Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 115 references

A new review argues that all vision-based tactile sensors can be classified by two transduction principles — marker-based and intensity-based — with four hardware subtypes and hybrid combinations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A review that proposes a four-type classification of vision-based tactile sensors, dividing them into marker-based versus intensity-based transduction with subtypes and combinations.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A solid, honest review with a genuinely useful four-type taxonomy, though the exhaustiveness claim is weaker than the abstract suggests. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.02478 v2 pith:MW33GCCL submitted 2025-09-02 cs.RO

Classification of Vision-Based Tactile Sensors: A Review

Haoran Li , Yijiong Lin , Chenghua Lu , Max Yang , Efi Psomopoulou , Nathan F Lepora This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords vision-based tactile sensorstactile sensingmarker-based transductionintensity-based transductionsensor taxonomyrobot touchoptical tactile sensorsGelSight
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Vision-based tactile sensors — cameras that watch a soft skin deform under contact — come in many designs with no shared vocabulary describing their differences. This review claims that every such sensor can be sorted by the physical mechanism that turns contact into an image: either markers move or change density (Marker-Based Transduction), or pixel intensity varies (Intensity-Based Transduction). From these two primary principles it derives four mechanism subtypes — Simple and Morphological Marker-Based, Reflective and Transparent Layer-Based — and shows that hybrid sensors combine them. If the taxonomy holds, researchers gain a common language for comparing designs, spotting gaps, and inventing new ones. The paper also reviews how tactile images are interpreted and lists open hardware and processing challenges.

Core claim

The central claim is that the diversity of vision-based tactile sensors reduces to two primary transduction principles defined by how the contact module converts touch into an image-like signal. Marker-Based Transduction relies on discrete features whose displacement or density changes under contact; Intensity-Based Transduction relies on variations in pixel values produced, for instance, by reflective coatings or transparent skins. Each principle subdivides into two mechanisms tied to contact-module design, and pairs of these mechanisms describe hybrid sensors. The paper supports the claim by categorizing a broad sample of published sensors, and it argues that previous two-way divisions int

What carries the argument

The classification tree: two primary transduction principles — Marker-Based Transduction (MBT) and Intensity-Based Transduction (IBT) — each split into two hardware mechanisms. MBT covers Simple Marker-Based (SMB), which reads displacement of discrete markers, and Morphological Marker-Based (MMB), which adds geometry such as pins or whiskers to amplify deformation. IBT covers Reflective Layer-Based (RLB), which reads intensity changes from a coated reflective surface, and Transparent Layer-Based (TLB), which uses a transparent skin to merge tactile and visual data. Hybrid designs are represented as pairs, e.g. SMB+RLB. This tree is the paper's central object: it is what does the classifying

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two transduction principles are jointly exhaustive — every vision-based tactile sensor, existing or future, transduces contact either by moving markers or by changing pixel intensity, or by some combination of the two — so that the taxonomy never needs a third primary category.

What would settle it

Find a vision-based tactile sensor whose transduction mechanism cannot be expressed as marker displacement/density change or as pixel-intensity change from a reflective or transparent layer — for example, a sensor whose image encodes contact by refractive index change or spectral shift without any discrete markers. The paper itself flags the 1984 Mott et al. sensor, which used internal refraction from a deformable membrane, as a candidate that falls outside its listed principles; accepting that sensor as a VBTS would refute the claim that the two principles are exhaustive.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A unified vocabulary lets researchers state exactly which transduction mechanisms a new sensor uses and which known types it sits between.
  • Hybrid VBTS designs can be systematically generated and analyzed as combinations of the four subtypes, rather than treated as unclassifiable outliers.
  • The taxonomy identifies under-explored regions of the design space, including the internal-refraction transduction hinted at by the 1984 Mott et al. sensor.
  • Comparing the four subtypes makes explicit trade-offs, such as SMB's ease of fabrication versus RLB's fine texture reconstruction, guiding intentional design choices.
  • Because the marker concept is left open to 'other discrete features,' the taxonomy is extensible rather than closed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the taxonomy is taken as generative, new sensor designs could be created by deliberately pairing subtypes with recent camera hardware, e.g., MMB+TLB with event-based sensors for high-speed slip detection.
  • The paper's own counterexample suggests the 'two primary principles' may be an historical artifact: a physics-based taxonomy (refraction, total internal reflection, photometric stereo, discrete-feature tracking) might be more fundamental than the markers-versus-intensity split.
  • The SMB versus MMB boundary is fuzzy in print; a formal definition — e.g., whether the morphology adds mechanical gain beyond marker displacement — would let the taxonomy be applied consistently by other labs.
  • A stress test: apply this taxonomy to all VBTS papers indexed in major venues; any sensor that resists classification would force a revision, and the rate of 'miscellaneous' cases would quantify the taxonomy's completeness.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a taxonomy for vision-based tactile sensors (VBTS), dividing them into Marker-Based Transduction (with subtypes Simple Marker-Based and Morphological Marker-Based) and Intensity-Based Transduction (with subtypes Reflective Layer-Based and Transparent Layer-Based), and then describes pairwise combinations of these subtypes for hybrid designs. It surveys hardware components, concrete sensor examples from the literature, data interpretation methods (analytic and data-driven), and current research challenges. The central claim is that this two-principle/four-subtype scheme provides a unified classification of VBTS technology.

