Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Haptic Stiffness Perception Using Hand Exoskeletons in Tactile Robotic Telemanipulation

T0 review · 6 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a person wearing a force-feedback exoskeleton glove can perceive the stiffness of remote objects by squeezing them with a teleoperated robotic hand, using only haptic feedback derived from tactile fingertip sensors…

desk verdict A genuinely useful teleoperation study with a new feedback law and a plausible result, but the 'haptic alone' claim needs a control for audible cues and the statistics need a proper redo. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02613 v1 pith:3Q7FAR7Z submitted 2024-12-03 cs.RO

Gabriele Giudici , Claudio Coppola , Kaspar Althoefer , Ildar Farkhatdinov , Lorenzo Jamone This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords hapticfeedbackstiffnessperceptiontelemanipulationhandexoskeletontactilesensingABXdiscriminationkinestheticteleoperation
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

Telemanipulation—using a robot to handle objects at a distance—is useful in remote or hazardous settings, but how soft an object is can be hard to judge through a camera. This paper tests whether force feedback generated from tactile sensing on a robot hand is enough for an operator to tell how soft an unseen object is. Ten naive participants wore an exoskeleton glove that drove a three-fingered robotic hand; contact forces measured by the robot's tactile fingertips were rendered back as squeezing forces on the operator's fingers while the scene was hidden. Participants distinguished five silicone objects of different stiffness with success rates well above chance in both an ABX similarity task and a softer-than comparison task. If the result holds, remote stiffness assessment can be achieved through touch alone, without visual feedback, which matters for palpation, telesurgery, and handling delicate objects in inaccessible environments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the sensor–actuator haptic mapping between the follower's tactile fingertips and the leader exoskeleton: the maximum normal force $F_{F,j}$ measured on each robot fingertip is scaled by $\alpha = F_{L,\max}/F_{F,\max}$ and rendered as $F^1_{L,j}$ on the operator's finger. Method II augments this force term with the normalized displacement ratio $\Delta Z = \Delta Z_{L,j}/\Delta Z_{F,j}$ and a kinematic-range normalization $\beta$, producing $F^2_{L,j} = F^1_{L,j} \cdot \Delta Z \cdot \beta$. Since the paper defines object stiffness as $K_{F,j} = F_{F,j}/\Delta Z_{F,j}$, Method II is effectively rendering a stiffness-weighted feedback signal, while Method I renders force alone; comparing the two is what isolates the contribution of the displacement information.

What would settle it

Run the two tasks with the haptic rendering disabled or replaced by a sham force that is uncorrelated with measured stiffness, keeping the same hidden-scene setup and all incidental sounds identical; if success rates in that control drop to chance, the haptic channel is necessary, and if they stay above chance, the current experiment has not isolated haptic feedback.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper sets out to show that a bilateral telemanipulation system with an exoskeleton glove on the operator side and a dexterous robot hand with tactile fingertips on the remote side can convey object stiffness to a naive operator without any visual feedback. Ten participants squeezed five same-sized silicone samples of different Shore hardnesses (Ecoflex 00-10 through Dragon Skin 30) using the robot hand while the scene was hidden; they completed an ABX similarity task and a softer-than comparison task under two rendering methods. The measured contact forces from the robot fingertips were mapped to kinesthetic forces on the operator's fingers, with Method II additionally incorporating finger-displacement differences between the leader and follower. Average success rates were 74–75% in Task ABX and 64–68% in Task S, both above the 50% chance level. The paper concludes that haptic feedback from tactile sensing alone supports remote stiffness perception, with the displacement component helping mainly for objects of similar stiffness.

