Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 40 references

GelSight FlexiRay: Breaking Planar Limits by Harnessing Large Deformations for Flexible,Full-Coverage Multimodal Sensing

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GelSight FlexiRay claims that one camera, aided by passively reorienting mirrors, keeps full tactile coverage of a Fin Ray soft gripper while it deforms roughly five times more than prior compliant visual-tactile sensors, reaching 0.14 N…

desk verdict A genuinely new multi-mirror-on-flexible-structure VTS design, but the headline numbers and 'full-coverage' claim outrun the current evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18979 v1 pith:TFQZKZ5Z submitted 2024-11-28 cs.RO

Yanzhe Wang , Hao Wu , Haotian Guo , Huixu Dong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords vision-basedtactilesensorsoftgripperFinRayeffectmulti-mirroropticsCMA-ESlayoutoptimizationmultimodalsensingproprioceptioncompliantgripping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a vision-based tactile sensor need not be rigid: mounted on a Fin Ray soft gripper, a single camera and an array of small mirrors can keep the whole contact surface in view even while the finger bends deeply. The authors model the gripper's force-to-deformation behavior, then use CMA-ES to place camera and mirrors so that reflected rays cover the sensing pad across many deformation states. They report force estimation error of 0.14 N and proprioceptive joint-position error of about 0.19 mm, with roughly five times larger deformation under the same load than a prior compliant GelSight Fin Ray design. If true, this would let one inexpensive camera deliver force, contact location, texture, temperature, slip, and finger posture simultaneously on a soft compliant gripper.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a multi-mirror optical relay whose layout is optimized offline from a measured planar force-deformation map $f: F \to \{N_i, P_i\}$ of the Fin Ray. Each T-shaped planar mirror is bonded to the flexible back beam at a small footprint, so as the beam bends the mirror passively reorients with it; the optimizer chooses mirror angles, midpoint offsets, lengths, camera position coefficient $u$, and optical-axis angle $\phi$ to maximize the number of target points on the sensing pad hit by camera rays, either directly or after one reflection, sampled over $K$ load states, with occlusion and safety penalties. The argument is that this turns structural deformation into a self-adjusting reflector geometry that keeps the contact surface visible to one camera.

What would settle it

Run the same UR5e loading setup but push the hemispherical probe at roughly 30 degrees off the z-axis while recording the internal image; if a noticeable fraction of the sensing-pad markers in the mirrored regions disappears from view or the force-estimation RMSE rises above the normal-force training range, the planar deformation assumption is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that optical occlusion during large structural deformation can be converted from a fatal flaw into a design variable. The authors sample the Fin Ray's node displacements under different loads, feed that force-deformation map into a CMA-ES optimization of mirror angles, offsets, lengths, and camera pose, and obtain a layout under which direct and mirror-reflected views together cover the tactile pad across the deformation range. The resulting TPU-and-PDMS finger with a 12-megapixel wide-angle camera simultaneously estimates contact force (RMSE 0.135 N, reported as 0.14 N accuracy), 3D contact position (mean error 0.83 mm), and 14 proprioceptive joint-node positions (average error about 0.19 mm), classifies textures (95.83% validation, 88.33% average success in random grasps), distinguishes water temperature, and detects slip during handover. It also reports about 15 mm contact-depth deformation at 7.5 N, versus roughly 3-4 mm for the GelSight Baby Fin Ray, which it summarizes as fivefold larger deformation under the same loads.