Significance. The review covers a broad and current set of VBTS designs, and the comparative discussion of interpretation methods and fabrication challenges is useful. If the proposed classification were rigorously defined and shown to be exhaustive over the design space, it would be a valuable organizing framework for a rapidly growing field. However, the manuscript itself concedes that the taxonomy has at least one known counterexample and possibly overlooked categories, and the SMB/MMB boundary is not defined by a formal criterion. These are load-bearing issues for the paper's central claim as currently stated. The paper is a narrative synthesis; it does not provide a quantitative evaluation of the classification, such as an inter-rater agreement study or a systematic test on a larger sensor corpus.

major comments (2)
  1. [VI.A.5] The text explicitly concedes the taxonomy is incomplete: the 1984 Mott–Lee–Nicholls sensor transduces contact via internal refraction, which is neither Reflective Layer-Based nor Transparent Layer-Based, and the authors state that 'one might expect that there are other important design categories that have been overlooked.' This directly contradicts the abstract's and introduction's claim that the two transduction principles and four subtypes classify VBTS technology. A classification that cannot place a known documented sensor is not a unified framework; it is a taxonomy of the surveyed subset. Please either restrict the claim to a classification of recent design branches and state the scope in the abstract, or add an additional intensity-based subtype (e.g., refraction-based) and systematically search for other counterexamples.
  2. [III.B.1/III.B.2] The boundary between Simple Marker-Based and Morphological Marker-Based is not defined by any formal criterion. SMB is characterized by 'discrete markers,' while MMB is said to use 'specialized geometries' or 'biomimetic structures' that 'mechanically increase sensitivity.' These are differences of degree, not kind: the TacTip's elongated pins with markers and the GelForce's two-layer flat markers are separated by geometry, but no rule states where a marker becomes 'morphological.' Without an operational criterion (e.g., presence of mechanical amplification, marker geometry that changes under load, or a finite list of qualifying structural features), the taxonomy cannot be applied unambiguously to new or borderline designs. This is load-bearing because sorting sensors into categories is the paper's main deliverable.
minor comments (7)
  1. [V.2] Typos: 'parameter adjustents' should be 'parameter adjustments'; Section VI.B.1 has 'piezorestive' for 'piezoresistive.'
  2. [References [31]] Reference [31] is cited as 'Li et al. (2024)' but the reference entry lists only the article title, with no author names. Please add the full author list.
  3. [Figure 1] The caption lists many example sensors in text form, making it hard to see the taxonomy at a glance. Consider a cleaner diagram or a separate table with categories and examples.
  4. [Section IV] The order of subsections (SMB+TLB, MMB+TLB, SMB+RLB, RLB+TLB) does not match the order of combination examples in the Fig. 1 caption (A+C, B+D, A+D, C+D). Aligning these orders would improve readability.
  5. [Section V] The mapping between sensor types and interpretation methods is informal. A summary table linking each category to suitable preprocessing, analytic, and data-driven methods would make the review more actionable.
  6. [Section II] The exclusion of waveguide-type designs from the taxonomy is brief. Since the related-work section cites these as a recognized category, the exclusion deserves a fuller justification.
  7. [VI.A.5] Because the paper acknowledges a known historical counterexample, the scope of the survey ('research over the last 20 years') should be stated earlier, e.g., in the introduction, so the claims match the evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the taxonomy is a literature synthesis; self-citations are illustrative, and the paper explicitly concedes possible incompleteness.

