Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

A Neuromorphic Incipient Slip Detection System using Papillae Morphology

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A neuromorphic tactile system with a papillae-shaped skin classifies slip states with 94.33% accuracy and detects incipient slip at least 360 ms before gross slip in dynamic gravity tests.

desk verdict Solid incremental contribution with a real skin design and credible classification accuracy, but the headline 360 ms lead-time claim is in-sample and should be treated as optimistic until per-trial latencies and fixed smoothing parameters are reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09546 v1 pith:TBPXLVOE submitted 2025-09-11 cs.RO

Yanhui Lu , Zeyu Deng , Stephen J. Redmond , Efi Psomopoulou , Benjamin Ward-Cherrier This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords incipientslipdetectionneuromorphictactilesensingspikingneuralnetworkeventcamerapapillaeskinclassificationroboticmanipulationsensor
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

This paper claims that a tactile sensor skin shaped as concentric, height-graded papillae can make incipient slip—the partial sliding that precedes an object dropping—visible to an event camera in a way a spiking neural network can exploit. The authors built such a skin for the NeuroTac event-based tactile sensor, removed internal pins so the camera directly sees papillae deformation, and trained a three-class spiking convolutional network on event streams. The network reaches 94.33% accuracy across no-slip, incipient-slip, and gross-slip states, and in dynamic gravity-induced slip tests it detects incipient slip at least 360 ms before gross slip in every trial while still detecting gross slip itself. If correct, this establishes that a fully neuromorphic tactile pipeline can issue an early slip warning early enough to act, without frame-based processing and with low power demands.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the papillae skin: three concentric layers of protruding papillae with height decreasing from center to edge (central height 10.1 mm, adjacent-layer height difference 1.1 mm, spacing 5.6 mm, radius 2.0 mm). The internal pins of the original sensor are removed so the event camera directly observes papillae deformation. This geometry induces outer papillae to slip first, creating a peripheral-to-central slip front. The second component is a spiking convolutional neural network with integrate-and-fire neurons, two convolutional layers (the second strided), and two fully connected layers ending in three output neurons; classification is the highest spike rate. Training u

What would settle it

Run the same pipeline with ground-truth onsets defined by 1-pixel and 3-pixel displacement thresholds and select the smoothing window using only training/validation data; if the ≥360 ms lead time does not persist across threshold choices and unbiased window selection, the latency claim is an artifact of the annotation and tuning procedure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that a sensor skin with three concentric rings of externally protruding papillae—tallest at the center and progressively shorter outward—forces incipient slip to begin at the outer papillae and propagate inward, mimicking the partial-slip progression of the human fingertip. This radial slip front generates a characteristic event pattern in the embedded event camera. A spiking convolutional neural network trained on 30 ms event segments (20×20 spatial grid, 30 time steps) classifies three slip states with 94.33% accuracy on a kinematic test set spanning multiple sliding speeds and directions. In dynamic gravity-induced slip experiments, after applying a sliding-window a