Load-bearing premise

The mirror layout is optimized from a planar 2D force-deformation map, assuming each mirror rigidly follows the back-beam nodes without distortion or detachment; if real grasps introduce torsion or out-of-plane bending, the claimed full coverage may not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single low-cost camera can serve as the entire tactile front end of a soft gripper, with mirrors replacing a second camera for segmented coverage of bent regions.
  • Because the mirrors move passively with the back beam, the optical system does not stiffen the finger; the reported deformation at 7.5 N is about 15 mm, several times the 3-4 mm of the GelSight Baby Fin Ray.
  • Force, contact location, joint posture, temperature, texture, and slip are all read from the same image stream, so a gripper can combine compliance with rich feedback without additional skin electronics.
  • The learned perception models generalize across four probe geometries and dynamic continuous contact, supporting force and depth tracking during active pressing.
  • The demonstrated sorting and cup-handover tasks indicate the multimodal outputs are usable for object classification and safe human-robot release.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same CMA-ES mirror-layout recipe should transfer to any soft structure with a measurable or simulable deformation field, not only Fin Ray fingers; a natural next test is a bending or twisting continuum arm.
  • Because the optimization uses a planar 2D cross-section map, out-of-plane shear or torsion during real grasps is the most likely failure mode; a stress test with off-axis loading would reveal whether the full-coverage claim extends to 3D deformation.
  • The reported joint-position error grows at the two lower back-beam nodes, where deformation is largest; adding a marker or a small extra mirror aimed at that beam segment could close the gap.
  • A transparent or highly specular grasped object could confuse the direct-versus-reflected image segmentation, since the mirrored view duplicates the pad; testing such objects would probe the limits of the learning-based decoupling.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents Gelsight FlexiRay, a Fin Ray-based soft gripper finger that integrates a single camera, a multi-mirror optical system, a flexible silicone/PDMS tactile pad, and thermochromic markers to provide force, contact position, proprioception, texture, temperature, and slip sensing. The key design idea is to treat large structural deformation as a design input rather than a failure mode: a CMA-ES optimization over mirror angles, positions, lengths, and camera pose is used to maintain optical coverage of the tactile surface under deformation, using a planar force-deformation map of the Fin Ray structure. The authors report a force RMSE of 0.135 N, a contact-position mean error of 0.83 mm, average side-beam node positioning errors around 0.19 mm, a texture classification accuracy of 88.33%, and a cup-transfer human-robot interaction demonstration, and they claim roughly fivefold larger deformation under load compared with existing compliant visual-tactile sensors.

