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02264 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Prompt, plan, perform: Llm-based humanoid control via quantized imitation learning

    Jingkai Sun, Qiang Zhang, Yiqun Duan, Xiaoyang Jiang, Chong Cheng, and Renjing Xu. Prompt, plan, perform: Llm-based humanoid control via quantized imitation learning. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 16236–16242. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    Gpt-4v (ision) for robotics: Multimodal task planning from human demonstration

    Naoki Wake, Atsushi Kanehira, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, Jun Takamatsu, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. Gpt-4v (ision) for robotics: Multimodal task planning from human demonstration. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    Chatgpt empowered long-step robot control in various environments: A case application

    Naoki Wake, Atsushi Kanehira, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, Jun Takamatsu, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. Chatgpt empowered long-step robot control in various environments: A case application. IEEE Access, 2023

    2023

  3. [10]

    Integrated task and motion planning

    Caelan Reed Garrett, Rohan Chitnis, Rachel Holladay, Beomjoon Kim, Tom Silver, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, and Tom ´as Lozano-P ´erez. Integrated task and motion planning. Annual review of control, robotics, and autonomous systems , 4:265–293, 2021

    2021

  4. [11]

    Vision-language-action model and diffusion policy switching enables dexterous control of an anthropomorphic hand

    Cheng Pan, Kai Junge, and Josie Hughes. Vision-language-action model and diffusion policy switching enables dexterous control of an anthropomorphic hand. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14022 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    On the feasibility of a mixed-method approach for solving long horizon task-oriented dexterous manipulation

    Shaunak A Mehta and Rana Soltani Zarrin. On the feasibility of a mixed-method approach for solving long horizon task-oriented dexterous manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07403 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Func- tional anatomy of reaching and visuomotor learning: a positron emis- sion tomography study

    Ryuta Kawashima, Per E Roland, and Brendan T O’sullivan. Func- tional anatomy of reaching and visuomotor learning: a positron emis- sion tomography study. Cerebral Cortex, 5(2):111–122, 1995

    1995

  7. [14]

    Grafton, Andrew H

    Scott T. Grafton, Andrew H. Fagg, Roger P. Woods, and Michael A. Arbib. Functional anatomy of pointing and grasping in humans. Cerebral Cortex, 6(2):226–237, 03 1996

    1996

  8. [15]

    A comparison of frontoparietal fmri activation during anti-saccades and anti-pointing

    Jason D Connolly, Melvyn A Goodale, Joseph FX Desouza, Ravi S Menon, Tutis Vilis, Medical Research Council Group for Action, and Perception). A comparison of frontoparietal fmri activation during anti-saccades and anti-pointing. Journal of neurophysiology , 84(3):1645–1655, 2000

    2000

  9. [16]

    Topographical layout of hand, eye, calculation, and language-related areas in the human parietal lobe

    Olivier Simon, Jean-Franc ¸ois Mangin, Laurent Cohen, Denis Le Bihan, and Stanislas Dehaene. Topographical layout of hand, eye, calculation, and language-related areas in the human parietal lobe. Neuron, 33(3):475–487, 2002

    2002

  10. [17]

    Functional organization of human intraparietal and frontal cortex for attending, looking, and pointing

    Serguei V Astafiev, Gordon L Shulman, Christine M Stanley, Abra- ham Z Snyder, David C Van Essen, and Maurizio Corbetta. Functional organization of human intraparietal and frontal cortex for attending, looking, and pointing. Journal of Neuroscience , 23(11):4689–4699, 2003

    2003

  11. [18]

    Spatialvlm: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities

    Boyuan Chen, Zhuo Xu, Sean Kirmani, Brain Ichter, Dorsa Sadigh, Leonidas Guibas, and Fei Xia. Spatialvlm: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 14455–14465, 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Ruohan Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei. V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    The prehensile movements of the human hand

    John R Napier. The prehensile movements of the human hand. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume, 38(4):902–913, 1956

    1956

  14. [21]

    Passive and active closures by constraining mechanisms

    Tsuneo Yoshikawa. Passive and active closures by constraining mechanisms. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 121(3):418–424, 09 1999

    1999

  15. [22]

    Task-grasping from a demonstrated human strategy

    Daichi Saito, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, Naoki Wake, Jun Takamatsu, Hideki Koike, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. Task-grasping from a demonstrated human strategy. In 2022 IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids) , pages 880–887. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  16. [23]