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the ground-truth definition of incipient and gross slip onsets via external video marker tracking with a 2-pixel displacement threshold, plus a 4-sample temporal smoothing window whose length was chosen using the test-set latency; if either choice is not robust, the reported detection latencies could be optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The three-class SCNN distinguishes no slip, incipient slip, and gross slip with 94.33% accuracy across multiple sliding speeds, enabling finer-grained grasp control than binary incipient-vs-not classifiers.
  • In gravity-induced slip tests—across plate weights from 0.165 to 0.245 kg and retraction speeds from 0.3 to 0.7 mm/s—incipient slip is detected at least 360 ms before gross slip, and this lead persists when horizontal disturbances up to 100% of retraction speed are added.
  • The event-driven pipeline uses only positive-polarity events and a compact 20×20 input grid, reducing computation; the temporal smoothing of spike counts avoids operations like softmax, making the inference compatible with neuromorphic hardware.
  • The papillae skin induces slip initiation at the periphery and propagation inward, producing clearer slip timing between concentric rings than smooth or rigidly coupled skins, which supports slip-margin estimation for grasp adjustment.
  • In the kinematically controlled test set, the smoothed model detects incipient slip on average 88 ms after its onset and gross slip on average 70 ms after onset, confirming that both states are detectable in real time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 360 ms lead time holds in real grasps, it opens a control window long enough for a low-power neuromorphic controller to adjust grip force before object drop—something frame-based tactile pipelines typically cannot provide at comparable energy cost.
  • The papillae morphology is not optimized: ring count, height gradient, and stiffness could be varied to lengthen the incipient-slip phase and thus increase the prediction lead time; the paper does not explore this parameter space.
  • Because the system relies on peripheral-to-central slip propagation, its performance on curved or compliant surfaces, textured objects, or rotational slips remains untested; those conditions could either reduce or enhance the radial slip contrast and should delimit the approach.
  • The ground-truth definition of incipient slip onset as the first moment any marker crosses a 2-pixel displacement threshold is inherited from prior work; reannotation at different thresholds would reveal how sensitive the reported lead times are to that definition.
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. This paper presents a neuromorphic tactile slip-detection system based on a custom papillae skin for the NeuroTac event-camera sensor. The skin consists of concentric protruding pillars of decreasing height, and the authors show that slip propagates from outer to inner papillae. The sensor's event stream is downsampled to a 20x20 grid and fed into a spiking CNN with two convolutional and two fully connected layers, and a three-class output (no slip, incipient slip, gross slip) is trained with surrogate gradients. The authors report 94.33% test accuracy on kinematic-controlled trials. For sequential detection, they apply a sliding-window average to the output spike counts and report that in gravity-induced dynamic experiments the system detects incipient slip at least 360 ms before gross slip across all trials. The main contributions are the skin morphology, the SCNN pipeline, and the latency evaluation.

Significance. The sensor design is interesting and the use of an event camera addresses a real problem: frame-based tactile sensors have high latency and power consumption. The 94.33% three-class accuracy on a held-out test set (split by trial) is a credible result, and reporting precision/recall for the incipient class is useful. The peripheral-to-central slip propagation observation is a nice validation of the skin's biomimetic design. However, the paper's most distinctive quantitative claim — the 'at least 360 ms' lead time in dynamic validation — is not currently supported by the reported evaluation because the smoothing parameters are tuned on the same test set used to compute the lead time, and because per-trial minima are not reported. The manuscript would be substantially stronger if the evaluation were redone with parameters fixed independently of the test set and with per-trial latency distributions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-D; Abstract and Section V] The smoothing window length is explicitly 'chosen based on the average incipient slip detection latency in the test set trials,' and the margin threshold of 2 is applied post hoc. Since these choices are made using the same test-set trials on which latencies are subsequently reported, the resulting lead-time estimates are in-sample and likely optimistic. This is not a conventional hyperparameter choice: it directly controls the timing at which a smoothed class output first exceeds the others. Please re-select the window length and margin on the training/validation split only (or fix them a priori), and then re-evaluate on the test/gravity-induced trials. Without this, the abstract's 'at least 360 ms' claim is not a valid out-of-sample result.
  2. [Section IV-C / Section V] The claim that incipient slip is detected 'at least 360 ms prior to gross slip across all trials' is not verifiable from the presented statistics. Figures 10 and 11 show means and standard deviations, but no per-trial lead times or minima. In the disturbance experiments the mean is 691 ms with SD 118 ms, so the distribution presumably extends well below 573 ms and no lower bound is shown. If this claim is retained, provide per-trial values (or a box/violin plot) and the actual minimum lead time for each condition. A minimum computed after test-set smoothing parameter selection is not sufficient.
  3. [Section III-C] Ground-truth onset times are based on a marker displacement threshold of 2 pixels, defined with respect to an external camera. No sensitivity analysis is provided, and the pixel-to-millimeter scale may differ between the kinematic setup and the gravity-induced setup (where relative marker–ArUco displacement is used). The absolute lead time of 360 ms depends on this threshold; a small change in the threshold could change the reported lead times by tens of milliseconds or more. Please report the threshold sweep or at least justify that the same threshold corresponds to comparable physical displacement in both camera configurations.
  4. [Section III-D and IV-C] The reported detection latencies are for the complete post-processing pipeline (SCNN plus temporal smoothing), not for the SCNN alone. The paper describes the pipeline as 'fully neuromorphic,' but the windowed averaging of final-layer spike counts is a non-spiking operation. Clarify how this smoothing is realized on neuromorphic hardware, or state explicitly that the 360 ms lead time includes an external post-processing stage. This is relevant to the practical latency and power claims in Section V.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-C] Typo: 'occurance' should be 'occurrence'.
  2. [Fig. 10(a)] The bar height representing incipient slip duration with the lower portion as detection latency is not immediately readable; a numerical table or error-bar plot would be clearer.
  3. [Section IV-B] The classification accuracy is reported without confidence intervals or per-class sample counts. Even if the test set is balanced by construction, reporting these would help readers judge the precision of the 94.33% figure.
  4. [Section III-B3] The preprocessing choices (positive-polarity-only events, 20x20 pooling) are not ablated. A short ablation or sensitivity analysis would strengthen the claim that these choices do not materially affect the results.
  5. [Fig. 6B] The vertical axis 'Pixel Index' is not explained in the caption or text; clarify how pixel index corresponds to radial distance from the sensor center.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the accuracy and lead-time claims are out-of-sample empirical evaluations.