Load-bearing premise

The experiments block visual feedback but do not mask auditory or other incidental cues from the robot hand, exoskeleton motors, or object contact, so the above-chance discrimination could in principle come from non-haptic cues rather than from the rendered haptic feedback alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, force-proportional haptic feedback through a hand exoskeleton is sufficient for an operator to tell remote objects apart by stiffness without visual feedback, within the tested Shore hardness range.
  • Including displacement feedback does not consistently beat force-only feedback, so the displacement component should be treated as a task-specific aid rather than a universal improvement.
  • The above-chance discrimination suggests practical use in remote palpation and soft-object sorting, where visual access is limited or absent.
  • Because performance improved between the first and second experimental day, longer training could push discrimination accuracy higher.
  • Since displacement feedback showed its clearest benefit at the closest stiffness distance, it is most valuable when the objects being compared are nearly identical in compliance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not stated in the paper: the same follower-side signals could generate a continuous stiffness estimate in real time, turning ordinal "which is softer?" judgments into a numeric stiffness readout that the operator could feel directly.
  • Because the experiments did not mask auditory cues, a replication with haptic feedback disabled would clarify whether the observed discrimination is truly attributable to the haptic channel alone.
  • A testable extension would measure the smallest stiffness difference a user can reliably detect by using finer stiffness increments around each sample, checking whether displacement feedback lowers that threshold.
  • The displacement-normalization idea is not limited to this glove-and-hand pair; any leader–follower combination with different motion ranges could apply the same normalization and be tested against force-only feedback.
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

6 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a bilateral telemanipulation setup (HGlove leader exoskeleton, Allegro hand with tactile fingertips) and a 10-participant study comparing two haptic stiffness feedback methods: Method I, which renders force proportional to measured contact force, and Method II, which additionally scales the force by a leader/follower displacement ratio. Participants performed two-interval discrimination tasks (ABX similarity and softer-object identification) with vision hidden, and the reported group-mean success rates are about 75% for ABX and about 65% for Task S, above the 50% chance level. The authors conclude that operators can perceive remote object stiffness using haptic feedback alone and that the displacement component may help in the most difficult discriminations.

Significance. If the central claim is established, this is a useful contribution: to my knowledge it is the first participant study showing stiffness discrimination in real-world telemanipulation with a dexterous hand, tactile fingertips, and kinesthetic exoskeleton feedback, with no visual feedback. The study also compares two practical feedback formulations and addresses kinematic mismatch between leader and follower, which is a genuine problem in teleoperation. Strengths include the use of naive participants, balanced ordering of feedback methods, a repeated-trial design, and clearly reported mean performances per method and task. However, the experimental isolation of haptic feedback is incomplete, and several load-bearing statistical analyses are flawed, so the strength of the conclusions currently exceeds what the evidence supports.