full rationale

This is a review paper whose contribution is a classification scheme, not a derivation with predictive or fitted components. The proposed Marker-Based vs. Intensity-Based distinction and the four subtypes are definitions supported by literature examples, including several sensors from the authors' own group (TacTip, BioTacTip, ViTacTip). These self-citations are used as examples, not as the evidential basis that forces the taxonomy; removing them would not change the definitions. The paper explicitly discusses prior taxonomies (Shimonomura; Shah et al.) and positions its scheme as an extension that covers combinations and further subdivisions, so it is an incremental reorganization rather than a renaming presented as a derivation. The most relevant limitation is in Section VI.A.5, where the authors admit that their classification may not be exhaustive, citing the 1984 Mott et al. internal-refraction sensor as a transduction mechanism outside the listed categories and stating that 'one might expect that there are other important design categories that have been overlooked.' This undermines a claim of completeness but is not circularity. The SMB/MMB boundary is also informal, but vagueness is a classification-quality issue, not a circular-reasoning issue. Overall, no equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain is used to make a prediction that reduces to its own input; the central content is an independent literature synthesis. Score 1 reflects the notable density of self-citations, which are nevertheless not load-bearing.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The taxonomy itself is a conceptual grouping of existing sensors; it introduces no new physical entities or free parameters. The central supporting axioms are the exhaustiveness and clean separability of the proposed categories, which the paper only partially justifies.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Every VBTS can be partitioned into Marker-Based and Intensity-Based transduction on the basis of how contact is encoded in the tactile image.
    The paper asserts this as the organizing principle (Section III) and only later qualifies it in Section VI.A.5, where it admits other mechanisms (e.g., internal refraction) may be overlooked.
  • domain assumption Simple Marker-Based and Morphological Marker-Based are cleanly separable categories.
    Section III-B2 introduces MMB as adding specialized geometries, but provides no threshold or structural criterion; the distinction is a design continuum.
  • domain assumption Reflective Layer-Based and Transparent Layer-Based exhaust the Intensity-Based sensing space.
    Section III-C divides IBT into RLB and TLB, but the paper does not rule out other intensity-encoding mechanisms, such as total internal reflection in TIRgel being treated as TLB rather than a distinct principle.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classification of Vision-Based Tactile Sensors: A Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MW33GCCL

@misc{pith2026250902478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classification of Vision-Based Tactile Sensors: A Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MW33GCCL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02478}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Vision-based tactile sensors (VBTS) have gained widespread application in robotic hands, grippers and prosthetics due to their high spatial resolution, low manufacturing costs, and ease of customization. While VBTSs have common design features, such as a camera module, they can differ in a rich diversity of sensing principles, material compositions, multimodal approaches, and data interpretation methods. Here, we propose a novel classification of VBTS that categorizes the technology into two primary sensing principles based on the underlying transduction of contact into a tactile image: the Marker-Based Transduction Principle and the Intensity-Based Transduction Principle. Marker-Based Transduction interprets tactile information by detecting marker displacement and changes in marker density. In contrast, Intensity-Based Transduction maps external disturbances with variations in pixel values. Depending on the design of the contact module, Marker-Based Transduction can be further divided into two subtypes: Simple Marker-Based (SMB) and Morphological Marker-Based (MMB) mechanisms. Similarly, the Intensity-Based Transduction Principle encompasses the Reflective Layer-based (RLB) and Transparent Layer-Based (TLB) mechanisms. This paper provides a comparative study of the hardware characteristics of these four types of sensors including various combination types, and discusses the commonly used methods for interpreting tactile information. This~comparison reveals some current challenges faced by VBTS technology and directions for future research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02478 by Chenghua Lu, Efi Psomopoulou, Haoran Li, Max Yang, Nathan F Lepora, Yijiong Lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Typical SMB sensors include ChromaTouch [36], GelForce [37], [38], Tac3D [39], DelTact [40] and Soft-bubble [41], [42]. MMB sensors include TacTip [15], [33], [43], MultiTip [44], DigiTac [45], TacWhiskers [46], TacTip with fingerprint [47], BioTacTip [24] and NeuroTac [48]. RLB Sensors include GelSight [25], [49], DIGIT [50], 9DTact [14], C-Sight [51], GelSlim [52], GelTip [53],DenseTact [54], Insight [55… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic camera views of SMB, MMB, RLB, and TLB sensors. (b) Shift in marker position upon indentation of SMB, (d) Amplified marker movement, (f) reconstructed object shape, (h) visual and tactile information. area, the white tip emerges to locate the contact zone. The appearance of the white tip not only aids in positioning, but its reflected light intensity is directly proportional to the extent of tip … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Tactile sensing and control of robotic manipulation,

    R. D. Howe, “Tactile sensing and control of robotic manipulation,” Advanced Robotics , vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 245–261, 1993

    1993

  2. [2]

