Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 69 references

Kiri-Spoon: A Kirigami Utensil for Robot-Assisted Feeding

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A soft kirigami utensil can make robot arms feed people more reliably than traditional forks and spoons, especially on slippery foods.

desk verdict A genuinely useful design paper with a transparent mechanics model, but the 'diverse foods' claim outruns the evidence in Section 5. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01323 v1 pith:RG4ZXQTK submitted 2025-01-02 cs.RO

Maya Keely , Brandon Franco , Casey Grothoff , Rajat Kumar Jenamani , Tapomayukh Bhattacharjee , Dylan P. Losey , Heramb Nemlekar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords kirigamisoftroboticsrobot-assistedfeedingassistiveshape-morphingstructuresfoodmanipulationend-effectordesign
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

Robot-assisted feeding is hard partly because the rigid forks and spoons robots use are designed for human hands, not for a robot arm to manipulate. The paper proposes Kiri-Spoon, a spoon-shaped utensil made from a kirigami sheet — a cut plastic sheet that, when pulled at its ends, buckles into a curved bowl that wraps around food. The authors argue that this built-in mechanical intelligence makes food acquisition, carrying, and bite transfer fundamentally easier for a robot, and they test that claim across multiple foods, robot arms, and control algorithms. Their results show Kiri-Spoon matching or beating traditional utensils on most foods, with the largest gains on slippery items, and they find that pairing Kiri-Spoon with an autonomous feeding algorithm gives the best overall performance. The paper also derives a mechanics model that predicts the actuation force from the sheet's geometry and material, intended to let other designers customize the utensil.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the kirigami sheet: an elliptical, 3D-printed plastic sheet (thermoplastic polyurethane) with a boundary ribbon, discrete ribbons, and a mesh of connecting ribbons. When one end is retracted, the discrete ribbons buckle and the flat ellipse morphs into a bowl, with curvature controlled continuously by how far the sheet is pulled. A flexible hoop made of nitinol wire holds one end and lets the utensil bend against plates and the mouth, and a compact linear actuator drives the other end. The mechanics model splits the actuation force into three terms — boundary bending and stretching, discrete-ribbon arching, and mesh-beam resistance — and combines them into a lower-bound prediction of tensile force as a function of displacement. The paper validates this model on four sheets of different thickness, radius, and material, reporting sub-millimeter errors in predicted width and less than 1 Newton error in predicted force for the TPU sheets.