major comments (6)
  1. [IV-C, VI] The central claim that operators perceive stiffness 'relying on haptic feedback alone' is not yet isolated, because the only sensory cue removed is vision: Section IV-C states that 'a panel was used to hide the scene,' with no mention of auditory masking, physical separation of the follower robot, or a no-haptic control condition. The follower Allegro motors, the HGlove actuators, and the contact events during squeezing all generate audible and vibratory cues that are correlated with the measured contact force and therefore with object stiffness. A participant could plausibly perform above chance on Task ABX and Task S using these incidental cues alone. I request a control condition without haptic feedback, auditory masking (e.g., white-noise headphones), and/or explicit evidence that non-haptic cues were absent, before the 'haptic feedback alone' claim can be accepted.
  2. [V-D, Table III] The ANOVA in Table III is not a valid analysis of the experiment: with two groups, two days, and two tasks, the design has only eight aggregate cells, and the reported residual degrees of freedom is 1. This means the F-statistics and p-values are computed from a single residual degree of freedom and are uninterpretable, and the text also mislabels a three-factor model as a 'two-way ANOVA.' The conclusions drawn from this table (no significant group/day/task effects) are therefore unsupported. Please replace this with a mixed-effects model or repeated-measures ANOVA on participant-level trial data, with participant as a random effect.
  3. [V-A] The binomial calculations contain errors. For n=24, p=0.5, the exact probability of at least 16 correct is about 7.6%, not 10.6%, and the probability of at least 17 correct is about 3.2%, not 4.3%. The corrected values still support the qualitative conclusion that 17/24 is significant at the 5% level, but the reported confidence values (89.4% and 95%) should be corrected. More importantly, the manuscript moves from a participant-level binomial criterion to group mean success rates in Section VI; please clarify whether the 'all participants performed above 50%' claim is per participant or per group.
  4. [VI] The treatment of the outlier is inconsistent and could affect the reported statistics. The text first states that 'all participants performed above the 50% chance level' and then states that a 'noticeable outlier, excluded from the statistical analysis' achieved 95% in Task ABX. If the outlier is one of the ten participants, then 'all participants' is ambiguous, and excluding a high-performing participant without a pre-specified criterion can bias the mean and variance estimates. Please report results with and without this participant, justify the exclusion rule (e.g., a defined outlier test), and state whether the outlier was excluded from Table II and Figs. 3-6.
  5. [III-B2, Eq. (9)] Method II is introduced as incorporating 'the squeezing displacement between the leader and follower devices,' but Eq. (9) is a force scaled by the product ΔZ·β = (ΔZ_L/ΔZ_F)(ΔZ_max,F/ΔZ_max,L). No derivation is given to show that this product is a stiffness estimate or that it constitutes 'displacement feedback' to the operator. The text in Section III-B2 refers to a real-time stiffness K_F,j in Eq. (6), but K_F,j is not used in Eq. (9). Please clarify the physical model, the units, and why this particular normalization is appropriate; as written, the second contribution is difficult to evaluate.
  6. [V-E] The pair-by-pair Mann-Whitney comparisons involve roughly 14 tests (7 pairs × 2 tasks) with no correction for multiple comparisons. The single reported p=0.048 for pair (1-US, 4-LH) in Task S is therefore well within the range expected by chance, and the later near-significant p=0.061/0.067 values should not be interpreted as trends without an adjustment or a pre-specified analysis plan. The claim that displacement feedback 'may enhance discrimination' is correspondingly weaker than the current text suggests.
minor comments (4)
  1. [II, V-D] There are typographical errors: 'classfication' in Section II and 'ANOV A' in Section V-D, and the text in Section V-D refers to 'Task X' where it should refer to 'Task S.'
  2. [III-A] The force thresholds F_min and F_max are introduced with numerical values but without units; please state the units (e.g., mN or N) and specify what happens when the measured force falls outside the valid range in Eq. (2).
  3. [IV-E] Table I lists the sequence for Task ABX only; please clarify whether Task S used the same stimulus pairs and presentation order, or provide the corresponding sequence.
  4. [Figs. 5-6] The spider plots would be easier to interpret if the axis scale and success-rate range were explicitly labeled, and if the statistically significant pair were marked.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the haptic feedback equations are direct sensor-to-actuator mappings with hardware constants; the perceptual claims are empirical results compared against chance, not derived from the method's own assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. Method I (Eq. 4) renders leader force as F^1_L,j = alpha * F_F,j with alpha = F_L,max / F_F,max (Eq. 5), a fixed scaling of measured contact force. Method II (Eq. 9) multiplies this by displacement ratios DeltaZ and beta, where beta normalizes kinematic ranges (Eqs. 7-8). No parameter in these equations is fitted to participant responses, and neither equation contains the experimental outcome (success rate) as an input. The central claim—that operators can discriminate stiffness—is supported by Section V's binomial analysis against a 50% chance baseline and by reported success rates in Section VI, not by any equation that defines success in terms of the feedback law. The cited prior work [15], [34] describes the hardware setup, and [35]–[38] describe the tactile sensors; these citations are descriptive and do not carry the perceptual result. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or self-citation is invoked to forbid alternative feedback methods or to force the experimental conclusion. The only substantial concern—that auditory or other non-haptic cues may not have been masked (Section IV-C mentions only a visual panel)—is a threat to experimental validity, not circularity, because it concerns whether the empirical contrast isolates haptic feedback, not whether a derivation is equivalent to its assumptions. Accordingly, no circular step is present and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The feedback method depends on hardware constants (force thresholds, scaling, displacement normalization) rather than fitted parameters, and the perceptual claim is tested against chance. The main statistical flaw is treating within-subject data as independent, which is listed as an assumption above.

