AllTact Fin Ray: A Compliant Robot Gripper with Omni-Directional Tactile Sensing

Dan Wu; Hongyu Qian; Jing Xu; Rui Chen; Siwei Liang; Wenbo Ding; Xiangjun Zhang; Yixuan Guan

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 37 references

AllTact Fin Ray: A Compliant Robot Gripper with Omni-Directional Tactile Sensing

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-fingered soft gripper made from a single transparent silicone cast uses one camera to reconstruct the whole finger's deformation, the local contact geometry, and contacts from all directions.

desk verdict A useful combinatorial contribution in soft tactile grippers - the dynamic-reference brightness mapping is the genuinely new piece - but the sub-mm headline claim outruns the experiments and the global 3D reconstruction is never validated against independent ground truth. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18064 v1 pith:JLNDIE6U submitted 2025-04-25 cs.RO

Siwei Liang , Yixuan Guan , Jing Xu , Hongyu Qian , Xiangjun Zhang , Dan Wu , Wenbo Ding , Rui Chen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords FinRaygrippervisuotactilesensingglobaldeformationreconstructionlocalcontactgeometryomni-directionaldetectiondynamicreferenceimagesoftroboticcompliance

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 introduces a two-fingered soft gripper whose finger is a single transparent cast of elastic silicone in the shape of a Fin Ray structure, with one camera at the base and white LEDs inside. The authors claim that from this one camera they can simultaneously reconstruct the finger's global bending, recover the detailed 3D geometry of a contact on the face, localize contact positions to under a millimeter in the central region, estimate contact force to roughly 0.2 N, and detect unexpected contact from any direction with thresholds mostly below 2 N. If true, this closes a gap in soft tactile grippers: prior designs either gave global compliance without quantitative contact details, or gave rich local touch on rigid bases that could not bend. The value proposition is a compliant gripper that knows both where it is touched and how the whole finger has deformed, using a simple unibody cast that takes less than an hour to fabricate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the unibody-cast transparent elastic Fin Ray finger with dotted markers on its side faces and a semi-transparent compliant layer cast onto the contact face. Its central identity is a spatial constraint: after deformation, points on the two visible edges sharing the same image u-coordinate are assumed to lie on the same physical cross-section at the same depth, separated by the constant finger width W; this turns the pinhole equation from one-to-many into a solvable system that reconstructs the entire view face. Local depth then comes from a mapping $M(f_{\Delta I})=d$, where $f_{\Delta I}=(I_{\text{ref}}-I)/I_{\text{ref}}$ is the normalized brightness difference computed against a dynamically retrieved reference image, so that brightness changes caused by global bending are cancelled before the local press depth is read out.

What would settle it

Press a large off-center object into the face while twisting the finger out of the imaging plane, and compare the reconstructed 3D view face against a ground-truth scan of the same deformation from a second calibrated camera; if the constant-width, same-depth edge pairing introduces errors that scale with torsion or out-of-plane bending, the central geometric assumption is falsified. A simpler check: compress the finger near the root and measure whether the reconstructed finger width stays at W where the physical cross-section visibly widens.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