What would settle it

Run the same autonomous acquisition pipeline with Kiri-Spoon on a broad set of flat, large, and mixed-texture foods (for example, lettuce leaves, bread slices, and noodle-with-meatball dishes) and compare success rates to the 80% or higher rates reported for round and small foods; a substantial drop would show the mechanical advantage does not extend across diverse foods as claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single soft kirigami utensil can combine the comfortable form factor of a spoon with the encapsulation ability of a soft gripper, and that this combination advances robot-assisted feeding across diverse foods, multiple robot platforms, and different manipulation algorithms. In the paper's telling, the Kiri-Spoon's 2D elliptical sheet, when actuated by a one-degree-of-freedom linear actuator, deforms into a 3D bowl that encloses morsels, letting the robot grasp foods without precise skewering or scooping motions. The paper shows that this lets one utensil function as a fork (pinching foods against a plate) and as a spoon (scooping liquids), that it holds slippery foods more securely than rigid utensils, and that its mechanical benefit is additive with state-of-the-art acquisition algorithms. It also reports that a stakeholder-driven redesign, guided by caregivers and users with mobility impairments, produced a version that users rated nearly as comfortable as a traditional spoon while perceiving it as more effective.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that actuating the kirigami sheet wraps and holds arbitrary bite-sized foods is tested only on a fixed set of foods; the mechanics of encapsulation across food size, hardness, and surface texture is not modeled, so the breadth of the mechanical advantage is an unquantified empirical premise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot arm can acquire many foods with the Kiri-Spoon while holding a constant pitch, so the arm no longer needs to tune its orientation per food item.
  • One Kiri-Spoon can replace both a fork and a spoon, eliminating end-effector changes during a meal.
  • Slippery and soft foods such as jello, tofu, and canned oranges are held more securely than with traditional utensils, reducing spill during transit.
  • Combining Kiri-Spoon with autonomous acquisition algorithms yields more food per attempt and fewer failed attempts than either the mechanical or algorithmic improvement alone.
  • The mechanics model gives designers a way to choose kirigami sheet geometry, material, and actuator size for a customized utensil.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The wrapping action is demonstrated on a specific set of bite-sized foods; a natural next step is to test whether the same mechanism generalizes to foods with irregular shapes, varying hardness, or sticky surfaces, since the mechanics model does not currently predict encapsulation success from food properties.
  • The same shape-morphing bowl principle could be applied to other assistive tasks, such as picking up medication, handling cups, or retrieving items from flat surfaces, whenever a compliant enclosing shape would help a robot arm.
  • If the mechanics model is used as a design tool, it could be inverted to ask which kirigami geometry maximizes holding force for a given food class, rather than merely predicting force for a fixed design.
  • The user studies suggest that familiarity plays a role in comfort ratings; a longer-term exposure study could reveal whether the initial comfort gap with traditional utensils shrinks with practice.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents Kiri-Spoon, a kirigami-based soft utensil for robot-assisted feeding. The device consists of a flat elliptical kirigami sheet (TPU) mounted on a nitinol hoop and driven by a 1-DoF linear actuator; retracting one end buckles the sheet into a bowl of increasing curvature, so a robot arm can wrap around, contain, and then compliantly release bite-sized foods while retaining a spoon-like form for bite transfer. The paper contributes (i) a stakeholder-driven iterative design process with residents of The Virginia Home and occupational therapists, (ii) a mechanics model that predicts a lower bound on actuation force from ring-bending, catenary, and beam theory, validated on four sheets of varying thickness, size, and material, and (iii) three experiments: autonomous acquisition of ten foods by a Franka arm using SPANet (Section 5), a two-session user study with N=4 adults with mobility impairments using an Obi feeding device (Section 6), and a within-subjects study with N=16 participants without disabilities on a UR5 crossing utensil (Kiri-Spoon vs. fork/spoon) and control algorithm (teleoperation vs. SPANet autonomy) (Section 7). The central claim is that mechanical intelligence embodied in Kiri-Spoon advances robot-assisted feeding across diverse foods, multiple platforms, and different manipulation algorithms; design files and videos are open-sourced.

Significance. Assuming the results hold, Kiri-Spoon is a substantive contribution to assistive feeding hardware. The design occupies a sensible niche between rigid utensils and soft grippers; the mechanics model is transparent and parameter-free, with material properties taken from data sheets and no constants fitted to the validation data; and the experimental protocol deliberately favors the baseline (the scooping motion was tuned offline to maximize the traditional spoon's success, and SPANet selects the fork's pitch), making the observed advantages conservative. The paper also ships open design files and videos, validates predictions against measured forces (mean force errors below 1 N for three of four sheets), reports a powered within-subjects study (N=16) with significant main effects of utensil on attempts, amount, and rotation inputs, and discloses its limitations forthrightly (N=4 in Section 6, the lettuce failure mode in Sections 5 and 8, and the model's lower-bound status).