full rationale

The paper's central results are empirical evaluations, not derivations. The 94.33% classification accuracy is measured on a held-out test set from the kinematic experiments, with the model selected on a separate validation set; this is a standard supervised evaluation and is not circular. The headline gravity-induced detection claim (≥360 ms lead time before gross slip) is obtained on gravity trials that were not used for training or model selection. Although the temporal smoothing window (length 4) was chosen using the kinematic test set's average incipient slip latency, the gravity-induced trials were not used for that selection; therefore the 360 ms claim is not an in-sample fit. The confidence margin (≥2) is a fixed detection criterion, not a fitted parameter. The 2-pixel ground-truth displacement threshold is inherited from prior work by overlapping authors ([21]), but it is a labeling convention for defining slip onsets, not a load-bearing theoretical premise, and it does not by construction determine the model's classification or latency. No equation or fitted parameter in the paper reduces the reported predictions to their inputs, and no self-citation chain is used to justify the core results. The absence of per-trial latency distributions is a reporting limitation, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces a new physical skin geometry but no new postulated entities like particles or forces. The main free parameters are the smoothing window, the detection margin, and the marker displacement threshold, all of which are tuned to the dataset. The key domain assumptions concern the validity of the visual ground truth and the sufficiency of positive events.

free parameters (6)
  • Sliding window length = 4 samples (120 ms)
    Chosen based on the average incipient slip detection latency in the test set (Section III-D). This is a post-hoc fit to the evaluation data that directly affects the reported lead times.
  • Detection margin threshold = 2 spike counts
    Ad hoc threshold to define confident detection (Section III-D). No sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Marker displacement threshold = 2 pixels
    Used to annotate incipient and gross slip onsets from external camera tracking, inherited from prior work [21]. This threshold defines the ground truth and is a free parameter.
  • Event polarity selection = positive only
    Only positive polarity events used (Section III-B3). This choice discards negative events without a comparison to using both polarities.
  • Downsampling pooling window = 20x20 pixel non-overlapping
    Spatial downsampling design choice that reduces input to 20x20 (Section III-B3).
  • Training sample count per period = 50 samples of 30 ms
    Number of samples extracted per slip period for training (Section III-C). A design choice not justified by analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption External marker tracking with a 2-pixel displacement threshold provides accurate ground truth for incipient and gross slip onsets.
    Section III-C defines slip onsets via marker displacements. This assumes the visual threshold corresponds to the physical onset of slip, which is a strong assumption for a learned system.
  • domain assumption Positive polarity events are sufficient for slip-state discrimination.
    Section III-B3 states only positive events are used to reduce load. This assumes negative events carry no class-discriminative information, which is not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The papillae skin induces slip propagation from periphery to center, enabling distinct incipient slip events.
    The skin design (Section III-A) is claimed to induce incipient slip, relying on the assumption that the concentric pillars create the intended mechanical behavior without unintended coupling.
  • standard math The integrate-and-fire neuron model and surrogate gradient training are appropriate for this temporal classification task.
    The SCNN uses IAF neurons from Sinabs with surrogate gradients (Section III-C). This is a standard method, but its adequacy for slip classification is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Neuromorphic Incipient Slip Detection System using Papillae Morphology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TBPXLVOE

@misc{pith2026250909546,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Neuromorphic Incipient Slip Detection System using Papillae Morphology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TBPXLVOE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09546}
}
read the original abstract