free parameters (4)
  • F_min (minimum force threshold) = 30 (sensor units)
    Force readings below this threshold produce zero haptic feedback; chosen to reject noise, but the value is not calibrated to physical Newtons.
  • F_max (maximum force threshold) = 1000 (sensor units)
    Used to scale feedback to the glove's 5 N limit; forces above this saturate the rendered force. It is an operational choice, not fitted to participant data.
  • alpha (force scaling) = 0.005 (5 N / 1000)
    Maps the sensor force range to the exoskeleton's maximum force; a hardware-dependent constant.
  • beta (displacement range normalization) = DeltaZmax_F / DeltaZmax_L (device-specific)
    Normalizes the different motion ranges of the leader glove and follower robot hand in Method II (Eq. 8).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Binomial distribution models chance performance in 24-trial ABX and S tasks
    Section V-A uses P(X>=16) and P(X>=17) to define confidence levels, assuming independent trials with p=0.5 under the null hypothesis.
  • domain assumption The five Shore-hardness samples differ only in stiffness
    Section IV-A labels samples 1-US through 5-H as increasing stiffness, but the different base materials (Ecoflex vs Dragon Skin) may also differ in surface friction or compressibility nonlinearity.
  • domain assumption HGlove renders kinesthetic force that is perceptible and proportional to the commanded force
    Section III-B assumes the glove's force output is felt by participants without distortion or fatigue over 45-minute sessions.
  • domain assumption No non-haptic cues inform the participant
    Section IV-C occludes vision with a panel, but motor noise, object contact sounds, and glove vibrations are not masked.
  • ad hoc to paper Mann-Whitney U test is valid for comparing Method I and Method II
    Section V-E compares paired within-subject data with an independent-samples test, which is invalid; this is an unjustified statistical assumption in the analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Haptic Stiffness Perception Using Hand Exoskeletons in Tactile Robotic Telemanipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3Q7FAR7Z

@misc{pith2026241202613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Haptic Stiffness Perception Using Hand Exoskeletons in Tactile Robotic Telemanipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3Q7FAR7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02613}
}
read the original abstract

Robotic telemanipulation - the human-guided manipulation of remote objects - plays a pivotal role in several applications, from healthcare to operations in harsh environments. While visual feedback from cameras can provide valuable information to the human operator, haptic feedback is essential for accessing specific object properties that are difficult to be perceived by vision, such as stiffness. For the first time, we present a participant study demonstrating that operators can perceive the stiffness of remote objects during real-world telemanipulation with a dexterous robotic hand, when haptic feedback is generated from tactile sensing fingertips. Participants were tasked with squeezing soft objects by teleoperating a robotic hand, using two methods of haptic feedback: one based solely on the measured contact force, while the second also includes the squeezing displacement between the leader and follower devices. Our results demonstrate that operators are indeed capable of discriminating objects of different stiffness, relying on haptic feedback alone and without any visual feedback. Additionally, our findings suggest that the displacement feedback component may enhance discrimination with objects of similar stiffness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02613 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The teleoperation setup connecting the Leader HGlove exoskeleton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Samples of same-sized objects composed of soft materials such as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Task success rates for both groups, subdivided by experimental days [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spider plot showing Success Rate performance for Method I and II [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spider plot showing Success Rate performance for Method I and II [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A review of bilateral teleoperation control strategies with soft environment,

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

    2021

  2. [2]

    From teleoperation to autonomous robot-assisted microsurgery: A survey,

    D. Zhang, W. Si, W. Fan, Y . Guan, and C. Yang, “From teleoperation to autonomous robot-assisted microsurgery: A survey,” Machine Intelli- gence Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 288–306, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    A review on haptic bilateral teleoperation systems,

    S. N. F. Nahri, S. Du, and B. J. Van Wyk, “A review on haptic bilateral teleoperation systems,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems , vol. 104, no. 1, p. 13, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    A suite of robotic solutions for nuclear waste decommissioning,

    I. Vitanov, I. Farkhatdinov, B. Denoun, F. Palermo, A. Otaran, J. Brown, B. Omarali, T. Abrar, M. Hansard, C. Oh et al. , “A suite of robotic solutions for nuclear waste decommissioning,” Robotics, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 112, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Teleoperation of humanoid robots: A survey,

    K. Darvish, L. Penco, J. Ramos, R. Cisneros, J. Pratt, E. Yoshida, S. Ivaldi, and D. Pucci, “Teleoperation of humanoid robots: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1706–1727, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Haptic feedback and force- based teleoperation in surgical robotics,

    R. V . Patel, S. F. Atashzar, and M. Tavakoli, “Haptic feedback and force- based teleoperation in surgical robotics,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 110, no. 7, pp. 1012–1027, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    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

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Gaining a sense of touch object stiffness estimation using a soft gripper and neural networks,

    M. Bednarek, P. Kicki, J. Bednarek, and K. Walas, “Gaining a sense of touch object stiffness estimation using a soft gripper and neural networks,” Electronics, vol. 10, no. 1, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Variable stiffness object recognition with a cnn-bayes classifier on a soft gripper,