AllTact Fin Ray claims to be the first two-fingered gripper that simultaneously provides global compliance, quantitative reconstruction of the whole deformed finger shape, detailed local contact geometry, and omni-directional contact detection. The global shape is recovered from a single image by locating the two visible edges of the deformable face, pairing points that share the same image column, and imposing the known physical width W of the finger to solve for depth through the pinhole model; interior points are linearly interpolated between the edges. Local contact geometry is then recovered by comparing the image against a reference frame dynamically selected from a prerecorded video whose marker configuration matches the current global deformation, mapping normalized brightness differences to local press depth through a polynomial calibrated with a ball of known radius. The authors validate the claimed performance with contact localization error 0.814 mm in the central ±20 mm region, force prediction errors around 0.244 N and 0.162 N, contact-direction classification accuracy of 98.1%, and a full sensing loop of 18 ms per frame, and they demonstrate grasping, geometry reconstruction, and in-hand pose adjustment on a robot arm.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's reconstruction leans on the assumption that the finger's width stays constant and that, after any deformation, the two visible edges share a one-to-one correspondence by image column at equal depth; if the finger twists, shears, or bulges in a way that breaks this pairing, the reconstructed global shape and all local depths derived from it are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A robot can grasp with a soft compliant finger yet still know the finger's exact curved shape at every instant, which enables feedback control of in-hand object pose without external cameras.
Unexpected contacts on the back and side faces can be sensed and their direction classified with 98.1% accuracy, so a manipulator can react to collisions it did not plan for.
The same hardware can report both global geometry and fine local details such as the threads of a screw, giving a single sensor the role of both proprioception and tactile texture sensing.
Because the whole pipeline runs in about 18 ms, the finger is usable for real-time closed-loop manipulation rather than offline inspection.
The simple white-LED, unibody-cast design means the sensing mechanism can be reproduced without multi-color photometric stereo rigs or complex mirror assemblies.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not test large twisting or out-of-plane bending, where the constant-width, same-depth edge pairing is most likely to fail; a motion-capture comparison under torsion would reveal how much bias the geometric assumption introduces.
The dynamic-reference strategy is essentially a nearest-neighbor lookup in deformation space; replacing the prerecorded video with an online growing memory of past frames would remove the need to record a separate deformation video per finger.
Because the local-depth mapping is calibrated with a ball of one radius, the polynomial may extrapolate poorly for very deep or very sharp contacts; calibrating with multiple radii or a parametric model of the semi-transparent layer could extend the usable depth range.
The force estimator is trained for contact-face forces; the same marker-displacement features could in principle be trained for force magnitude on back and side faces, which would complete the omni-directional sensing claimed for localization.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline first: the contribution is the combination, plus one genuinely new trick. The AllTact finger puts a camera at the base of a unibody-cast transparent Fin Ray finger with white LEDs, reconstructs global deformation from edge features plus the known width constraint, and then computes local contact depth from normalized brightness differences against a dynamically retrieved reference image. The dynamic-reference idea is the real find: instead of DTact's constant-illumination assumption, they track side-face markers and pull the nearest no-contact frame from a pre-recorded deformation video, and their pixel-distance statistics back it up (91% of frames within 40 px vs 40.6% for a single reference). The global reconstruction is clean, parameter-free geometry given W, and the brightness-depth calibration with a known-radius ball is standard inverse fitting - not circular, since the ball is external to the test objects.

Credit where due: the experiments are broad and the body is honest. Central-region localization at 0.814 mm MAE, force prediction around 0.2 N error, detection thresholds below 2 N over most of the finger, 98.1% direction classification, ambient-light robustness, and working grasp-and-insert demos. They state the near-tip error (2.93 mm) and the asymmetric pose error (12.06°) in the body, with sensible explanations.

The soft spots, in proportion. The abstract and the Note to Practitioners say 'error less than 1 mm' without the near-tip caveat; that is overbroad as written. More substantially, nothing in the paper validates the reconstructed z-coordinates against an independent 3D ground truth - no depth camera, tracker, or FEM comparison. The localization experiment compares distances between dots on the contact face, which are mostly in-plane quantities. The global reconstruction rests on Eqs. (3)-(5): constant cross-section width, in-plane deformation, and corresponding edge points sharing an image column. Those are reasonable for front-face contacts, which is the main use case, and the pose experiment (3.22° MAE) gives indirect evidence the shape is roughly right. But the paper also advertises omni-directional detection, and for side- or back-face contacts the unmodeled out-of-plane bending and lateral shear are precisely what the geometry ignores. The text concedes 'a small error' from parallel projection in Eq. (6) without quantifying it. I also miss error bars and trial counts on the headline numbers, and the preprint ships no code or data - open-sourcing is promised only on acceptance. The 'universal' brightness-depth mapping is fit in one configuration and applied across the whole face; transfer is shown only qualitatively.