    Tactile sensing for dexterous in-hand manipulation in robotics—a review,

    H. Yousef, M. Boukallel, and K. Althoefer, “Tactile sensing for dexterous in-hand manipulation in robotics—a review,” Sensors and Actuators A: physical , vol. 167, no. 2, pp. 171–187, 2011

    2011

  3. [3]

    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

    2017

  4. [4]

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

    W. Chen, H. Khamis, I. Birznieks, N. F. Lepora, and S. J. Red- mond, “Tactile sensors for friction estimation and incipient slip detec- tion—toward dexterous robotic manipulation: A review,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 18, no. 22, pp. 9049–9064, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    A survey of robot tactile sensing technology,

    H. R. Nicholls and M. H. Lee, “A survey of robot tactile sensing technology,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 3–30, 1989

    1989

  6. [6]

    Synthetic and bio-artificial tactile sensing: A review,

    C. Lucarotti, C. M. Oddo, N. Vitiello, and M. C. Carrozza, “Synthetic and bio-artificial tactile sensing: A review,” Sensors, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1435–1466, 2013

    2013

  7. [7]

    Recent advances in resistive sensor technology for tactile perception: A review,

    Y . Zhu, Y . Liu, Y . Sun, Y . Zhang, and G. Ding, “Recent advances in resistive sensor technology for tactile perception: A review,” IEEE sensors journal , vol. 22, no. 16, pp. 15 635–15 649, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    A new approach for readout of resistive sensor arrays for wearable electronic applications,

    L. Shu, X. Tao, and D. D. Feng, “A new approach for readout of resistive sensor arrays for wearable electronic applications,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 442–452, 2014

    2014

  9. [9]

    Gauge factor and stretchability of silicon-on- polymer strain gauges,

    S. Yang and N. Lu, “Gauge factor and stretchability of silicon-on- polymer strain gauges,” Sensors, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 8577–8594, 2013

    2013

  10. [10]

    Three-dimensional printing of tactile sensors for soft robotics,

    X. Zhou and P. S. Lee, “Three-dimensional printing of tactile sensors for soft robotics,” MRS Bulletin , vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 330–336, 2021

    2021

  11. [11]

    Directions toward effective utilization of tactile skin: A review,

    R. S. Dahiya, P. Mittendorfer, M. Valle, G. Cheng, and V . J. Lumelsky, “Directions toward effective utilization of tactile skin: A review,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 4121–4138, 2013

    2013

  12. [12]

    Tactile and vision perception for intelligent humanoids,

    S. Gao, Y . Dai, and A. Nathan, “Tactile and vision perception for intelligent humanoids,” Advanced Intelligent Systems , vol. 4, no. 2, p. 2100074, 2022

    2022

  13. [13]

    Hardware technology of vision-based tactile sensor: A review,

    S. Zhang, Z. Chen, Y . Gao, W. Wan, J. Shan, H. Xue, F. Sun, Y . Yang, and B. Fang, “Hardware technology of vision-based tactile sensor: A review,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 22, no. 22, pp. 21 410–21 427, 2022

    2022

  14. [14]

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

    C. Lin, H. Zhang, J. Xu, L. Wu, and H. Xu, “9DTact: A compact vision-based tactile sensor for accurate 3d shape reconstruction and generalizable 6d force estimation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 923–930, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Soft biomimetic optical tactile sensing with the TacTip: A review,

    N. Lepora, “Soft biomimetic optical tactile sensing with the TacTip: A review,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 21, no. 19, pp. 21 131–21 143, 2021

    2021

  16. [16]

    A review of tactile sensing technologies with applications in biomedical engineering,

    M. I. Tiwana, S. J. Redmond, and N. H. Lovell, “A review of tactile sensing technologies with applications in biomedical engineering,” Sensors and Actuators A: physical , vol. 179, pp. 17–31, 2012

    2012

  17. [17]

    Implementation of tactile sensing for palpation in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery: A review,

    J. Konstantinova, A. Jiang, K. Althoefer, P. Dasgupta, and T. Nanayakkara, “Implementation of tactile sensing for palpation in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery: A review,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 2490–2501, 2014

    2014

  18. [18]

    Tactile sensors for robotic applications,

    P. S. Gir ˜ao, P. M. P. Ramos, O. Postolache, and J. M. D. Pereira, “Tactile sensors for robotic applications,” Measurement, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 1257–1271, 2013

    2013

  19. [19]

    Recent progress in tactile sensing and sensors for robotic manipulation: can we turn tactile sensing into vision?