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3–5.4, Figure 10] The acquisition results are point estimates with no uncertainty quantification, and the comparative claims in Section 5.4 go beyond what these data support. Each picking condition is a single binomial proportion from n=10 attempts and each scooping condition is a single aggregate weight over n=10 attempts, so no confidence interval, error bar, or significance test can be constructed; for a success proportion of 0.8 with n=10, the 95% Clopper–Pearson interval spans roughly 0.44–0.97, so the Section 5.4 conclusions that Kiri-Spoon 'outperforms traditional utensils in acquiring slippery foods such as jello and tofu' rest on differences that are not statistically significant at the level of individual foods. Because Section 5 is the primary evidence for the 'diverse foods' component of the central claim, please add binomial confidence intervals or replicated blocks for the picking task, replicate the scooping-weight measurement with a dispersion estimate, or explicitly rescope the Section 5.4 conclusions to what the point estimates support.
  2. [Section 5.2, Section 5.4, Figure 5] The paper asserts a general mechanical advantage, but the food-property space over which that advantage is claimed is never characterized or sampled. Section 5.2 selects foods for 'varying size, shape, hardness, and consistency,' yet none of the properties that govern encapsulation — morsel size relative to the sheet radius, compliance, surface friction, or geometry — is measured or systematically varied, and the Section 4 model predicts actuation force versus sheet shape, not whether a given morsel will be contained. The only documented boundary of the failure region is the large, flat lettuce case (Section 5.4), and the fork-like pinching mode illustrated in Figure 5 is demonstrated anecdotally but never modeled or mapped across food types. The abstract's 'diverse foods' phrasing is therefore an extrapolation from a convenience sample of ten foods to an uncharacterized property space; either measure the governing food properties and map where acquisition succeeds and fails, or weaken the generality claim to the foods actually tested and note that Kiri-Spoon's flat-food failure mode is not yet characterized.
  3. [Section 4.5, Equation (4), Section 1 contributions] The 'Summary and Personalization' paragraph of Section 4.5 states that the model gives '<1N error' for tensile force across sheets of 'varying thicknesses, sizes, and materials,' but the results in the same subsection report mean force errors above 1 N for sheet D (PET) and half-width errors above 2 mm for sheet B, and the Figure 8 caption acknowledges that torsion and boundary stretching are not modeled until the hand-defined minimum-width threshold bmin in Equation (4) is reached. Since the contribution list in Section 1 claims the model is 'an accurate lower bound across Kiri-Spoon designs with varying materials, thickness, and size,' the summary overstates the validation data; please report the numerical errors for sheets B and D explicitly and qualify the headline claim accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'morels of food' should read 'morsels of food'.
  2. [Sections 4.5 and 5.4] There are several typos and spacing errors: 'Our rational here is' should be 'Our rationale here is,' the Figure 8 caption contains 'Y oung's modulus' with an odd space, and Section 5.4 uses 'affect' where 'effect' is intended ('a noticeable affect on our Kiri-Spoon performance').
  3. [Section 6.5 and Section 1] The manuscript's own disclosure that N=4 is 'not sufficient to reliably perform statistical tests' is transparent and appropriate; please keep that hedge prominent in the final text, since the Section 6 perception results are descriptive and the abstract's framing of 'three separate experiments' should not imply equal inferential strength across the three studies.
  4. [Section 7.5] The phrase 'complementary benefits' is used where the reported statistics support additive main effects: the utensil-by-algorithm interaction was not significant for attempts or amount and only marginal (p=0.059) for total time; consider wording such as 'additive benefits' to match the analysis.
  5. [Figure 10] The right panel is labeled 'Weights (gm)' and, as reported in Section 5.3, each value is the total weight collected over ten attempts; the figure caption should state this aggregation explicitly and use consistent units, because without per-trial dispersion the plot can be misread as a distribution.
  6. [References] Two reference entries contain typos: the Gere and Goodno publisher is spelled 'Cengange Learning' instead of 'Cengage Learning,' and the Padmanabha et al. entry renders the tool name as 'V oicepilot' instead of 'Voicepilot'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mechanics model is validated against independent force and geometry measurements, and the performance claims rest on new experiments rather than on the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The mechanics model in Section 4 combines standard beam, ring, and catenary theory with material properties (E, I, A) that come from data sheets, and it introduces no constants fitted to the validation measurements. Section 4.5 then checks the model's predictions of semi-minor axis and tensile force against independent sensor measurements across four sheets, and Appendix A.1 checks the boundary bending force against an ANSYS simulation, so the model's accuracy is externally falsifiable. The one self-citation, 'Building on our early work (Keely et al. 2024b), we model the arch formed by a discrete ribbon as a catenary,' is a modeling assumption inherited from prior work, but it is not a reduction of the paper's central claims to its own inputs, and the resulting model is empirically validated rather than asserted by citation. The empirical claims about acquisition success, user comfort, and algorithmic complementarity are supported by new experiments in Sections 5, 6, and 7, with acknowledged limitations such as the lettuce failure and the N=4 stakeholder sample; those are generality/correctness concerns, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is merely relabeled.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The mechanical derivation is self-contained and uses no fitted constants; all inputs are material properties, geometry, or standard beam theory. The experimental protocol includes hand-chosen setpoints (45-degree pitch, pre-defined curvatures, offline-tuned baseline scooping motion) that affect the comparison. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Kiri-Spoon acquisition pitch (picking tasks) = 45 degrees
    The robot holds Kiri-Spoon at a constant 45-degree pitch for all picked foods (Section 5.1), a hand-chosen value that may affect acquisition success and comparison fairness.
  • Traditional spoon scooping motion profile = Tuned offline
    The scooping trajectory for the baseline spoon was tuned in offline experiments to maximize its success (Section 5.1), a post hoc choice that could bias the comparison.
  • Kiri-Spoon actuation curvature setpoints = Pre-defined spoon-like and high-curvature states
    The specific curvature setpoints for scooping and picking are chosen by the experimenters (Section 5.1) and not justified by the mechanics model.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Ring bending theory for circular rings
    Used to derive Fbend in Eq. (2) by treating the boundary as a circular ring with constant radius r.
  • standard math Euler-Bernoulli cantilever beam theory
    Used for discrete ribbon resistance Pi via Eq. (7).
  • domain assumption Catenary shape of buckled discrete ribbons
    The arch shape is assumed to be a catenary (Eqs. 5-6) based on prior work, not directly measured in this paper.
  • domain assumption Constant perimeter of the boundary ribbon during deformation
    Eq. (1) assumes the ellipse perimeter equals the initial circumference, which the paper acknowledges fails at large displacements.
  • ad hoc to paper Four-bar linkage model for force transmission through the boundary
    Appendix A.2 models the boundary as a four-bar linkage to derive Fdiscrete; this is an idealized representation introduced for this derivation.
  • domain assumption Foods are bite-sized and presented on a plate or bowl
    The problem statement (Section 3.1) assumes the robot does not need to cut food.
  • domain assumption TPU and nitinol are food-safe for repeated oral contact
    The paper states the materials are food-safe (Section 3.3) without providing certification or migration testing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kiri-Spoon: A Kirigami Utensil for Robot-Assisted Feeding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RG4ZXQTK