Verdict: this is a solid systems paper for the soft-gripper and tactile-sensing crowd, and it deserves real peer review. The load-bearing structure holds for the primary claim (front-face tactile manipulation); the 3D validation gap is the main thing I'd want addressed, along with qualifying the sub-mm claim and releasing the artifacts. Accept with requests for revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents AllTact Fin Ray, a unibody-cast transparent silicone Fin Ray finger with a base camera and white LEDs. The sensing pipeline reconstructs global deformation from image edges via the pinhole model plus a width constraint (Eqs. (1)-(5), Algorithm 1), computes local contact depth from normalized brightness differences against a dynamically retrieved reference image using a ball-calibrated polynomial mapping (Sec. IV-B), and detects omni-directional contact from marker displacement (Sec. IV-C). Experiments report contact localization MAE of 0.814 mm, force magnitude errors of 0.244 N and 0.162 N, contact direction classification accuracy of 98.1%, pose estimation MAEs of 3.22 degrees and 12.06 degrees, and an 18 ms per-frame pipeline. The authors claim that this is the first two-fingered gripper to simultaneously provide global compliance, quantitative global shape reconstruction, detailed local contact geometry, and omni-directional contact detection.

Significance. If the claims hold, the contribution is notable: a simple, low-cost, open-sourced gripper that combines compliance with quantitative tactile sensing over the whole finger, avoiding multi-color photometric stereo and constant-illumination assumptions. The dynamic reference-image retrieval is a practical solution to illumination changes caused by global deformation; the ball-based calibration is a clean inverse-fit procedure; the marker-displacement contact detection is simple and effective. The system is demonstrated in real grasping and pose-adjustment tasks. However, the central quantitative claims about 3D reconstruction are not validated against independent 3D ground truth, and the geometric assumptions behind the global reconstruction are unquantified, so the significance in its current form is conditional.

major comments (4)

[Sec. IV-A, Eqs. (3)-(5), Algorithm 1] The global reconstruction assumes that the finger cross-section width W is constant, that edge points sharing the same image u-coordinate correspond to the same physical cross-section with equal depth z, and that all deformation is planar. The paper provides no error analysis, simulation, or ablation quantifying violations of these assumptions under large or asymmetric loads. Section V-A's localization experiment compares distances between markers on the contact face against ground-truth distances, which are essentially 2D projected quantities, so it does not validate the reconstructed z-coordinates. Because the locally undeformed face PLUF in Eq. (7) is built on this reconstruction, any systematic bias propagates into local depth and force estimates. Please add an independent 3D ground-truth comparison (e.g., a depth camera or calibrated 3D scanner) and a quantitative sensitivity analysis of the width, equal-u, and planar-deformation assumptions.
[Sec. IV-B, Eq. (6)] The local depth model assumes that pCF shifts only along the camera z-axis and that imaging can be modeled as parallel projection; the text concedes that 'a small error is introduced' but does not quantify it. Further, the calibration depths dD are computed from zD and zLUF, where zLUF comes from the global reconstruction that is itself unvalidated, so the polynomial mapping M() can absorb but cannot correct systematic bias in zLUF. Please quantify the parallel-projection error and validate the local depth reconstruction against an independent measurement of contact surface shape, for example an object of known geometry pressed to known depths, rather than only qualitative image comparisons.
[Sec. V-A, Fig. 11] The localization evaluation measures distances from a central marker to all tested markers, a quantity that is invariant to rigid translations and rotations of the sensed point set; it therefore does not measure absolute 3D localization accuracy. Reporting absolute position errors in the camera frame, with separate x, y, and z components, would directly test the reconstruction equations and would clarify whether the sub-millimeter claim applies to all three axes.
[Sec. V-C, Fig. 14 and Fig. 15] The contact-direction evaluation divides the x-y plane into 8 regions and reports 98.1% classification accuracy, but the minimum-force-threshold experiment reports thresholds below 2 N only for regions beyond 20 mm from the finger root. Please clarify the usable sensing region for each face and report direction classification accuracy separately for the region near the root, where sensitivity degrades, so that the omni-directional claim is stated with its spatial limits.

minor comments (6)