    Grasp-type recognition leveraging object affordance

    Naoki Wake, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. Grasp-type recognition leveraging object affordance. HOBI–RO-MAN Workshop, 2020

    2020

  17. [24]

    Text-driven object affordance for guiding grasp- type recognition in multimodal robot teaching

    Naoki Wake, Daichi Saito, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, Hideki Koike, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. Text-driven object affordance for guiding grasp- type recognition in multimodal robot teaching. Machine Vision and Applications, 34(4):58, 2023

    2023

  18. [25]

    Modulation of primary motor cortex outputs from ventral premotor cortex during visually guided grasp in the macaque monkey

    Gita Prabhu, Hideki Shimazu, Gabriella Cerri, Thomas Brochier, Rachel L Spinks, Marc A Maier, and Roger N Lemon. Modulation of primary motor cortex outputs from ventral premotor cortex during visually guided grasp in the macaque monkey. The Journal of physiology, 587(5):1057–1...

    2009

  19. [26]

    Object representation in the ventral premotor cortex (area f5) of the monkey

    Akira Murata, Luciano Fadiga, Leonardo Fogassi, Vittorio Gallese, Vassilis Raos, and Giacomo Rizzolatti. Object representation in the ventral premotor cortex (area f5) of the monkey. Journal of neurophysiology, 78(4):2226–2230, 1997

    1997

  20. [27]

    Neural mechanisms of visual guidance of hand action in the parietal cortex of the monkey

    Hideo Sakata, Masato Taira, Akira Murata, and Seiichiro Mine. Neural mechanisms of visual guidance of hand action in the parietal cortex of the monkey. Cerebral cortex, 5(5):429–438, 1995

    1995

  21. [28]

    Cortical connections of the macaque anterior intraparietal (aip) area

    Elena Borra, Abdelouahed Belmalih, Roberta Calzavara, Marzio Ger- bella, Akira Murata, Stefano Rozzi, and Giuseppe Luppino. Cortical connections of the macaque anterior intraparietal (aip) area. Cerebral Cortex, 18(5):1094–1111, 2008

    2008

  22. [29]

    Separate visual pathways for perception and action

    Melvyn A Goodale and A David Milner. Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in neurosciences, 15(1):20–25, 1992

    1992

  23. [30]

    Neural activity in primary motor and dorsal premotor cortex in reaching tasks with the contralateral versus ipsilateral arm

    Paul Cisek, Donald J Crammond, and John F Kalaska. Neural activity in primary motor and dorsal premotor cortex in reaching tasks with the contralateral versus ipsilateral arm. Journal of neurophysiology , 89(2):922–942, 2003

    2003

  24. [31]

    A fronto-parietal network for rapid visual information processing: a pet study of sustained attention and working memory

    JT Coull, CD Frith, R Sx˙ J Frackowiak, and PM Grasby. A fronto-parietal network for rapid visual information processing: a pet study of sustained attention and working memory. Neuropsychologia, 34(11):1085–1095, 1996

    1996

  25. [32]

    Maintain- ing internal representations: the role of the human superior parietal lobe

    Daniel M Wolpert, Susan J Goodbody, and Masud Husain. Maintain- ing internal representations: the role of the human superior parietal lobe. Nature neuroscience, 1(6):529–533, 1998

    1998

  26. [33]

    Functional anatomy of pointing and grasping in humans

    Scott T Grafton, Andrew H Fagg, Roger P Woods, and Michael A Arbib. Functional anatomy of pointing and grasping in humans. Cerebral Cortex, 6(2):226–237, 1996

    1996

  27. [34]

    Roles of glabrous skin receptors and sensorimotor memory in automatic control of precision grip when lifting rougher or more slippery objects

    Roland S Johansson and Goran Westling. Roles of glabrous skin receptors and sensorimotor memory in automatic control of precision grip when lifting rougher or more slippery objects. Experimental brain research, 56:550–564, 1984

    1984

  28. [35]

    Independence of perceptual and sensorimotor predictions in the size–weight illusion

    J Randall Flanagan and Michael A Beltzner. Independence of perceptual and sensorimotor predictions in the size–weight illusion. Nature neuroscience, 3(7):737–741, 2000

    2000

  29. [36]

    Semantic constraints to represent common sense required in household actions for multimodal learning-from-observation robot

    Katsushi Ikeuchi, Naoki Wake, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, and Jun Taka- matsu. Semantic constraints to represent common sense required in household actions for multimodal learning-from-observation robot. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 43(2):134–170, 2024

    2024

  30. [37]

    A learning-from-observation framework: One-shot robot teaching for grasp-manipulation-release household operations

    Naoki Wake, Riku Arakawa, Iori Yanokura, Takuya Kiyokawa, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, Jun Takamatsu, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. A learning-from-observation framework: One-shot robot teaching for grasp-manipulation-release household operations. In 2021 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on S...