    J. Huang and A. Rosendo, “Variable stiffness object recognition with a cnn-bayes classifier on a soft gripper,” Soft Robotics, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1220–1231, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Recent progress on tactile object recognition,

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

    2017

  3. [11]

    Comparing single touch to dynamic exploratory procedures for robotic tactile object recognition,

    E. Kirby, R. Zenha, and L. Jamone, “Comparing single touch to dynamic exploratory procedures for robotic tactile object recognition,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4252–4258, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Tactile transfer learning and object recognition with a multifingered hand using morphology specific convolutional neural net- works,

    S. Funabashi, G. Yan, F. Hongyi, A. Schmitz, L. Jamone, T. Ogata, and S. Sugano, “Tactile transfer learning and object recognition with a multifingered hand using morphology specific convolutional neural net- works,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , ...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Fruit quality control by surface analysis using a bio-inspired soft tactile sensor,

    P. Ribeiro, S. Cardoso, A. Bernardino, and L. Jamone, “Fruit quality control by surface analysis using a bio-inspired soft tactile sensor,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020, pp. 8875–8881

    2020

  6. [14]

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

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

    2017

  7. [15]

    Feeling good: Validation of bilateral tactile telemanipulation for a dexterous robot,

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

    2023

  8. [16]

    Estimation and exploitation of objects’ inertial parameters in robotic grasping and manipulation: A survey,

    N. Mavrakis and R. Stolkin, “Estimation and exploitation of objects’ inertial parameters in robotic grasping and manipulation: A survey,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 124, p. 103374, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Tactile classification of object materials for virtual reality based robot teleoperation,

    B. Omarali, F. Palermo, K. Althoefer, M. Valle, and I. Farkhatdinov, “Tactile classification of object materials for virtual reality based robot teleoperation,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 9288–9294

    2022

  10. [18]

    Tissue property estimation and graphical display for teleop- erated robot-assisted surgery,

    T. Yamamoto, B. Vagvolgyi, K. Balaji, L. L. Whitcomb, and A. M. Okamura, “Tissue property estimation and graphical display for teleop- erated robot-assisted surgery,” in 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2009, pp. 4239–4245

    2009

  11. [19]

    An experimental study about haptic feedback in robotic surgery: may visual feedback substitute tactile feedback?

    G. Meccariello, F. Faedi, S. AlGhamdi, F. Montevecchi, E. Firinu, C. Zanotti, D. Cavaliere, R. Gunelli, M. Taurchini, A. Amadori et al. , “An experimental study about haptic feedback in robotic surgery: may visual feedback substitute tactile feedback?” Journal of robotic surge...

    2016

  12. [20]

    A review on manipulation skill acquisition through teleoperation-based learning from demonstration,

    W. Si, N. Wang, and C. Yang, “A review on manipulation skill acquisition through teleoperation-based learning from demonstration,” Cognitive Computation and Systems , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    A survey of robot manipulation in contact,

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

    2022

  14. [22]

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

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

    2023

  15. [23]

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

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

    2023

  16. [24]

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

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

    2023

  17. [25]

    Intuitive and interactive robotic avatar system for tele-existence: Team snu in the ana avatar xprize finals,

    B. Park, D. Kim, D. Lim, S. Park, J. Ahn, S. Kim, J. Shin, E. Sung, J. Sim, J. Kim et al., “Intuitive and interactive robotic avatar system for tele-existence: Team snu in the ana avatar xprize finals,” International Journal of Social Robotics , pp. 1–29, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    The role of haptic feed- back when manipulating nonrigid objects,

    F. Danion, J. S. Diamond, and J. R. Flanagan, “The role of haptic feed- back when manipulating nonrigid objects,” Journal of neurophysiology, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 433–441, 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    Accelerating surgical robotics research: A review of 10 years with the da vinci research kit,

    C. D’Ettorre, A. Mariani, A. Stilli, F. R. y Baena, P. Valdastri, A. Deguet, P. Kazanzides, R. H. Taylor, G. S. Fischer, S. P. DiMaio et al. , “Accelerating surgical robotics research: A review of 10 years with the da vinci research kit,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , ...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Interac- tion model between elastic objects for haptic feedback considering col- lisions of soft tissue,