[Table I] The entry 'White' in the Illumination column for GelTip and AllTact Fin Ray is ambiguous; clarify that it denotes white LEDs and grayscale imaging rather than an illumination mode.
[Fig. 4] Figure 4 is dense and introduces terms such as tv, t0, theta, and 'Locally undeformed face' that are used in Sec. IV-B before they are fully defined; labeling the sub-panels and collecting all symbol definitions in one place would improve readability.
[Sec. IV-B] The sentence 'Here, we simplify the computation by modeling the imaging process as parallel projection' appears after Eq. (8); state the approximation before introducing the equation that relies on it, and give an estimate of the incidence-angle range over which it is valid.
[Sec. V-D] The reference video length is reported as 52 s and 55 s, and the retrieval criterion (14) sums pixel distances over markers; please state the number of markers used per finger and explain how occluded markers affect the distance computation.
[Sec. V-A] The marker array is described as 9 rows with 5 mm spacing and 3 columns with 4 mm spacing, but Fig. 10 is difficult to read; add a schematic with dimension labels so the experiment is reproducible.
[Throughout] There are several grammar and phrasing issues, for example 'the finger body is unibody-casted' and 'the gripper is the first two-fingered gripper' in Sec. I; a light language edit is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed reconstructions are driven by external geometric constraints and standard calibration, not by self-citation or by construction.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The global deformation reconstruction (Sec. IV-A, Eqs. (1)-(5), Algorithm 1) uses the pinhole model and a physically measured finger width W; W is an external dimension, and the edge coordinates are observed from the image. Neither W nor the edge locations is derived from the later contact claims, so the global shape output is not equivalent to the method's input. The local depth reconstruction (Sec. IV-B) trains the mapping M() by pressing a ball of known radius and computing depths geometrically from the ball surface; M() is then applied to unseen objects (screw threads, USB stick, M8 screw), which is conventional sensor calibration rather than a fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction. The dynamic reference-image retrieval (Eqs. (9) and (14)) is a compensation mechanism chosen by marker matching, and it is evaluated by marker alignment statistics; it does not smuggle in the target geometry. Force magnitude estimation is a supervised MLP trained and tested against an external force/torque sensor (Sec. V-C), and contact direction is a direct geometric readout of marker offsets (Eqs. (15)-(16)) validated against manually labeled directions. All reported accuracies are compared with external ground truth (marker array spacing, servo angles, force sensor, known ball radius), so the predictions are not forced by construction. The only self-citation I found ([6], used for the general importance of tactile sensing) is background and not load-bearing. The idealizing assumptions in Eqs. (4)-(5) and the parallel-projection approximation in Sec. IV-B are modeling simplifications that could cause error, but that is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity. No circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on geometric idealizations about the Fin Ray finger's deformation, a calibrated empirical brightness-to-depth mapping, a hand-chosen contact threshold, and learned MLP weights. No new physical entities are postulated. The main burden is the set of deformation assumptions: constant width, same-depth edge correspondence, linear interpolation, z-only local deformation, and parallel projection.

free parameters (3)

Mapping polynomial M() coefficients = Not reported, calibrated per finger
The mapping from normalized brightness difference fDelta-I to press depth d is established by polynomial fitting against a calibration ball of known radius (Sec. IV-B), so all local depth values are produced by this fitted function.
Contact detection threshold epsilon = Not specified
A contact is detected when the global marker offset norm exceeds a predefined threshold epsilon (Sec. IV-C); the value is chosen by hand and not reported.
MLP weights for force magnitude prediction = Trained on 484 samples, values not reported
The force magnitude estimator is an MLP trained on collected data (Sec. IV-C, Fig. 8); the weights are fitted parameters, not derived from first principles.

assumptions (8)

standard math Pinhole camera model with calibrated intrinsics K
Invoked in Eq. (1) as the projection model for 3D reconstruction.
domain assumption Finger width W remains constant during deformation, and edge points sharing the same image u-coordinate are at the same depth z
Eqs. (3)-(5) use this to compute depth from the known width; out-of-plane bending or Poisson contraction would violate it.
domain assumption Linear interpolation between the two reconstructed edges gives the 3D position of interior points of the view face
Algorithm 1 aggregates interpolated points into the point cloud; bending within the face is not modeled.
domain assumption Local contact deforms the contact face only along the camera z-axis by depth d
Eq. (6) defines pCF = pLUF - (0,0,d), ignoring lateral displacement of the contact surface.
domain assumption Parallel projection approximation in local geometry reconstruction
Sec. IV-B states the imaging is modeled as parallel projection and asserts the error is negligible due to small incidence angle, without quantifying it.
domain assumption The brightness-to-depth mapping M() is universal across the contact face and independent of global deformation state
Sec. IV-B uses a single polynomial mapping for all pixels and all global poses; residual illumination changes from deformation are assumed removed by normalization and reference retrieval.
domain assumption The pre-recorded reference video contains a frame close to any encountered global deformation state, identifiable by marker positions
Sec. IV-B and Eq. (14) rely on nearest-neighbor retrieval over a finite video; coverage is validated only by pixel-distance statistics, not by completeness guarantees.
domain assumption During calibration, all locally deformed points lie simultaneously on the calibration ball surface and the contact face
Sec. IV-B uses this to compute ground-truth press depths dD for fitting M().