Detecting incipient slip enables early intervention to prevent object slippage and enhance robotic manipulation safety. However, deploying such systems on edge platforms remains challenging, particularly due to energy constraints. This work presents a neuromorphic tactile sensing system based on the NeuroTac sensor with an extruding papillae-based skin and a spiking convolutional neural network (SCNN) for slip-state classification. The SCNN model achieves 94.33% classification accuracy across three classes (no slip, incipient slip, and gross slip) in slip conditions induced by sensor motion. Under the dynamic gravity-induced slip validation conditions, after temporal smoothing of the SCNN's final-layer spike counts, the system detects incipient slip at least 360 ms prior to gross slip across all trials, consistently identifying incipient slip before gross slip occurs. These results demonstrate that this neuromorphic system has stable and responsive incipient slip detection capability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09546 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed slip state detection system. After ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Setup for data collection in kinematically controlled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of neural network architecture for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A) In gravity-induced experiments, the sensor is pressed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Confusion matrix of slip state classification results. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of model outputs before and after smooth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Incipient and gross slip detection timing latencies in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Model detection latencies across different combina [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Incipient and gross slip detection latencies under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

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

    R. S. Johansson and G. 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, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 550–564, 1984

    1984

  2. [2]

    Slip detection with a biomimetic tactile sensor,

    J. W. James, N. Pestell, and N. F. Lepora, “Slip detection with a biomimetic tactile sensor,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3340–3346, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    A piezoresistive-based 3-axial mems tactile sensor and integrated surgical forceps for gastrointestinal endo- scopic minimally invasive surgery,

    C. Hou, H. Gao, X. Yanget al., “A piezoresistive-based 3-axial mems tactile sensor and integrated surgical forceps for gastrointestinal endo- scopic minimally invasive surgery,”Microsystems & Nanoengineering, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 141, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Finger pad friction and its role in grip and touch,

    M. J. Adams, S. A. Johnson, P. Lef `evreet al., “Finger pad friction and its role in grip and touch,”Journal of The Royal Society Interface, vol. 10, no. 80, p. 20120467, 2013

    2013

  5. [5]

    Role of arm reaching movement kinematics in friction perception at initial contact with smooth surfaces,

    N. Afzal, S. du Bois de Dunilac, A. J. Loutitet al., “Role of arm reaching movement kinematics in friction perception at initial contact with smooth surfaces,”The Journal of Physiology, vol. 602, no. 9, pp. 2089–2106, 2024

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

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

    S. Li, Z. Wang, C. Wuet al., “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

  8. [8]

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

    B. Ward-Cherrier, N. Pestell, and N. F. Lepora, “Neurotac: A neuromor- phic optical tactile sensor applied to texture recognition,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 2654–2660

    2020

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Evetac: An event-based optical tactile sensor for robotic manipulation,

    N. Funk, E. Helmut, G. Chalvatzaki, R. Calandra, and J. Peters, “Evetac: An event-based optical tactile sensor for robotic manipulation,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Event-based vision: A survey,

    G. Gallego, T. Delbr ¨uck, G. Orchardet al., “Event-based vision: A survey,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 154–180, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Recent event camera innovations: A survey,

    B. Chakravarthi, A. A. Verma, K. Daniilidis, C. Fermuller, and Y . Yang, “Recent event camera innovations: A survey,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 342–376

    2024

  4. [12]

    Efficient neuromorphic signal processing with loihi 2,

    G. Orchard, E. P. Frady, D. B. D. Rubinet al., “Efficient neuromorphic signal processing with loihi 2,” in2021 IEEE Workshop on Signal Processing Systems (SiPS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 254–259

    2021

  5. [13]

    Live demonstration: face recognition on an ultra-low power event-driven convolutional neural network asic,

    Q. Liu, O. Richter, C. Nielsen, S. Sheik, G. Indiveri, and N. Qiao, “Live demonstration: face recognition on an ultra-low power event-driven convolutional neural network asic,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, 2019, pp. 0–0

    2019

  6. [14]

    Application of event cameras and neuromorphic computing to vslam: A survey,

    S. Tenzin, A. Rassau, and D. Chai, “Application of event cameras and neuromorphic computing to vslam: A survey,”Biomimetics, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 444, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    A silicon retina that reproduces signals in the optic nerve,

    K. A. Zaghloul and K. Boahen, “A silicon retina that reproduces signals in the optic nerve,”Journal of neural engineering, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 257, 2006

    2006

  8. [16]