@misc{pith2026250101323,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kiri-Spoon: A Kirigami Utensil for Robot-Assisted Feeding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RG4ZXQTK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01323}
}
read the original abstract

For millions of adults with mobility limitations, eating meals is a daily challenge. A variety of robotic systems have been developed to address this societal need. Unfortunately, end-user adoption of robot-assisted feeding is limited, in part because existing devices are unable to seamlessly grasp, manipulate, and feed diverse foods. Recent works seek to address this issue by creating new algorithms for food acquisition and bite transfer. In parallel to these algorithmic developments, however, we hypothesize that mechanical intelligence will make it fundamentally easier for robot arms to feed humans. We therefore propose Kiri-Spoon, a soft utensil specifically designed for robot-assisted feeding. Kiri-Spoon consists of a spoon-shaped kirigami structure: when actuated, the kirigami sheet deforms into a bowl of increasing curvature. Robot arms equipped with Kiri-Spoon can leverage the kirigami structure to wrap-around morsels during acquisition, contain those items as the robot moves, and then compliantly release the food into the user's mouth. Overall, Kiri-Spoon combines the familiar and comfortable shape of a standard spoon with the increased capabilities of soft robotic grippers. In what follows, we first apply a stakeholder-driven design process to ensure that Kiri-Spoon meets the needs of caregivers and users with physical disabilities. We next characterize the dynamics of Kiri-Spoon, and derive a mechanics model to relate actuation force to the spoon's shape. The paper concludes with three separate experiments that evaluate (a) the mechanical advantage provided by Kiri-Spoon, (b) the ways users with disabilities perceive our system, and (c) how the mechanical intelligence of Kiri-Spoon complements state-of-the-art algorithms. Our results suggest that Kiri-Spoon advances robot-assisted feeding across diverse foods, multiple robotic platforms, and different manipulation algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01323 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Kiri-Spoon is a spoon-shaped kirigami utensil specifically designed for robot-assisted feeding. (Left) Robot arms equipped with Kiri-Spoon can robustly acquire foods from the plate, safely carry those morsels to the human, and then seamlessly transfer items into the user’s mouth. (Right) It is challenging for robot arms to dexterously manipulate traditional utensils such as forks and spoons. By comparison, Kiri-Spoo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Actuating and releasing Kiri-Spoon. The core element of Kiri-Spoon is an elliptical kirigami sheet with discrete ribbons orthogonal to the applied forces. Retracting one end of Kiri-Spoon causes this 2D sheet to buckle and form a 3D bowl with increasing curvature, thereby encapsulating food items. a way that is tailored to that specific food item. Next — after the food is grasped — the robot needs to smoothly regula… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Design of Kiri-Spoon. (Left) A kirigami sheet is used to grasp, hold, and release food items. This sheet is composed of multiple ribbons: a boundary ribbon that surrounds the sheet, discrete ribbons that form the base of the spoon, and mesh ribbons that interconnect the discrete ribbons. (Right) The kirigami sheet is supported on one end by a flexible hoop. The other end is extended or retracted by a 1-DoF linear ac… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two variations of Kiri-Spoon’s mesh. (Top) For most foods a discrete mesh is sufficient. (Bottom) However, for liquid foods such as soups, a thin membrane can be mounted to the kirigami sheet. The resulting continuous mesh prevents liquids from falling out of the botto…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Demonstration of the flexible hoop. This flexibility is not only comfortable for users, but it also enables Kiri-Spoon to bend along the surface of plates and bowls. We leverage this flexibility to deploy Kiri-Spoon like a fork and pinch foods that are directly beneath…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mechanics of the boundary and discrete ribbons under tensile load. (a) Fboundary is the tensile force component needed to bend the boundary ribbon. δx is the total displacement from its undeformed position. The boundary starts as a circle of radius r and bends into an …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dynamics of the mesh and discrete