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AllTact Fin Ray: A Compliant Robot Gripper with Omni-Directional Tactile Sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JLNDIE6U

@misc{pith2026250418064,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AllTact Fin Ray: A Compliant Robot Gripper with Omni-Directional Tactile Sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JLNDIE6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18064}
}

read the original abstract

Tactile sensing plays a crucial role in robot grasping and manipulation by providing essential contact information between the robot and the environment. In this paper, we present AllTact Fin Ray, a novel compliant gripper design with omni-directional and local tactile sensing capabilities. The finger body is unibody-casted using transparent elastic silicone, and a camera positioned at the base of the finger captures the deformation of the whole body and the contact face. Due to the global deformation of the adaptive structure, existing vision-based tactile sensing approaches that assume constant illumination are no longer applicable. To address this, we propose a novel sensing method where the global deformation is first reconstructed from the image using edge features and spatial constraints. Then, detailed contact geometry is computed from the brightness difference against a dynamically retrieved reference image. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of our proposed gripper design and sensing method in contact detection, force estimation, object grasping, and precise manipulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18064 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Diagram of the Fabrication Process for AllTact Fin Ray Finger [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Full view of AllTact Fin Ray gripper. (a) View of physical gripper. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (16 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Diagram of deformation and calibraion of our finger during contact, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Diagram of global deformation reconstruction. We use [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The pipeline of local geometry reconstruction. To handle the illu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The multiprocessing workflow: the global reconstruction is performed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Neural network architecture for force magnitude prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Experimental setups. (a) Basic setup for sensor experiments, a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The dotted array on finger for contact localization experiment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Pose estimation experiment result. Our method is able to accurately [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Contact detection experiment result, data and their corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Contact direction experiment result. (a) Measured contact direction; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Contact geometry reconstruction comparison: the reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_17.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Force magnitude prediction test set up and result. (a) Experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_16.png]

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Mean pixel error frequency statistics in different referring methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_18.png]

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: (a) Gripper grasping and reconstruction results. The objects include a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_20.png]

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: Local reconstruction results under varying light intensity, where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_19.png]

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: Object pose adjustment experiment. (a) A screwdriver is handed to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

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
[2]

Tactile-rl for insertion: Generalization to objects of unknown geome- try,

S. Dong, D. K. Jha, D. Romeres, S. Kim, D. Nikovski, and A. Rodriguez, “Tactile-rl for insertion: Generalization to objects of unknown geome- try,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 6437–6443

2021
[3]

A novel incipient slip degree evaluation method and its application in adaptive control of grasping force,

R. Sui, L. Zhang, Q. Huang, T. Li, and Y . Jiang, “A novel incipient slip degree evaluation method and its application in adaptive control of grasping force,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2454–2468, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

T-td3: A reinforcement learning framework for stable grasping of deformable objects using tactile prior,

Y . Zhou, Y . Jin, P. Lu, S. Jiang, Z. Wang, and B. He, “T-td3: A reinforcement learning framework for stable grasping of deformable objects using tactile prior,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , pp. 1–15, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Dexitac: Soft dexterous tactile gripping,

C. Lu, K. Tang, M. Yang, T. Yue, H. Li, and N. F. Lepora, “Dexitac: Soft dexterous tactile gripping,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics , pp. 1–12, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

General- purpose sim2real protocol for learning contact-rich manipulation with marker-based visuotactile sensors,

W. Chen, J. Xu, F. Xiang, X. Yuan, H. Su, and R. Chen, “General- purpose sim2real protocol for learning contact-rich manipulation with marker-based visuotactile sensors,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 40, pp. 1509–1526, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