Significance. If the central claims are substantiated, this is a useful step toward high-resolution, large-coverage tactile sensing in compliant grippers: a single camera plus passive mirrors is considerably simpler and cheaper than multi-camera segmented coverage, and the explicit optimization of the optical layout under deformation is a sensible design methodology. The force and proprioception experiments use external ground truth (load cell and global camera), so those evaluations are not circular. The paper also contains real hardware demonstrations, learning-based perception models with reasonable reported performance, and a clear multimodal task set. However, the headline claims of 'full coverage' under large deformation and 'fivefold greater deformation' are not yet supported by quantitative measurements, and the reported accuracy numbers lack uncertainty estimates and repeated-trial validation. The central ideas are publishable, but the evidence base currently falls short of the claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [III-B, Eq. (2)] The central 'full-coverage under large deformation' claim is not validated on the integrated sensor. The objective function in Eq. (2) maximizes coverage over planar 2D nodes {P_i} obtained from f: F -> {N_i, P_i}, parameterizing each mirror angle relative to the chord between adjacent back-beam nodes and assuming the rigid mirror follows that chord without distortion or detachment. The real sensor carries bonded T-shaped mirrors, a camera, LED strips, and a PDMS/silicone pad, which alter the local stiffness and curvature of the back beam, and torsional or out-of-plane loads are outside the 2D model. Section IV provides only qualitative images (e.g., Fig. 6) and does not report a measured coverage fraction as a function of load or deformation. Please add direct measurements of what fraction of the tactile sensing region remains visible under controlled normal, shear, and torsion-like loads on the integrated finger, and state the resulting optimized layout parameters so the optimization can be independently assessed.
  2. [IV-A2] The quantitative accuracy claims are based on a single training/validation split without repeated trials or confidence intervals. The force RMSE of 0.135 N, correlation of 0.997, contact-position mean error of 0.83 mm, and average node positioning error of about 0.19 mm are reported from one split of 5,000 images at a 4:1 ratio. Deep-network results can vary with random initialization and data split, so these point estimates do not establish the claimed accuracy levels. Please report cross-validated results, repeated-seed statistics, or confidence intervals for the force and positioning metrics, and clarify the exact metric being called 'positioning accuracy' in the abstract and conclusion.
  3. [IV-A2] The 'fivefold larger structural deformation under the same loads' comparison is not measured directly. The text states that GelSight Baby Fin Ray shows 'around 3-4 mm' deformation at 7.5 N based on a cited prior sensor, while FlexiRay reaches about 15 mm in the authors' setup, and the conclusion converts this into 'fivefold greater deformation capacity.' Because the contact geometry, probe type, loading protocol, and deformation metric (contact depth versus structural node displacement) are not matched to the baseline experiment, this headline comparison is not established. Please perform a side-by-side measurement with the same loads, probes, and deformation definition, or explicitly label the comparison as qualitative and remove the quantitative factor claim.
  4. [III-B] The optimized design parameters that are central to the contribution are not disclosed. Decision variables in Eq. (1) include mirror angles, offset distances, mirror lengths, camera distance coefficient u, and optical-axis angle phi, but the resulting optimized values are not reported anywhere in the manuscript. Without these parameters, the CMA-ES optimization cannot be reproduced or assessed, and the claim that the layout is 'systematically optimized' is not checkable. Please include the optimized parameter set, or provide them in a supplement.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and IV-A2] The abstract and conclusion state a force accuracy of 0.14 N, while Section IV-A2 reports an RMSE of 0.135 N; please make the metric and rounding consistent, and prefer 'RMSE' over 'accuracy' or define what 'accuracy' means.
  2. [II and IV] The term 'full coverage' is used throughout but never formally defined. A precise definition, such as the fraction of tactile-surface points visible by direct or reflected rays under a given load, would strengthen the paper and make the coverage claim testable.
  3. [III-B, Eq. (2)] The ray-coverage radius is introduced as 'R ∝ lc' without a definition of the proportionality constant or of lc; please specify how the indicator function I(x, r, p, R) is evaluated and how many rays m and target points per deformation are used.
  4. [IV-A2, Fig. 5(F)] Figure 5(F) shows ten repeated continuous interactions, but the plotted data are shown without error bands or statistical summaries; adding confidence intervals would substantially strengthen the dynamic-force and contact-depth results.
  5. [IV-C] The texture-classification accuracy of 88.33% is based on 120 test grasps and includes a large per-class spread (e.g., 73.3% for the cyan ball); reporting confidence intervals and class-wise sample sizes would help the reader judge robustness.
  6. [IV-D] The temperature-sensing experiment demonstrates only discrete discrimination among three cup temperatures and does not report a temperature error, response time, or the number of repeated trials; please state quantitative performance or explicitly describe the experiment as a qualitative demonstration.
  7. [Index Terms and throughout] There are several typographical and wording issues, including 'neutral network' in the index terms, 'complaint finger framework' in Section III-A, and 'transfering' in Section IV-D; a careful language pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensor's accuracy claims are evaluated against external ground truth, and the optical-layout optimization is independently checked by hardware images.

full rationale

The paper's central claims do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The CMA-ES mirror-layout optimization (Section III-B) maximizes a coverage objective based on a sampled force-deformation mapping f: F -> {N_i, P_i}; this is a design optimization, not a prediction, and the optimized design is subsequently validated on physical hardware through raw internal images (Fig. 6) and a continuous texture readout ('ZJUGRASPLA'). The force and proprioception accuracies (0.135 N RMSE, ~0.19 mm node positioning) come from supervised regression models trained with ground truth from a load cell, robot end-effector readings, and a global camera (Section IV-A), so the evaluation is external to the optimization objective. The deformation comparison to GelSight Baby Fin Ray relies on an independent prior work [35], not on self-citation. The only self-citations are background references ([3], [4]) and are not load-bearing. The absence of a quantified coverage ratio under torsion or out-of-plane loads is a completeness and generalization concern, not a circularity, because the paper does not claim that the coverage objective itself is the experimental proof of coverage; it shows captured images instead. Overall, no derivation step is equivalent to its own input by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on engineering modeling assumptions (2D deformation map, rigid mirror motion, discretized ray coverage) rather than new physical postulates; the headline accuracy numbers are validation results of supervised models trained on the system's own data, so no independent falsifiable entity is introduced. The optimized layout parameters that would let others reproduce the design are not disclosed.