ribbons under tensile load. Fmesh is the additional tensile force component needed to deform the kirigami sheet due to the mesh ribbons. The tensile force is equally divided into the mesh ribbons. Each mesh ribbon bends a section of th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results of validation experiments in Section 4.5. (Left) The half-width b (semi-minor axis) and total tensile forces Ftensile predicted by our model for sheet A. The predicted and measured widths closely align up to a displacement of δx = 20, while the predicted forces…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Experimental setup for the autonomous tests in Section 5. (Left) Position and orientation of Kiri-Spoon during autonomous acquisition. When picking foods from a plate, the flexible hoop and kirigami sheet bend to align with the orientation of that plate. Upon reaching …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results for autonomous acquisition tests in Section 5. (Left) Kiri-Spoon successfully picks round foods such as carrots, tomatoes, peas, and tofu, but struggles to pick flat foods like lettuce as compared to a traditional fork. While the pitch of the fork needs to be …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Experimental setup and results from our second round of stakeholder tests in Section 6. (Left) Residents of The Virginia Home interacting with the Obi feeding device and scooping food using a traditional spoon and Kiri-Spoon. (Right) Objective and subjective results a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Experimental setup for our comparison of mechanical and algorithmic intelligence in Section 7. We varied the robot’s control algorithm and the feeding utensil, and explored the effects of both variables. (Left) Users teleoperating the robot arm to scoop food from the …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Objective results from our study in Section 7. Participants interacted with a robot arm using two control algorithms: either manual teleoperation or autonomous acquisition. For each control option, we tested robots equipped with traditional utensils (i.e., forks and s…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Physics simulation in support of Equation (2). (Left) ANSYS simulation environment. The initial circular boundary is shown in grey, while the colored ellipse depicts the deformed elliptical boundary for a displacement of 20 millimeters. (Right) Simulation results show…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Finding the resistance force caused by the discrete ribbons. (Left) Four-bar linkage model. Joints a and c specify the ends of the major axis of the elliptical boundary layer, while joints b and d specify its minor axis. The joints are connected by rigid links 1, 2, 3…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://www.ansys.com/products/structures/ansys-mechanical

    Ansys (2024) Ansys Mechanical. https://www.ansys.com/products/structures/ansys-mechanical

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 1: 441--463

    Argall BD (2018) Autonomy in rehabilitation robotics: A n intersection. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 1: 441--463

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation

    Belkhale S, Gordon EK, Chen Y, Srinivasa S, Bhattacharjee T and Sadigh D (2022) Balancing efficiency and comfort in robot-assisted bite transfer. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. pp. 4757--4763

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12876

    Bhaskar A, Liu R, Sharma VD, Shi G and Tokekar P (2024) LAVA: L ong-horizon visual action based food acquisition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12876

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Bhattacharjee T, Gordon EK, Scalise R, Cabrera ME, Caspi A, Cakmak M and Srinivasa SS (2020) Is more autonomy always better? E xploring preferences of users with mobility impairments in robot-assisted feeding. In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp. 181--190

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(44): 18809--18814

    Brown E, Rodenberg N, Amend J, Mozeika A, Steltz E, Zakin MR, Lipson H and Jaeger HM (2010) Universal robotic gripper based on the jamming of granular material. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(44): 18809--18814

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    IEEE Access

    Buzzatto J, Jiang H, Liang J, Busby B, Lynch A, Godoy RV, Matsunaga S, Haraguchi R, Mariyama T, Macdonald BA and Liarokapis M (2024) Multi-layer, sensorised kirigami grippers for delicate yet robust robot grasping and single-grasp object identification. IEEE Access