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

S. Li, Z. Wang, C. Wu, X. Li, S. Luo, B. Fang, F. Sun, X.-P. Zhang, and W. Ding, “When vision meets touch: A contemporary review for visuotactile sensors from the signal processing perspective,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , 2024

2024
[8]

Tata: A universal jamming gripper with high-quality tactile perception and its application to underwater manipulation,

S. Li, X. Yin, C. Xia, L. Ye, X. Wang, and B. Liang, “Tata: A universal jamming gripper with high-quality tactile perception and its application to underwater manipulation,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 6151–6157

work page 2022

Show all 37 references

[9]

Jamtac: A tactile jamming gripper for searching and grasping in low- visibility environments,

S. Li, L. Ye, H. Yu, X. Yin, C. Xia, W. Ding, X. Wang, and B. Liang, “Jamtac: A tactile jamming gripper for searching and grasping in low- visibility environments,” Soft Robotics , vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 988–1000, 2023

2023
[10]

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

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

2020
[11]

Omnitact: A multi-directional high-resolution touch sensor,

A. Padmanabha, F. Ebert, S. Tian, R. Calandra, C. Finn, and S. Levine, “Omnitact: A multi-directional high-resolution touch sensor,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2020, pp. 618–624

2020
[12]

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
[13]

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
[14]

Allsight: A low-cost and high-resolution round tactile sensor with zero-shot learning capability,

O. Azulay, N. Curtis, R. Sokolovsky, G. Levitski, D. Slomovik, G. Lilling, and A. Sintov, “Allsight: A low-cost and high-resolution round tactile sensor with zero-shot learning capability,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 483–490, 2023

2023
[15]

Densetact 2.0: Optical tactile sensor for shape and force reconstruction,

W. K. Do, B. Jurewicz, and M. Kennedy, “Densetact 2.0: Optical tactile sensor for shape and force reconstruction,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 12 549–12 555

2023
[16]

Digitizing touch with an artificial multimodal fingertip,

M. Lambeta, T. Wu, A. Sengul, V . R. Most, N. Black, K. Sawyer, R. Mercado, H. Qi, A. Sohn, B. Taylor, N. Tydingco, G. Kammerer, D. Stroud, J. Khatha, K. Jenkins, K. Most, N. Stein, R. Chavira, T. Craven-Bartle, E. Sanchez, Y . Ding, J. Malik, and R. Calandra, “Digitizing touc...

2024 arXiv
[17]

A deep learning method for vision based force prediction of a soft fin ray gripper using simulation data,

D. De Barrie, M. Pandya, H. Pandya, M. Hanheide, and K. Elgeneidy, “A deep learning method for vision based force prediction of a soft fin ray gripper using simulation data,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 8, p. 631371, 2021

2021
[18]

A compliant adaptive gripper and its intrinsic force sensing method,

W. Xu, H. Zhang, H. Yuan, and B. Liang, “A compliant adaptive gripper and its intrinsic force sensing method,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1584–1603, 2021

2021
[19]

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
[20]

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
[21]

Gelsight endoflex: a soft endoskeleton hand with continuous high-resolution tactile sensing,

S. Q. Liu, L. Z. Ya ˜nez, and E. H. Adelson, “Gelsight endoflex: a soft endoskeleton hand with continuous high-resolution tactile sensing,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

2023
[22]

Design and integration of an underactuated robotic finger with vision-based tactile sensing,

Y . Ma, “Design and integration of an underactuated robotic finger with vision-based tactile sensing,” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2023

2023
[23]

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
[24]

Seethrufinger: See and grasp anything with a soft touch,

F. Wan and C. Song, “Seethrufinger: See and grasp anything with a soft touch,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09822 , 2023

2023
[25]

Proprioceptive state estimation for amphibious tactile sensing,

N. Guo, X. Han, S. Zhong, Z. Zhou, J. Lin, J. S. Dai, F. Wan, and C. Song, “Proprioceptive state estimation for amphibious tactile sensing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09863 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[26]

Proprioceptive learning with soft polyhedral networks,

X. Liu, X. Han, W. Hong, F. Wan, and C. Song, “Proprioceptive learning with soft polyhedral networks,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 0, no. 0, p. 02783649241238765, 0. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/02783649241238765

doi
[27]