free parameters (3)
  • Mirror layout parameters (theta_mir_i, t_mir_i, l_mir_i) = Not reported
    Decision variables in Eq. (1) optimized by CMA-ES; the central full-coverage claim depends on their optimized values, but the final values are omitted from the paper.
  • Camera position coefficient u and optical axis angle phi = Not reported
    Camera placement decision variables in Eq. (1); not reported, preventing exact replication.
  • Learned network weights (proprioception, texture classification, temperature) = Trained on 5,000 and 600 images
    Headline force RMSE 0.135 N, position errors, and classification accuracy are validation results of these fitted models; no checkpoints are released.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The planar 2D cross-section force-deformation mapping f: F to {Ni, Pi} sampled from an identical Fin Ray represents the real 3D deformation behavior during grasping.
    Invoked in Section III-B to generate target points for the CMA-ES coverage objective; if real deformations include torsion or out-of-plane bending, the optimized mirror layout may miss contact regions.
  • domain assumption Mirrors mounted on the back beam move rigidly with the beam nodes and remain planar and undistorted under large deformation.
    The optical model treats mirror pose as following the back-beam node positions; mirror bending or detachment would invalidate the reflection geometry. Stated in Sections III-A and III-B.
  • domain assumption The discretized ray model with coverage radius R proportional to l_c and occlusion penalties is a faithful proxy for actual camera coverage.
    Objective function Eq. (2) uses this model to select the layout; the paper does not compare the model's coverage predictions to measured coverage across loads beyond qualitative images.
  • domain assumption CMA-ES finds a layout that generalizes beyond the K sampled loads used in the objective.
    The optimization samples K distinct loads; the experiments probe continuous loads and varied objects, so generalization is assumed rather than proven.
  • domain assumption PP-LiteSeg segmentation (mIoU 89.98%) is accurate enough that downstream force, position, texture, and temperature models are not corrupted by mis-segmentation.
    All perception models consume segmented images from PP-LiteSeg (Section III-D); segmentation errors propagate to the headline metrics.
  • domain assumption The global camera provides accurate ground-truth side-beam node positions for proprioceptive training.
    Node position errors are computed against the global camera; if the global camera calibration or marker tracking is biased, the reported 0.19 mm accuracy is biased as well. Section IV-A1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GelSight FlexiRay: Breaking Planar Limits by Harnessing Large Deformations for Flexible,Full-Coverage Multimodal Sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TFQZKZ5Z

@misc{pith2026241118979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GelSight FlexiRay: Breaking Planar Limits by Harnessing Large Deformations for Flexible,Full-Coverage Multimodal Sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TFQZKZ5Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18979}
}
read the original abstract