    A. Yamaguchi and C. G. Atkeson, “Recent progress in tactile sensing and sensors for robotic manipulation: can we turn tactile sensing into vision?” Advanced Robotics , vol. 33, no. 14, pp. 661–673, 2019

    2019

  20. [20]

    Marker displacement method used in vision- based tactile sensors—from 2d to 3d-a review,

    M. Li, T. Li, and Y . Jiang, “Marker displacement method used in vision- based tactile sensors—from 2d to 3d-a review,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 8042–8059, 2023

    2023

  21. [21]

    Pose-and-shear-based tactile servoing,

    J. Lloyd and N. Lepora, “Pose-and-shear-based tactile servoing,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 1024– 1055, 2024

    2024

  22. [22]

    Vitactip: Design and verification of a novel biomimetic physical vision-tactile fusion sensor,

    W. Fan, H. Li, W. Si, S. Luo, N. Lepora, and D. Zhang, “Vitactip: Design and verification of a novel biomimetic physical vision-tactile fusion sensor,” pp. 1056–1062, 2024

    2024

  23. [23]

    Soft robotic hands and tactile sensors for underwater robotics,

    R. A. S. I. Subad, L. B. Cross, and K. Park, “Soft robotic hands and tactile sensors for underwater robotics,” Applied Mechanics , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 356–382, 2021

    2021

  24. [24]

    Biotactip: A soft biomimetic optical tactile sensor for efficient 3d contact localization and 3d force estimation,

    H. Li, S. Nam, Z. Lu, C. Yang, E. Psomopoulou, and N. Lepora, “Biotactip: A soft biomimetic optical tactile sensor for efficient 3d contact localization and 3d force estimation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 5314–5321, 2024

    2024

  25. [25]

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

    W. Yuan, S. Dong, and E. H. Adelson, “Gelsight: High-resolution robot tactile sensors for estimating geometry and force,” Sensors, vol. 17, no. 12, p. 2762, 2017

    2017

  26. [26]

    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 Transactions on Robotics , vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1619–1634, 2020. LI et al.: CLASSIFICATION OF VISION-BASED TACTILE SENSORS: A REVIEW 13

    2020

  27. [27]

    Simple, a visuotactile method learned in simulation to precisely pick, localize, regrasp, and place objects,

    M. Bauza, A. Bronars, Y . Hou, I. Taylor, N. Chavan-Dafle, and A. Rodriguez, “Simple, a visuotactile method learned in simulation to precisely pick, localize, regrasp, and place objects,” Science Robotics , vol. 9, no. 91, p. eadi8808, 2024

    2024

  28. [28]

    Visual–tactile fusion for object recognition,

    H. Liu, Y . Yu, F. Sun, and J. Gu, “Visual–tactile fusion for object recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineer- ing, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 996–1008, 2016

    2016

  29. [29]

    CNN-based methods for object recognition with high-resolution tactile sensors,

    J. M. Gandarias, A. J. Garcia-Cerezo, and J. M. Gomez-de Gabriel, “CNN-based methods for object recognition with high-resolution tactile sensors,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 19, no. 16, pp. 6872–6882, 2019

    2019

  30. [30]

    Recent progress on tactile ob- ject recognition,

    H. Liu, Y . Wu, F. Sun, and D. Guo, “Recent progress on tactile ob- ject recognition,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems , vol. 14, no. 4, p. 1729881417717056, 2017

    2017

  31. [31]

    When vision meets touch: A contemporary review for visuotactile sensors from the signal processing perspective,

    “When vision meets touch: A contemporary review for visuotactile sensors from the signal processing perspective,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 267–287, 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    Visuotactile sensors with emphasis on gelsight sensor: A review,

    A. C. Abad and A. Ranasinghe, “Visuotactile sensors with emphasis on gelsight sensor: A review,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 20, no. 14, pp. 7628–7638, 2020

    2020

  33. [33]

    The tactip family: Soft optical tactile sensors with 3d-printed biomimetic morphologies,

    B. Ward-Cherrier, N. Pestell, L. Cramphorn, B. Winstone, M. E. Giannaccini, J. Rossiter, and N. F. Lepora, “The tactip family: Soft optical tactile sensors with 3d-printed biomimetic morphologies,” Soft robotics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 216–227, 2018

    2018

  34. [34]

    Tactile image sensors employing camera: A review,

    K. Shimonomura, “Tactile image sensors employing camera: A review,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 18, p. 3933, 2019

    2019

  35. [35]

    On the design and development of vision-based tactile sensors,

    U. H. Shah, R. Muthusamy, D. Gan, Y . Zweiri, and L. Seneviratne, “On the design and development of vision-based tactile sensors,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems , vol. 102, no. 4, p. 82, 2021