    2021

  31. [38]

    Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy

    Octo Model Team, Dibya Ghosh, Homer Walke, Karl Pertsch, Kevin Black, Oier Mees, Sudeep Dasari, Joey Hejna, Tobias Kreiman, Charles Xu, et al. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Discrete policy: Learning disentangled action space for multi-task robotic manipulation

    Kun Wu, Yichen Zhu, Jinming Li, Junjie Wen, Ning Liu, Zhiyuan Xu, Qinru Qiu, and Jian Tang. Discrete policy: Learning disentangled action space for multi-task robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18707, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Importance of cutaneous feedback in maintaining a secure grip during manipulation of hand-held objects

    Anne-Sophie Augurelle, Allan M Smith, Thierry Lejeune, and Jean- Louis Thonnard. Importance of cutaneous feedback in maintaining a secure grip during manipulation of hand-held objects. Journal of neurophysiology, 89(2):665–671, 2003

    2003

  34. [41]

    Selective deficits of grip force control during object manipulation in patients with reduced sensibility of the grasping digits

    Dennis A Nowak and Joachim Hermsd ¨orfer. Selective deficits of grip force control during object manipulation in patients with reduced sensibility of the grasping digits. Neuroscience research, 47(1):65–72, 2003

    2003

  35. [42]

    The effects of digital anesthesia on force control using a precision grip

    Jo ¨el Monz ´ee, Yves Lamarre, and Allan M Smith. The effects of digital anesthesia on force control using a precision grip. Journal of neurophysiology, 89(2):672–683, 2003

    2003

  36. [43]

    A fronto-parietal circuit for object manipulation in man: evidence from an fmri-study

    Ferdinand Binkofski, Giovanni Buccino, Stefan Posse, R ¨udiger J Seitz, Giacomo Rizzolatti, and H-J Freund. A fronto-parietal circuit for object manipulation in man: evidence from an fmri-study. European Journal of Neuroscience , 11(9):3276–3286, 1999

    1999

  37. [44]

    Learning robot in-hand manipulation with tactile features

    Herke Van Hoof, Tucker Hermans, Gerhard Neumann, and Jan Peters. Learning robot in-hand manipulation with tactile features. In 2015 IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), pages 121–127. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  38. [45]

    Learning time-optimal and speed-adjustable tactile in-hand manipula- tion

    Johannes Pitz, Lennart R ¨ostel, Leon Sievers, and Berthold B ¨auml. Learning time-optimal and speed-adjustable tactile in-hand manipula- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13148 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Activation in the ipsilateral posterior parietal cortex during tool use: a pet study

    Kentaro Inoue, Ryuta Kawashima, Motoaki Sugiura, Akira Ogawa, Torsten Schormann, Karl Zilles, and Hiroshi Fukuda. Activation in the ipsilateral posterior parietal cortex during tool use: a pet study. Neuroimage, 14(6):1469–1475, 2001

    2001

  40. [47]

    Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation

    OpenAI: Marcin Andrychowicz, Bowen Baker, Maciek Chociej, Rafal Jozefowicz, Bob McGrew, Jakub Pachocki, Arthur Petron, Matthias Plappert, Glenn Powell, Alex Ray, et al. Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation. IJRR, 39(1):3–20, 2020

    2020

  41. [48]

    Dextreme: Transfer of agile in-hand manipulation from simulation to reality

    Ankur Handa, Arthur Allshire, Viktor Makoviychuk, Aleksei Petrenko, Ritvik Singh, Jingzhou Liu, Denys Makoviichuk, Karl Van Wyk, Alexander Zhurkevich, Balakumar Sundaralingam, et al. Dextreme: Transfer of agile in-hand manipulation from simulation to reality. In ICRA, pages 59...