The integration of tactile sensing into compliant soft robotic grippers offers a compelling pathway toward advanced robotic grasping and safer human-robot interactions. Visual-tactile sensors realize high-resolution, large-area tactile perception with affordable cameras. However, conventional visual-tactile sensors rely heavily on rigid forms, sacrificing finger compliance and sensing regions to achieve localized tactile feedback. Enabling seamless, large-area tactile sensing in soft grippers remains challenging, as deformations inherent to soft structures can obstruct the optical path and restrict the camera's field of view. To address these, we present Gelsight FlexiRay, a multimodal visual-tactile sensor designed for safe and compliant interactions with substantial structural deformation through integration with Finray Effect grippers. First, we adopt a multi-mirror configuration, which is systematically modeled and optimized based on the physical force-deformation characteristics of FRE grippers. Second, we enhanced Gelsight FlexiRay with human-like multimodal perception, including contact force and location, proprioception, temperature, texture, and slippage. Experiments demonstrate Gelsight FlexiRay's robust tactile performance across diverse deformation states, achieving a force measurement accuracy of 0.14 N and proprioceptive positioning accuracy of 0.19 mm. Compared with state of art compliant VTS, the FlexiRay demonstrates 5 times larger structural deformation under the same loads. Its expanded sensing area and ability to distinguish contact information and execute grasping and classification tasks highlights its potential for versatile, large-area multimodal tactile sensing integration within soft robotic systems. This work establishes a foundation for flexible, high-resolution tactile sensing in compliant robotic applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18979 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gelsight FlexiRay: A novel flexible multimodal visual-tactile sensor, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the integrated design and layout optimization of Gelsight FlexiRay. (A) Exploded view of Gelsight FlexiRay. (B) Exploded view of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fabrication process of Gelsight FlexiRay. (A) Casting of the reflective layer. (B) Engraving markers with a laser. (C) Casting of the temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Perception model architecture. (A) Real-time semantic segmentation model for segmenting the front beam skeleton, perception region, and contact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Force and proprioceptive perception experimental process and results. (A) Data collection platform. (B) Probe type of the load cell. (C) Accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Texture detection performance. (A) Raw internal images captured while gripping various objects. (B) 3D-printed text ring used to evaluate fine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Tactile-based ball classification experiment process and results. (A) Confusion matrix of the test results. (B) Workflow for ball sorting and tactile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tactile temperature sensing and sliding detection for human-robot cup interaction. (A) Raw tactile images. (B) Changes in the RGB values of tactile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The mechanosensory neurons of touch and their mechanisms of activation,

    A. Handler and D. D. Ginty, “The mechanosensory neurons of touch and their mechanisms of activation,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 521–537, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Tactile sensing—from humans to humanoids,

    R. S. Dahiya, G. Metta, M. Valle, and G. Sandini, “Tactile sensing—from humans to humanoids,” IEEE transactions on robotics , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2009

    2009

  3. [3]

    Geometric design optimization of an under-actuated tendon-driven robotic gripper,

    H. Dong, E. Asadi, C. Qiu, J. Dai, and I.-M. Chen, “Geometric design optimization of an under-actuated tendon-driven robotic gripper,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing , vol. 50, pp. 80–89, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    GSG: A Granary Soft Gripper with Mechanical Force Sensing via 3-Dimensional Snap-Through Structure

    H. Dong, C.-Y . Chen, C. Qiu, C.-H. Yeow, and H. Yu, “Gsg: A granary soft gripper with mechanical force sensing via 3-dimensional snap- through structure,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.04046 , 2021

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Soft robotic grippers,

    J. Shintake, V . Cacucciolo, D. Floreano, and H. Shea, “Soft robotic grippers,” Advanced materials, vol. 30, no. 29, p. 1707035, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Optoelectronically innervated soft prosthetic hand via stretchable optical waveguides,

    H. Zhao, K. O’Brien, S. Li, and R. F. Shepherd, “Optoelectronically innervated soft prosthetic hand via stretchable optical waveguides,” Science Robotics, vol. 1, no. 1, p. eaai7529, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/scirobotics.aai7529

    doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aai7529 2016

  7. [7]

    Novel tactile sensor technology and smart tactile sensing systems: A review,

    L. Zou, C. Ge, Z. J. Wang, E. Cretu, and X. Li, “Novel tactile sensor technology and smart tactile sensing systems: A review,” Sensors, vol. 17, no. 11, p. 2653, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Skin electronics from scalable fabrication of an intrinsically stretchable transistor array,