    2021

  36. [36]

    Rapid manufacturing of color-based hemispherical soft tactile finger- tips,

    R. B. Scharff, D.-J. Boonstra, L. Willemet, X. Lin, and M. Wiertlewski, “Rapid manufacturing of color-based hemispherical soft tactile finger- tips,” in Int. Conf. Soft Robotics (RoboSoft) , 2022, pp. 896–902

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Evaluation of a vision-based tactile sensor,

    K. Kamiyama, H. Kajimoto, N. Kawakami, and S. Tachi, “Evaluation of a vision-based tactile sensor,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2004, vol. 2, pp. 1542–1547

    work page 2004

  38. [38]

    Finger-shaped gelforce: sensor for measuring surface traction fields for robotic hand,

    K. Sato, K. Kamiyama, N. Kawakami, and S. Tachi, “Finger-shaped gelforce: sensor for measuring surface traction fields for robotic hand,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 37–47, 2009

    work page 2009

  39. [39]

    Tac3d: A novel vision-based tactile sensor for measuring forces distribution and estimating friction coefficient distribution,

    L. Zhang, Y . Wang, and Y . Jiang, “Tac3d: A novel vision-based tactile sensor for measuring forces distribution and estimating friction coefficient distribution,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.06211 , 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Deltact: A vision- based tactile sensor using a dense color pattern,

    G. Zhang, Y . Du, H. Yu, and M. Y . Wang, “Deltact: A vision- based tactile sensor using a dense color pattern,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 10 778–10 785, 2022

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    Soft- bubble: A highly compliant dense geometry tactile sensor for robot manipulation,

    A. Alspach, K. Hashimoto, N. Kuppuswamy, and R. Tedrake, “Soft- bubble: A highly compliant dense geometry tactile sensor for robot manipulation,” in 2019 2nd IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft) , 2019, pp. 597–604

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    Soft-bubble grippers for robust and perceptive ma- nipulation,

    N. Kuppuswamy, A. Alspach, A. Uttamchandani, S. Creasey, T. Ikeda, and R. Tedrake, “Soft-bubble grippers for robust and perceptive ma- nipulation,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2020, pp. 9917–9924

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Development of a tactile sensor based on biologically inspired edge encoding,

    C. Chorley, C. Melhuish, T. Pipe, and J. Rossiter, “Development of a tactile sensor based on biologically inspired edge encoding,” in 2009 International Conference on Advanced Robotics , 2009, pp. 1–6

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    Multitip: A multimodal mechano-thermal soft fingertip,

    G. Soter, A. Conn, H. Hauser, N. F. Lepora, and J. Rossiter, “Multitip: A multimodal mechano-thermal soft fingertip,” in 2018 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft) , 2018, pp. 239–244

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Digitac: A digit-tactip hybrid tactile sensor for comparing low-cost high-resolution robot touch,

    N. Lepora, Y . Lin, B. Money-Coomes, and J. Lloyd, “Digitac: A digit-tactip hybrid tactile sensor for comparing low-cost high-resolution robot touch,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 9382–9388, 2022

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    TacWhiskers: Biomimetic optical tactile whiskered robots,

    N. Lepora, M. Pearson, and L. Cramphorn, “TacWhiskers: Biomimetic optical tactile whiskered robots,” in International Conference on Intel- ligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2018, pp. 7628–7634

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    A biomimetic tactile fingerprint induces incipient slip,

    J. James, S. Redmond, and N. Lepora, “A biomimetic tactile fingerprint induces incipient slip,” in International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2020, pp. 9833–9839

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    NeuroTac: A neuromor- phic optical tactile sensor applied to texture recognition,

    B. Ward-Cherrier, N. Pestell, and N. Lepora, “NeuroTac: A neuromor- phic optical tactile sensor applied to texture recognition,” in Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2020, pp. 2654–2660

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Retrographic sensing for the measurement of surface texture and shape,

    M. K. Johnson and E. H. Adelson, “Retrographic sensing for the measurement of surface texture and shape,” in 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2009, pp. 1070–1077

    work page 2009

  50. [50]

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

    M. Lambeta, P.-W. Chou, S. Tian, B. Yang, B. Maloon, V . R. Most, D. Stroud, R. Santos, A. Byagowi, G. Kammerer et al. , “Digit: A novel design for a low-cost compact high-resolution tactile sensor with application to in-hand manipulation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 3838–3845, 2020

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Design and evaluation of a rapid monolithic manufacturing technique for a novel vision-based tactile sensor: C-sight,