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    In: International Conference on Social Robotics

    Canal G, Aleny \`a G and Torras C (2016) Personalization framework for adaptive robotic feeding assistance. In: International Conference on Social Robotics. pp. 22--31

    work page 2016

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    https://elispoon.com/

    ELISpoon (2024) Independent Eating. https://elispoon.com/

    2024

  2. [10]

    In: Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference

    Fang Q, Kyrarini M, Ristic-Durrant D and Gr \"a ser A (2018) RGB-D camera based 3D human mouth detection and tracking towards robotic feeding assistance. In: Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference. pp. 391--396

    2018

  3. [11]

    In: The International Symposium of Robotics Research

    Feng R, Kim Y, Lee G, Gordon EK, Schmittle M, Kumar S, Bhattacharjee T and Srinivasa SS (2019) Robot-assisted feeding: G eneralizing skewering strategies across food items on a plate. In: The International Symposium of Robotics Research. pp. 427--442

    2019

  4. [12]

    In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, volume 78

    Fleming KC, Evans JM and Chutka DS (2003) Caregiver and clinician shortages in an aging nation. In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, volume 78. pp. 1026--1040

    2003

  5. [13]

    The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 21(4): 53--63

    Foote HS (1934) Spoons: P ast and present. The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 21(4): 53--63

    1934

  6. [14]

    https://franka.de/products

    Franka Robotics (2024) Franka Research 3. https://franka.de/products

    2024

  7. [15]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics

    Gafer A, Heymans D, Prattichizzo D and Salvietti G (2020) The quad-spatula gripper: A novel soft-rigid gripper for food handling. In: IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics. pp. 39--45

    2020

  8. [16]

    In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Gallenberger D, Bhattacharjee T, Kim Y and Srinivasa SS (2019) Transfer depends on acquisition: A nalyzing manipulation strategies for robotic feeding. In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp. 267--276

    2019

  9. [17]

    Cengange Learning

    Gere JM and Goodno BJ (2009) Mechanics of Materials. Cengange Learning

    2009

  10. [18]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3(2): 903--910

    Glick P, Suresh SA, Ruffatto D, Cutkosky M, Tolley MT and Parness A (2018) A soft robotic gripper with gecko-inspired adhesive. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3(2): 903--910

    2018

  11. [19]

    In: Conference on Robot Learning

    Gordon EK, Nanavati A, Challa R, Zhu BH, Faulkner TAK and Srinivasa S (2023) Towards general single-utensil food acquisition with human-informed actions. In: Conference on Robot Learning. pp. 2414--2428

    2023

  12. [20]

    In: Conference on Robot Learning

    Grannen J, Wu Y, Belkhale S and Sadigh D (2022) Learning bimanual scooping policies for food acquisition. In: Conference on Robot Learning

    2022

  13. [21]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems

    Ha N, Ye R, Liu Z, Sinha S and Bhattacharjee T (2024) REPeat: A real2sim2real approach for pre-acquisition of soft food items in robot-assisted feeding. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems

    2024

  14. [22]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 37(2): 350--362

    Hao Y, Biswas S, Hawkes EW, Wang T, Zhu M, Wen L and Visell Y (2020) A multimodal, enveloping soft gripper: S hape conformation, bioinspired adhesion, and expansion-driven suction. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 37(2): 350--362

    2020

  15. [23]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 37(4): 1065--1080

    Hu Q, Dong E and Sun D (2021) Soft gripper design based on the integration of flat dry adhesive, soft actuator, and microspine. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 37(4): 1065--1080

    2021

  16. [24]

    Journal of Clinical Nursing 9(2): 255--264

    Jacobsson C, Axelsson K, Österlind PO and Norberg A (2000) How people with stroke and healthy older people experience the eating process. Journal of Clinical Nursing 9(2): 255--264

    2000

  17. [25]

    In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Jenamani RK, Stabile D, Liu Z, Anwar A, Dimitropoulou K and Bhattacharjee T (2024 a ) Feel the bite: R obot-assisted inside-mouth bite transfer using robust mouth perception and physical interaction-aware control. In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interactio...