    S. Wang, J. Xu, W. Wang, G.-J. N. Wang, R. Rastak, F. Molina-Lopez, J. W. Chung, S. Niu, V . R. Feig, J. Lopez et al. , “Skin electronics from scalable fabrication of an intrinsically stretchable transistor array,” Nature, vol. 555, no. 7694, pp. 83–88, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Recent progress in electronic skin,

    X. Wang, L. Dong, H. Zhang, R. Yu, C. Pan, and Z. L. Wang, “Recent progress in electronic skin,” Advanced Science , vol. 2, no. 10, p. 1500169, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    Force measurement technology of vision-based tactile sensor,

    B. Fang, J. Zhao, N. Liu, Y . Sun, S. Zhang, F. Sun, J. Shan, and Y . Yang, “Force measurement technology of vision-based tactile sensor,” Advanced Intelligent Systems , p. 2400290, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Vision-based tactile sensor mechanism for the estimation of contact position and force distribution using deep learning,

    V . Kakani, X. Cui, M. Ma, and H. Kim, “Vision-based tactile sensor mechanism for the estimation of contact position and force distribution using deep learning,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 5, p. 1920, 2021

    1920

  5. [13]

    Active clothing material perception using tactile sensing and deep learning,

    W. Yuan, Y . Mo, S. Wang, and E. H. Adelson, “Active clothing material perception using tactile sensing and deep learning,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 4842–4849

    2018

  6. [14]

    Gelsight fin ray: Incorporating tactile sensing into a soft compliant robotic gripper,

    S. Q. Liu and E. H. Adelson, “Gelsight fin ray: Incorporating tactile sensing into a soft compliant robotic gripper,” in 2022 IEEE 5th International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 925–931

    2022

  7. [15]

    Passive and active acoustic sensing for soft pneumatic actuators,

    V . Wall, G. Z ¨oller, and O. Brock, “Passive and active acoustic sensing for soft pneumatic actuators,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 108–122, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    A three-dimensionally architected electronic skin mimicking human mechanosensation,

    Z. Liu, X. Hu, R. Bo, Y . Yang, X. Cheng, W. Pang, Q. Liu, Y . Wang, S. Wang, S. Xu, Z. Shen, and Y . Zhang, “A three-dimensionally architected electronic skin mimicking human mechanosensation,” Science, vol. 384, no. 6699, pp. 987–994, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.s...

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    A sensory soft robotic gripper capable of learning-based object recogni- tion and force-controlled grasping,

    Z. Zhou, R. Zuo, B. Ying, J. Zhu, Y . Wang, X. Wang, and X. Liu, “A sensory soft robotic gripper capable of learning-based object recogni- tion and force-controlled grasping,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 844–854, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Soft magnetic skin for super-resolution tactile sensing with force self-decoupling,

    Y . Yan, Z. Hu, Z. Yang, W. Yuan, C. Song, J. Pan, and Y . Shen, “Soft magnetic skin for super-resolution tactile sensing with force self-decoupling,” Science Robotics , vol. 6, no. 51, p. eabc8801, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/ 10.1126/scirobotic...

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Design of a 3d- printed soft robotic hand with integrated distributed tactile sensing,

    O. Shorthose, A. Albini, L. He, and P. Maiolino, “Design of a 3d- printed soft robotic hand with integrated distributed tactile sensing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 3945–3952, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Fully 3d printable robot hand and soft tactile sensor based on air-pressure and capacitive proximity sensing,

    S. Taylor, K. Park, S. Yamsani, and J. Kim, “Fully 3d printable robot hand and soft tactile sensor based on air-pressure and capacitive proximity sensing,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 18 100–18 105

    2024

  13. [21]

    Soft optoelectronic sensory foams with proprioception,

    I. M. V . Meerbeek, C. M. D. Sa, and R. F. Shepherd, “Soft optoelectronic sensory foams with proprioception,” Science Robotics , vol. 3, no. 24, p. eaau2489, 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/scirobotics.aau2489 14