    W. Fan, H. Li, Y . Xing, and D. Zhang, “Design and evaluation of a rapid monolithic manufacturing technique for a novel vision-based tactile sensor: C-sight,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 14, p. 4603, 2024

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Gelslim: A high-resolution, compact, robust, and calibrated tactile- sensing finger,

    E. Donlon, S. Dong, M. Liu, J. Li, E. Adelson, and A. Rodriguez, “Gelslim: A high-resolution, compact, robust, and calibrated tactile- sensing finger,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intel- ligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2018, pp. 1927–1934

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    GelTip: A finger-shaped optical tactile sensor for robotic manipulation,

    D. F. Gomes, Z. Lin, and S. Luo, “GelTip: A finger-shaped optical tactile sensor for robotic manipulation,” in International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2020, pp. 9903–9909

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    Densetact: Optical tactile sensor for dense shape reconstruction,

    W. K. Do and M. Kennedy, “Densetact: Optical tactile sensor for dense shape reconstruction,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2022, pp. 6188–6194

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    A soft thumb-sized vision-based sensor with accurate all-round force perception,

    H. Sun, K. J. Kuchenbecker, and G. Martius, “A soft thumb-sized vision-based sensor with accurate all-round force perception,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 135–145, 2022

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Dtact: A vision-based tactile sen- sor that measures high-resolution 3d geometry directly from darkness,

    C. Lin, Z. Lin, S. Wang, and H. Xu, “Dtact: A vision-based tactile sen- sor that measures high-resolution 3d geometry directly from darkness,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023, pp. 10 359–10 366

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Tirgel: A visuo-tactile sensor with total internal reflection mechanism for external observation and contact detection,

    S. Zhang, Y . Sun, J. Shan, Z. Chen, F. Sun, Y . Yang, and B. Fang, “Tirgel: A visuo-tactile sensor with total internal reflection mechanism for external observation and contact detection,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2023

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    In-hand object localization using a novel high-resolution visuotactile sensor,

    S. Cui, R. Wang, J. Hu, J. Wei, S. Wang, and Z. Lou, “In-hand object localization using a novel high-resolution visuotactile sensor,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , vol. 69, pp. 6015–6025, 2021

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    F-touch sensor: Concurrent geometry perception and multi-axis force measurement,

    W. Li, A. Alomainy, I. Vitanov, Y . Noh, P. Qi, and K. Althoefer, “F-touch sensor: Concurrent geometry perception and multi-axis force measurement,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 21, pp. 4300–4309, 2020

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Gelslim 3.0: High-resolution measurement of shape, force and slip in a compact tactile-sensing finger,

    I. H. Taylor, S. Dong, and A. Rodriguez, “Gelslim 3.0: High-resolution measurement of shape, force and slip in a compact tactile-sensing finger,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022, pp. 10 781–10 787

    work page 2022

  61. [61]

    Uvtac: Switchable uv marker-based tactile sensing finger for effective force estimation and object localization,

    W. Kim, W. D. Kim, J.-J. Kim, C.-H. Kim, and J. Kim, “Uvtac: Switchable uv marker-based tactile sensing finger for effective force estimation and object localization,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 6036–6043, 2022

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    Fingervision with whiskers: Light touch detection with vision-based tactile sensors,

    A. Yamaguchi, “Fingervision with whiskers: Light touch detection with vision-based tactile sensors,” in 2021 Fifth IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC) , 2021, pp. 56–64

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    MagicTac: A Novel High-Resolution 3D Multi-layer Grid-Based Tactile Sensor

    W. Fan, H. Li, and D. Zhang, “Magictac: A novel high-resolution 3d multi-layer grid-based tactile sensor,” arXiv:2402.01366, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Tactile behaviors with the vision- based tactile sensor fingervision,

    A. Yamaguchi and C. G. Atkeson, “Tactile behaviors with the vision- based tactile sensor fingervision,” International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, vol. 16, no. 03, p. 1940002, 2019

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    Spectac: A visual-tactile dual- modality sensor using uv illumination,

    Q. Wang, Y . Du, and M. Y . Wang, “Spectac: A visual-tactile dual- modality sensor using uv illumination,” in 2022 International Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2022, pp. 10 844–10 850

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    Seeing through your skin: Recognizing objects with a novel visuotactile sensor,

    F. R. Hogan, M. Jenkin, S. Rezaei-Shoshtari, Y . Girdhar, D. Meger, and G. Dudek, “Seeing through your skin: Recognizing objects with a novel visuotactile sensor,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 1218–1227

    work page 2021

  67. [67]