    2023

  42. [49]

    Rotating without seeing: Towards in-hand dexterity through touch

    Zhao-Heng Yin, Binghao Huang, Yuzhe Qin, Qifeng Chen, and Xiaolong Wang. Rotating without seeing: Towards in-hand dexterity through touch. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10880 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  43. [50]

    A system for general in-hand object re-orientation

    Tao Chen, Jie Xu, and Pulkit Agrawal. A system for general in-hand object re-orientation. In Conference on Robot Learning , pages 297–

  44. [51]

    In-hand object rotation via rapid motor adaptation

    Haozhi Qi, Ashish Kumar, Roberto Calandra, Yi Ma, and Jitendra Malik. In-hand object rotation via rapid motor adaptation. In CoRL, pages 1722–1732. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  45. [52]

    General in-hand object rotation with vision and touch

    Haozhi Qi, Brent Yi, Sudharshan Suresh, Mike Lambeta, Yi Ma, Roberto Calandra, and Jitendra Malik. General in-hand object rotation with vision and touch. In CoRL, pages 2549–2564. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  46. [53]

    Dexterous imitation made easy: A learning-based framework for efficient dexterous manipulation

    Sridhar Pandian Arunachalam, Sneha Silwal, Ben Evans, and Lerrel Pinto. Dexterous imitation made easy: A learning-based framework for efficient dexterous manipulation. In 2023 ieee international conference on robotics and automation (icra) , pages 5954–5961. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  47. [54]

    Solving rubik’s cube with a robot hand

    Ilge Akkaya, Marcin Andrychowicz, Maciek Chociej, Mateusz Litwin, Bob McGrew, Arthur Petron, Alex Paino, Matthias Plappert, Glenn Powell, Raphael Ribas, et al. Solving rubik’s cube with a robot hand. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.07113 , 2019

    1910 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Towards human-level bimanual dexterous manip- ulation with reinforcement learning

    Yuanpei Chen, Tianhao Wu, Shengjie Wang, Xidong Feng, Jiechuan Jiang, Zongqing Lu, Stephen McAleer, Hao Dong, Song-Chun Zhu, and Yaodong Yang. Towards human-level bimanual dexterous manip- ulation with reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ...

    2022

  49. [56]

    Optimal control with learned local models: Application to dexterous manipulation

    Vikash Kumar, Emanuel Todorov, and Sergey Levine. Optimal control with learned local models: Application to dexterous manipulation. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2016

    2016

  50. [57]

    Interactive learning for multi- finger dexterous hand: A model-free hierarchical deep reinforcement learning approach

    Baojiang Li, Shengjie Qiu, Jibo Bai, Bin Wang, Zhekai Zhang, Liang Li, Haiyan Wang, and Xichao Wang. Interactive learning for multi- finger dexterous hand: A model-free hierarchical deep reinforcement learning approach. Knowledge-Based Systems, 295:111847, 2024

    2024

  51. [58]

    Task-oriented tool manipulation with robotic dexterous hands: A knowledge graph approach from fingers to func- tionality

    Fan Yang, Wenrui Chen, Haoran Lin, Sijie Wu, Xin Li, Zhiyong Li, and Yaonan Wang. Task-oriented tool manipulation with robotic dexterous hands: A knowledge graph approach from fingers to func- tionality. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics , 2024

    2024

  52. [59]

    Reset- free reinforcement learning via multi-task learning: Learning dexterous manipulation behaviors without human intervention

    Abhishek Gupta, Justin Yu, Tony Z Zhao, Vikash Kumar, Aaron Rovinsky, Kelvin Xu, Thomas Devlin, and Sergey Levine. Reset- free reinforcement learning via multi-task learning: Learning dexterous manipulation behaviors without human intervention. In 2021 IEEE International Confe...

    2021

  53. [61]

    Sequential dexterity: Chaining dexterous policies for long-horizon manipulation

    Yuanpei Chen, Chen Wang, Li Fei-Fei, and C Karen Liu. Sequential dexterity: Chaining dexterous policies for long-horizon manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00987 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Towards testing and evaluating vision-language-action models for robotic manipulation: An empirical study

    Zhijie Wang, Zhehua Zhou, Jiayang Song, Yuheng Huang, Zhan Shu, and Lei Ma. Towards testing and evaluating vision-language-action models for robotic manipulation: An empirical study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12894, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Dexcap: Scalable and portable mocap data collection system for dexterous manipulation

    Chen Wang, Haochen Shi, Weizhuo Wang, Ruohan Zhang, Li Fei-Fei, and C Karen Liu. Dexcap: Scalable and portable mocap data collection system for dexterous manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07788, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Nimbro avatar: Interactive immersive telepresence with force-feedback telemanipulation

    Max Schwarz, Christian Lenz, Andre Rochow, Michael Schreiber, and Sven Behnke. Nimbro avatar: Interactive immersive telepresence with force-feedback telemanipulation. In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 5312–

    2021

  57. [65]

    A glove-based system for studying hand-object manipulation via joint pose and force sensing

    Hangxin Liu, Xu Xie, Matt Millar, Mark Edmonds, Feng Gao, Yixin Zhu, Veronica J Santos, Brandon Rothrock, and Song-Chun Zhu. A glove-based system for studying hand-object manipulation via joint pose and force sensing. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Ro...