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Skin-inspired quadruple tactile sensors integrated on a robot hand enable object recognition,

    G. Li, S. Liu, L. Wang, and R. Zhu, “Skin-inspired quadruple tactile sensors integrated on a robot hand enable object recognition,” Science Robotics, vol. 5, no. 49, p. eabc8134, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/scirobotics.abc8134

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Computational sensors: The basis for truly intelligent machines,

    J. V . der Spiegel, “Computational sensors: The basis for truly intelligent machines,” in Intelligent Sensors , ser. Handbook of Sensors and Actuators, H. Yamasaki, Ed. Elsevier Science B.V ., 1996, vol. 3, pp. 19–37. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/...

    1996

  16. [24]

    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

    2009

  17. [25]

    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

  18. [26]

    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...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Gelsight360: An omnidirectional camera-based tactile sensor for dexterous robotic manipulation,

    M. H. Tippur and E. H. Adelson, “Gelsight360: An omnidirectional camera-based tactile sensor for dexterous robotic manipulation,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  20. [28]

    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). IEEE, 2022, pp. 6188–6194

    2022

  21. [29]

    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, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Haptitemp: A next-generation thermosensitive gelsight-like visuotactile sensor,

    A. C. Abad, D. Reid, and A. Ranasinghe, “Haptitemp: A next-generation thermosensitive gelsight-like visuotactile sensor,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 2722–2734, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    M3tac: A multispectral multimodal visuotactile sensor with beyond- human sensory capabilities,

    S. Li, H. Yu, G. Pan, H. Tang, J. Zhang, L. Ye, X.-P. Zhang, and W. Ding, “M3tac: A multispectral multimodal visuotactile sensor with beyond- human sensory capabilities,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 40, pp. 4506–4525, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Gelsight svelte: A human finger-shaped single-camera tactile robot finger with large sensing coverage and proprioceptive sensing,

    J. Zhao and E. H. Adelson, “Gelsight svelte: A human finger-shaped single-camera tactile robot finger with large sensing coverage and proprioceptive sensing,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 8979–8984

    2023

  25. [33]

    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

    2022

  26. [34]

    Exoskeleton-covered soft finger with vision-based proprioception and tactile sensing,

    Y . She, S. Q. Liu, P. Yu, and E. Adelson, “Exoskeleton-covered soft finger with vision-based proprioception and tactile sensing,” in 2020 ieee international conference on robotics and automation (icra) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 10 075–10 081

    2020

  27. [35]

    Gelsight baby fin ray: A compact, compliant, flexible finger with high-resolution tactile sensing,

    S. Q. Liu, Y . Ma, and E. H. Adelson, “Gelsight baby fin ray: A compact, compliant, flexible finger with high-resolution tactile sensing,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  28. [36]

    Reducing the time complexity of the derandomized evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaptation (cma-es),

    N. Hansen, S. D. M ¨uller, and P. Koumoutsakos, “Reducing the time complexity of the derandomized evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaptation (cma-es),” Evolutionary computation , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2003

    2003

  29. [37]

    Cma-es with learning rate adaptation,

    M. Nomura, Y . Akimoto, and I. Ono, “Cma-es with learning rate adaptation,” ACM Transactions on Evolutionary Learning , 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Cmaes: A simple yet practical python library for cma-es,

    M. Nomura and M. Shibata, “Cmaes: A simple yet practical python library for cma-es,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01373 , 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Pp-liteseg: A superior real-time semantic segmentation model,

    J. Peng, Y . Liu, S. Tang, Y . Hao, L. Chu, G. Chen, Z. Wu, Z. Chen, Z. Yu, Y . Du et al. , “Pp-liteseg: A superior real-time semantic segmentation model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02681 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Resnet in resnet: Generalizing residual architectures,

    S. Targ, D. Almeida, and K. Lyman, “Resnet in resnet: Generalizing residual architectures,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08029 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.