    Stereotac: A novel visuotac- tile sensor that combines tactile sensing with 3d vision,

    E. Roberge, G. Fornes, and J.-P. Roberge, “Stereotac: A novel visuotac- tile sensor that combines tactile sensing with 3d vision,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 6291–6298, 2023

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    Vistac towards a unified multi-modal sensing finger for robotic manipulation,

    S. Athar, G. Patel, Z. Xu, Q. Qiu, and Y . She, “Vistac towards a unified multi-modal sensing finger for robotic manipulation,” IEEE Sensors Journal, 2023

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    Vision-based sensor for real-time measuring of surface traction fields,

    K. Kamiyama, K. Vlack, T. Mizota, H. Kajimoto, K. Kawakami, and S. Tachi, “Vision-based sensor for real-time measuring of surface traction fields,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 68–75, 2005

    work page 2005

  70. [70]

    Biomimetic tactile sensors and signal processing with spike trains: A review,

    Z. Yi, Y . Zhang, and J. Peters, “Biomimetic tactile sensors and signal processing with spike trains: A review,” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, vol. 269, pp. 41–52, 2018

    work page 2018

  71. [71]

    Camera-based force and tactile sensor,

    W. Li, J. Konstantinova, Y . Noh, A. Alomainy, and K. Althoefer, “Camera-based force and tactile sensor,” in Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems: 19th Annual Conference, TAROS 2018, Bristol, UK July 25-27, 2018, Proceedings 19 . Springer, 2018, pp. 438–450

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    F-touch sensor for three-axis forces measurement and geometry observation,

    W. Li, Y . Noh, A. Alomainy, I. Vitanov, Y . Zheng, P. Qi, and K. Althoefer, “F-touch sensor for three-axis forces measurement and geometry observation,” in 2020 IEEE SENSORS , 2020, pp. 1–4. 14 IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. XX, NO. XX, XXXX 2024

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    L3f-touch: A wireless gelsight with decoupled tactile and three-axis force sensing,

    W. Li, M. Wang, J. Li, Y . Su, D. K. Jha, X. Qian, K. Althoefer, and H. Liu, “L3f-touch: A wireless gelsight with decoupled tactile and three-axis force sensing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2023

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    Poly- touch: A robust multi-modal tactile sensor for contact-rich manipulation using tactile-diffusion policies,

    J. Zhao, N. Kuppuswamy, S. Feng, B. Burchfiel, and E. Adelson, “Poly- touch: A robust multi-modal tactile sensor for contact-rich manipulation using tactile-diffusion policies,” arXiv:2504.19341, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Bi-touch: Bimanual tactile manipulation with sim-to-real deep rein- forcement learning,

    Y . Lin, A. Church, M. Yang, H. Li, J. Lloyd, D. Zhang, and N. Lepora, “Bi-touch: Bimanual tactile manipulation with sim-to-real deep rein- forcement learning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 5472–5479, 2023

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    Design and benchmarking of a multi-modality sensor for robotic manipulation with gan-based cross-modality interpretation,

    D. Zhang, W. Fan, J. Lin, H. Li, Q. Cong, W. Liu, N. F. Lepora, and S. Luo, “Design and benchmarking of a multi-modality sensor for robotic manipulation with gan-based cross-modality interpretation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 41, pp. 1278–1295, 2025

    work page 2025

  77. [77]

    Touchsdf: A deepsdf approach for 3d shape reconstruction using vision-based tactile sensing,

    M. Comi, Y . Lin, A. Church, A. Tonioni, L. Aitchison, and N. F. Lepora, “Touchsdf: A deepsdf approach for 3d shape reconstruction using vision-based tactile sensing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 5719–5726, 2024

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    A vision-based tactile sensing system for multimodal contact information perception via neural network,

    W. Xu, G. Zhou, Y . Zhou, Z. Zou, J. Wang, W. Wu, and X. Li, “A vision-based tactile sensing system for multimodal contact information perception via neural network,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 73, pp. 1–11, 2024

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    Transforce: Transferable force prediction for vision-based tactile sensors with sequential image translation,

    Z. Chen, N. Ou, X. Zhang, and S. Luo, “Transforce: Transferable force prediction for vision-based tactile sensors with sequential image translation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09870 , 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Optimal deep learning for robot touch: Training accurate pose models of 3d surfaces and edges,

    N. F. Lepora and J. Lloyd, “Optimal deep learning for robot touch: Training accurate pose models of 3d surfaces and edges,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 66–77, 2020

    work page 2020

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.