    2024

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07561

    Jenamani RK, Sundaresan P, Sakr M, Bhattacharjee T and Sadigh D (2024 b ) FLAIR: F eeding via long-horizon acquisition of realistic dishes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07561

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction

    Jonnavittula A, Mehta SA and Losey DP (2024) SARI: S hared autonomy across repeated interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction

    2024

  20. [28]

    Soft Robotics

    Keely M, Kim Y, Mehta SA, Hoegerman J, Sanchez RR, Paul E, Mills C, Losey DP and Bartlett MD (2024 a ) Combining and decoupling rigid and soft grippers to enhance robotic manipulation. Soft Robotics

    2024

  21. [29]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems

    Keely MN, Nemlekar H and Losey DP (2024 b ) Kiri- S poon: A soft shape-changing utensil for robot-assisted feeding. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems

    2024

  22. [30]

    https://assistive.kinovarobotics.com/

    Kinova (2024) Gain Autonomy. https://assistive.kinovarobotics.com/

    2024

  23. [31]

    magic-ball

    Li S, Stampfli JJ, Xu HJ, Malkin E, Diaz EV, Rus D and Wood RJ (2019) A vacuum-driven origami “magic-ball” soft gripper. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. pp. 7401--7408

    2019

  24. [33]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 12(2): 1--23

    Ljungblad S (2023) Applying ``designerly framing'' to understand assisted feeding as social aesthetic bodily experiences. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 12(2): 1--23

    2023

  25. [34]

    Autonomous Robots 46(1): 115--147

    Losey DP, Jeon HJ, Li M, Srinivasan K, Mandlekar A, Garg A, Bohg J and Sadigh D (2022) Learning latent actions to control assistive robots. Autonomous Robots 46(1): 115--147

    2022

  26. [35]

    In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Nanavati A, Alves-Oliveira P, Schrenk T, Gordon EK, Cakmak M and Srinivasa SS (2023 a ) Design principles for robot-assisted feeding in social contexts. In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp. 24--33

    2023

  27. [36]

    Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 7

    Nanavati A, Ranganeni V and Cakmak M (2023 b ) Physically assistive robots: A systematic review of mobile and manipulator robots that physically assist people with disabilities. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 7

    2023

  28. [37]

    In: IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration

    Naotunna I, Perera CJ, Sandaruwan C, Gopura R and Lalitharatne TD (2015) Meal assistance robots: A review on current status, challenges and future directions. In: IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration. pp. 211--216

    2015

  29. [38]

    Obi (2024) Meet Obi: The Adaptive Eating Device - Eat Independently! https://meetobi.com/

    2024

  30. [39]

    In: Conference on Robot Learning

    Ondras J, Anwar A, Wu T, Bu F, Jung M, Ortiz JJ and Bhattacharjee T (2023) Human-robot commensality: B ite timing prediction for robot-assisted feeding in groups. In: Conference on Robot Learning. pp. 921--933

    2023

  31. [40]

    In: ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology

    Padmanabha A, Yuan J, Gupta J, Karachiwalla Z, Majidi C, Admoni H and Erickson Z (2024) Voicepilot: Harnessing LLM s as speech interfaces for physically assistive robots. In: ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. pp. 1--18

    2024

  32. [41]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems

    Park D, Kim H, Hoshi Y, Erickson Z, Kapusta A and Kemp CC (2017) A multimodal execution monitor with anomaly classification for robot-assisted feeding. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. pp. 5406--5413

    2017

  33. [42]

    In: Human-Computer Interaction -- INTERACT 2021

    Pascher M, Baumeister A, Schneegass S, Klein B and Gerken J (2021) Recommendations for the development of a robotic drinking and eating aid-an ethnographic study. In: Human-Computer Interaction -- INTERACT 2021. pp. 331--351

    2021

  34. [43]

    Southwest Research Institute : 1–130

    Phillips GN (1987) Feasibility study for assistive feeder. Southwest Research Institute : 1–130

    1987

  35. [44]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI 9: 704225

    Rea DJ and Seo SH (2022) Still not solved: A call for renewed focus on user-centered teleoperation interfaces. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 9: 704225

    2022

  36. [45]

    In: IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication

    Ricardez GAG, Takamatsu J, Ogasawara T and Alfaro JS (2018) Quantitative comfort evaluation of eating assistive devices based on interaction forces estimation using an accelerometer. In: IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. pp. 909--914

    2018

  37. [46]

    In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Schrum ML, Johnson M, Ghuy M and Gombolay MC (2020) Four years in review: S tatistical practices of likert scales in human-robot interaction studies. In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp. 43--52

    2020

  38. [47]

    Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 22(1): 38--57

    Seamone W and Schmeisser G (1985) Early clinical evaluation of a robot arm/worktable system for spinal-cord-injured persons. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 22(1): 38--57

    1985

  39. [48]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation

    Shaikewitz L, Wu Y, Belkhale S, Grannen J, Sundaresan P and Sadigh D (2023) In-mouth robotic bite transfer with visual and haptic sensing. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. pp. 9885--9895

    2023

  40. [49]

    Advanced Materials 30(29)

    Shintake J, Cacucciolo V, Floreano D and Shea H (2018) Soft robotic grippers. Advanced Materials 30(29)

    2018

  41. [50]

    Rehabilitation Nursing Journal 45(2): 97--105

    Shune SE (2020) An altered eating experience: A ttitudes toward feeding assistance among younger and older adults. Rehabilitation Nursing Journal 45(2): 97--105

    2020

  42. [51]

    Bulletin of Prosthetics Research

    Staros A and Peizer E (1977) Veterans administration prosthetics center research report. Bulletin of Prosthetics Research

    1977

  43. [52]

    In: Conference on Robot Learning

    Sundaresan P, Belkhale S and Sadigh D (2023 a ) Learning visuo-haptic skewering strategies for robot-assisted feeding. In: Conference on Robot Learning. pp. 332--341

    2023

  44. [53]

    In: Conference on Robot Learning

    Sundaresan P, Wu J and Sadigh D (2023 b ) Learning sequential acquisition policies for robot-assisted feeding. In: Conference on Robot Learning

    2023

  45. [54]

    In: Conference on Robot Learning

    Tai YL, Chiu YC, Chao YW and Chen YT (2023) Scone: A food scooping robot learning framework with active perception. In: Conference on Robot Learning. pp. 849--865

    2023

  46. [55]

    US Census Bureau

    Taylor DM (2018) Americans With Disabilities: 2014. US Census Bureau

    2018

  47. [56]

    https://thevirginiahome.org/

    The Virginia Home (2024) A Rich Tradition of Compassion. https://thevirginiahome.org/

    2024

  48. [57]

    Courier Corporation

    Timoshenko SP and Gere JM (2012) Theory of Elastic Stability. Courier Corporation

    2012

  49. [58]

    Artificial Life and Robotics

    Topping M (2000) An overview of the development of H andy 1, a rehabilitation robot to assist the severely disabled. Artificial Life and Robotics

    2000

  50. [59]

    https://www.universal-robots.com/products/ur5e/

    Universal Robotics (2024) UR5e: Lightweight, Versatile Cobot. https://www.universal-robots.com/products/ur5e/

    2024

  51. [60]

    Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 19(4): 1262--1271

    van Dam K, Gielissen M, Bles R, van der Poel A and Boon B (2024) The impact of assistive living technology on perceived independence of people with a physical disability in executing daily activities: A systematic literature review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Tec...

    2024

  52. [61]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication

    Wald S, Puthuveetil K and Erickson Z (2024) D o mistakes matter? C omparing trust responses of different age groups to errors made by physically assistive robots. In: IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. pp. 373--380

    2024

  53. [62]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8: 789107

    Wang Z, Hirai S and Kawamura S (2022) Challenges and opportunities in robotic food handling: A review. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8: 789107

    2022

  54. [63]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 2(4): 1909--1916

    Wang Z, Torigoe Y and Hirai S (2017) A prestressed soft gripper: D esign, modeling, fabrication, and tests for food handling. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 2(4): 1909--1916

    2017

  55. [64]

    Science Robotics 6(54): eabd6426

    Yang Y, Vella K and Holmes DP (2021) Grasping with kirigami shells. Science Robotics 6(54): eabd6426

    2021

  56. [65]

    In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, volume 61

    Zenker R, Pardell C, Gilmore-Bykovskyi A, Kind AJ and Werner N (2017) Exploring workload among informal caregivers of persons with dementia. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, volume 61. pp. 1297--1297

    2017

  57. [66]

    Meet Obi: The Adaptive Eating Device - Eat Independently!

    11em plus .33em minus .07em @technote 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 #1 #1 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEauthordefaulttextstyle \@IEEEauthorblockconfadjspace -0.25em \@IEEEauthorblockNtopspace 0.0ex \@IEEEauthorbl...

    2024 arXiv

  58. [67]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence...

  59. [68]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  60. [69]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence aft...

  61. [70]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.