    Y . Kuroda, M. Nakao, T. Kuroda, H. Oyama, and M. Komori, “Interac- tion model between elastic objects for haptic feedback considering col- lisions of soft tissue,” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 216–224, 2005

    2005

  21. [29]

    A haptic teleoperation approach based on contact force control,

    J. Park and O. Khatib, “A haptic teleoperation approach based on contact force control,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 25, no. 5-6, pp. 575–591, 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    Human telehaptic perception of stiffness using an adaptive impedance reflection bilateral teleoperation control scheme,

    S. V . Velanas and C. S. Tzafestas, “Human telehaptic perception of stiffness using an adaptive impedance reflection bilateral teleoperation control scheme,” in 19th International Symposium in Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, 2010, pp. 21–26

    2010

  23. [31]

    Application of a redundant haptic interface in enhancing soft-tissue stiffness discrimination,

    A. Torabi, M. Khadem, K. Zareinia, G. R. Sutherland, and M. Tavakoli, “Application of a redundant haptic interface in enhancing soft-tissue stiffness discrimination,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1037–1044, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Recent advances in robot-assisted surgery: Soft tissue contact identification,

    T. D. Nagy and T. Haidegger, “Recent advances in robot-assisted surgery: Soft tissue contact identification,” in 2019 IEEE 13th Inter- national Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence and Infor- matics (SACI). IEEE, 2019, pp. 99–106

    2019

  25. [33]

    Evaluation of force feedback for palpation and application of active constraints on a teleoperated system,

    E. Psomopoulou, R. Persad, A. Koupparis, S. Abeywardena, M. F. Sani, C. Melhuish, and S. Dogramadzi, “Evaluation of force feedback for palpation and application of active constraints on a teleoperated system,” in Proceedings of MEDICON 2019, September 26-28, 2019, Coimbra, Por...

    2019

  26. [34]

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

    X. Mao, G. Giudici, C. Coppola, K. Althoefer, I. Farkhatdinov, Z. Li, and L. Jamone, “Dexskills: Skill segmentation using haptic data for learning autonomous long-horizon robotic manipulation tasks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03476, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

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

    A. A. Bonzini, L. Seminara, S. Macci `o, A. Carfı, and L. Jamone, “Leveraging symmetry detection to speed up haptic object exploration in robots,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning (ICDL). IEEE, 2022, pp. 95–100

    2022

  28. [36]

    Development of a hall-effect based skin sensor,

    T. P. Tomo, S. Somlor, A. Schmitz, S. Hashimoto, S. Sugano, and L. Jamone, “Development of a hall-effect based skin sensor,” in 2015 IEEE SENSORS. IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–4

    2015

  29. [37]

    Low-cost 3-axis soft tactile sensors for the human-friendly robot vizzy,

    T. Paulino, P. Ribeiro, M. Neto, S. Cardoso, A. Schmitz, J. Santos-Victor, A. Bernardino, and L. Jamone, “Low-cost 3-axis soft tactile sensors for the human-friendly robot vizzy,” in 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 966–971

    2017

  30. [38]

    Covering a robot fingertip with uskin: A soft electronic skin with distributed 3-axis force sensitive elements for robot hands,

    T. P. Tomo, A. Schmitz, W. K. Wong, H. Kristanto, S. Somlor, J. Hwang, L. Jamone, and S. Sugano, “Covering a robot fingertip with uskin: A soft electronic skin with distributed 3-axis force sensitive elements for robot hands,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 3, no....

    2017

  31. [39]

    Durometer hardness and the stress- strain behavior of elastomeric materials,

    H. Qi, K. Joyce, and M. Boyce, “Durometer hardness and the stress- strain behavior of elastomeric materials,” Rubber chemistry and tech- nology, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 419–435, 2003

    2003

  32. [40]

    Durometer shore hardness scale

    Smooth-On Inc., “Durometer shore hardness scale.” [Online]. Available: https://www.smooth-on.com/page/durometer-shore-hardness-scale/

  33. [41]

    Standardizing auditory tests,

    W. Munson and M. B. Gardner, “Standardizing auditory tests,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 22, no. 5 Supplement, pp. 675–675, 1950

    1950

  34. [42]

    Abx discrimination task,

    R. E. Greenaway, “Abx discrimination task,” in Discrimination testing in sensory science . Elsevier, 2017, pp. 267–288

    2017

Pith tools

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