    2017

  58. [66]

    High-fidelity grasping in virtual reality using a glove-based system

    Hangxin Liu, Zhenliang Zhang, Xu Xie, Yixin Zhu, Yue Liu, Yongtian Wang, and Song-Chun Zhu. High-fidelity grasping in virtual reality using a glove-based system. In 2019 international conference on robotics and automation (icra) , pages 5180–5186. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  59. [67]

    Robotic telekinesis: Learning a robotic hand imitator by watching humans on youtube

    Aravind Sivakumar, Kenneth Shaw, and Deepak Pathak. Robotic telekinesis: Learning a robotic hand imitator by watching humans on youtube. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.10448 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Dexpilot: Vision-based teleoperation of dexterous robotic hand-arm system

    Ankur Handa, Karl Van Wyk, Wei Yang, Jacky Liang, Yu-Wei Chao, Qian Wan, Stan Birchfield, Nathan Ratliff, and Dieter Fox. Dexpilot: Vision-based teleoperation of dexterous robotic hand-arm system. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 9...

    2020

  61. [69]

    A dexterous hand-arm tele- operation system based on hand pose estimation and active vision

    Shuang Li, Norman Hendrich, Hongzhuo Liang, Philipp Ruppel, Changshui Zhang, and Jianwei Zhang. A dexterous hand-arm tele- operation system based on hand pose estimation and active vision. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics , 54(3):1417–1428, 2022

    2022

  62. [70]

    From one hand to multiple hands: Imitation learning for dexterous manipulation from single-camera teleoperation

    Yuzhe Qin, Hao Su, and Xiaolong Wang. From one hand to multiple hands: Imitation learning for dexterous manipulation from single-camera teleoperation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 7(4):10873–10881, 2022

    2022

  63. [71]

    Bunny-visionpro: Real-time bimanual dexterous teleoperation for imitation learning

    Runyu Ding, Yuzhe Qin, Jiyue Zhu, Chengzhe Jia, Shiqi Yang, Ruihan Yang, Xiaojuan Qi, and Xiaolong Wang. Bunny-visionpro: Real-time bimanual dexterous teleoperation for imitation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03162, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Anyteleop: A general vision-based dexterous robot arm-hand teleoperation system

    Yuzhe Qin, Wei Yang, Binghao Huang, Karl Van Wyk, Hao Su, Xiaolong Wang, Yu-Wei Chao, and Dieter Fox. Anyteleop: A general vision-based dexterous robot arm-hand teleoperation system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04577, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Reconstructing hands in 3D with transformers

    Georgios Pavlakos, Dandan Shan, Ilija Radosavovic, Angjoo Kanazawa, David Fouhey, and Jitendra Malik. Reconstructing hands in 3D with transformers. In CVPR, 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

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

    Berk Calli, Arjun Singh, Aaron Walsman, Siddhartha Srinivasa, Pieter Abbeel, and Aaron M Dollar. The ycb object and model set: Towards common benchmarks for manipulation research. In 2015 international conference on advanced robotics (ICAR), pages 510–517. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  67. [75]

    Data scaling laws in imitation learning for robotic manipulation

    Fanqi Lin, Yingdong Hu, Pingyue Sheng, Chuan Wen, Jiacheng You, and Yang Gao. Data scaling laws in imitation learning for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18647 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Grasp planning from human prehension

    Thea Iberall. Grasp planning from human prehension. In IJCAI, volume 87, pages 1153–1157. Citeseer, 1987

    1987

  69. [77]

    Verbal focus-of-attention system for learning-from- demonstration

    Naoki Wake, Iori Yanokura, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. Verbal focus-of-attention system for learning-from- demonstration. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 10377–10384. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  70. [78]

    Isaac gym: High performance gpu-based physics simulation for robot learning

    Viktor Makoviychuk, Lukasz Wawrzyniak, Yunrong Guo, Michelle Lu, Kier Storey, Miles Macklin, David Hoeller, Nikita Rudin, Arthur Allshire, Ankur Handa, et al. Isaac gym: High performance gpu-based physics simulation for robot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.10470, 2021

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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