    Encod- ing of direction of fingertip forces by human tactile afferents,

    I. Birznieks, P. Jenmalm, A. W. Goodwin, and R. S. Johansson, “Encod- ing of direction of fingertip forces by human tactile afferents,”Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 21, no. 20, pp. 8222–8237, 2001

    2001

  9. [17]

    Sub-surface deformation of individual fingerprint ridges during tactile interactions,

    G. Corniani, Z. S. Lee, M. J. Carr ´e, R. Lewis, B. P. Delhaye, and H. P. Saal, “Sub-surface deformation of individual fingerprint ridges during tactile interactions,”bioRxiv, pp. 2023–07, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Force estimation and slip de- tection/classification for grip control using a biomimetic tactile sensor,

    Z. Su, K. Hausman, Y . Chebotaret al., “Force estimation and slip de- tection/classification for grip control using a biomimetic tactile sensor,” in2015 IEEE-RAS 15th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids). IEEE, 2015, pp. 297–303

    2015

  11. [19]

    Measurement of shear and slip with a gelsight tactile sensor,

    W. Yuan, R. Li, M. A. Srinivasan, and E. H. Adelson, “Measurement of shear and slip with a gelsight tactile sensor,” in2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2015, pp. 304– 311

    2015

  12. [20]

    Incipient slip detection method for soft objects with vision-based tactile sensor,

    R. Sui, L. Zhang, T. Li, and Y . Jiang, “Incipient slip detection method for soft objects with vision-based tactile sensor,”Measurement, vol. 203, p. 111906, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Incipient slip detection with a biomimetic skin morphology,

    D. C. Bulens, N. F. Lepora, S. J. Redmond, and B. Ward-Cherrier, “Incipient slip detection with a biomimetic skin morphology,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 8972–8978

    2023

  14. [22]

    Papillarray: An incipient slip sensor for dexterous robotic or prosthetic manipulation–design and prototype validation,

    H. Khamis, R. I. Albero, M. Salerno, A. S. Idil, A. Loizou, and S. J. Redmond, “Papillarray: An incipient slip sensor for dexterous robotic or prosthetic manipulation–design and prototype validation,”Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, vol. 270, pp. 195–204, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Incipient slip detection for rectilinear movements using the papillarray tactile sensor,

    P. M. Ulloa, D. C. Bulens, and S. J. Redmond, “Incipient slip detection for rectilinear movements using the papillarray tactile sensor,” in2022 IEEE Sensors. IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–4

    2022

  16. [24]

    Robust learning-based incipient slip detection using the papillarray optical tactile sensor for improved robotic gripping,

    Q. Wang, P. M. Ulloa, R. Burke, D. C. Bulens, and S. J. Redmond, “Robust learning-based incipient slip detection using the papillarray optical tactile sensor for improved robotic gripping,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1827–1834, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    A biomimetic tactile fingerprint induces incipient slip,

    J. W. James, S. J. Redmond, and N. F. Lepora, “A biomimetic tactile fingerprint induces incipient slip,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 9833–9839

    2020

  18. [26]

    A novel event- based incipient slip detection using dynamic active-pixel vision sensor (davis),

    A. Rigi, F. Baghaei Naeini, D. Makris, and Y . Zweiri, “A novel event- based incipient slip detection using dynamic active-pixel vision sensor (davis),”Sensors, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 333, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Computing with the leaky integrate- and-fire neuron: logarithmic computation and multiplication,

    D. Tal and E. L. Schwartz, “Computing with the leaky integrate- and-fire neuron: logarithmic computation and multiplication,”Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 305–318, 1997

    1997

  20. [28]

    SINABS: A simple PyTorch based SNN library specialised for Speck,

    S. Sheik, G. Lenz, F. Bauer, and N. Kuepelioglu, “SINABS: A simple PyTorch based SNN library specialised for Speck,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/synsense/sinabs

    2023

  21. [29]

    Surrogate gradient learning in spiking neural networks: Bringing the power of gradient-based opti- mization to spiking neural networks,

    E. O. Neftci, H. Mostafa, and F. Zenke, “Surrogate gradient learning in spiking neural networks: Bringing the power of gradient-based opti- mization to spiking neural networks,”IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 51–63, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Detection of fast-moving objects with neuromorphic hardware,

    A. Ziegler, K. Vetter, T. Gossard, J. Tebbe, S. Otte, and A. Zell, “Detection of fast-moving objects with neuromorphic hardware,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10677, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.