Reconstructing soft robotic touch via in-finger vision,

N. Guo, X. Han, S. Zhong, Z. Zhou, J. Lin, F. Wan, and C. Song, “Reconstructing soft robotic touch via in-finger vision,” Advanced Intelligent Systems , vol. 6, no. 10, p. 2400022, 2024

2024
[28]

Tacpalm: A soft gripper with a biomimetic optical tactile palm for stable precise grasping,

X. Zhang, T. Yang, D. Zhang, and N. F. Lepora, “Tacpalm: A soft gripper with a biomimetic optical tactile palm for stable precise grasping,” IEEE Sensors Journal, 2024

2024
[29]

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

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

2018
[30]

Gelsight flexiray: Breaking planar limits by harnessing large deformations for flexible, full-coverage multimodal sensing,

Y . Wang, H. Wu, H. Guo, and H. Dong, “Gelsight flexiray: Breaking planar limits by harnessing large deformations for flexible, full-coverage multimodal sensing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18979 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[31]

Dexitac: Soft dexterous tactile gripping,

C. Lu, K. Tang, M. Yang, T. Yue, H. Li, and N. F. Lepora, “Dexitac: Soft dexterous tactile gripping,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics , 2024

2024
[32]

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

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

2022
[33]

Recent progress in advanced tactile sensing technologies for soft grippers,

J. Qu, B. Mao, Z. Li, Y . Xu, K. Zhou, X. Cao, Q. Fan, M. Xu, B. Liang, H. Liu et al., “Recent progress in advanced tactile sensing technologies for soft grippers,” Advanced Functional Materials , vol. 33, no. 41, p. 2306249, 2023

2023
[34]

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. IEEE, 2009, pp. 1070–1077

2009
[35]

Universal robotic gripper based on the jamming of granular material,

E. Brown, N. Rodenberg, J. Amend, A. Mozeika, E. Steltz, M. R. Zakin, H. Lipson, and H. M. Jaeger, “Universal robotic gripper based on the jamming of granular material,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, no. 44, pp. 18 809–18 814, 2010

2010
[36]

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

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

2023
[37]

GitHub - ultralytics/ultralytics: Ultralytics YOLO11— github.com,

“GitHub - ultralytics/ultralytics: Ultralytics YOLO11— github.com,” https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics, [Accessed 05-12-2024]

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

[2] [2]

Tactile-rl for insertion: Generalization to objects of unknown geome- try,

S. Dong, D. K. Jha, D. Romeres, S. Kim, D. Nikovski, and A. Rodriguez, “Tactile-rl for insertion: Generalization to objects of unknown geome- try,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 6437–6443

2021

[3] [3]

A novel incipient slip degree evaluation method and its application in adaptive control of grasping force,

R. Sui, L. Zhang, Q. Huang, T. Li, and Y . Jiang, “A novel incipient slip degree evaluation method and its application in adaptive control of grasping force,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2454–2468, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

T-td3: A reinforcement learning framework for stable grasping of deformable objects using tactile prior,

Y . Zhou, Y . Jin, P. Lu, S. Jiang, Z. Wang, and B. He, “T-td3: A reinforcement learning framework for stable grasping of deformable objects using tactile prior,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , pp. 1–15, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Dexitac: Soft dexterous tactile gripping,

C. Lu, K. Tang, M. Yang, T. Yue, H. Li, and N. F. Lepora, “Dexitac: Soft dexterous tactile gripping,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics , pp. 1–12, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

General- purpose sim2real protocol for learning contact-rich manipulation with marker-based visuotactile sensors,

W. Chen, J. Xu, F. Xiang, X. Yuan, H. Su, and R. Chen, “General- purpose sim2real protocol for learning contact-rich manipulation with marker-based visuotactile sensors,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 40, pp. 1509–1526, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

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

S. Li, Z. Wang, C. Wu, X. Li, S. Luo, B. Fang, F. Sun, X.-P. Zhang, and W. Ding, “When vision meets touch: A contemporary review for visuotactile sensors from the signal processing perspective,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , 2024

2024

[8] [8]

Tata: A universal jamming gripper with high-quality tactile perception and its application to underwater manipulation,

S. Li, X. Yin, C. Xia, L. Ye, X. Wang, and B. Liang, “Tata: A universal jamming gripper with high-quality tactile perception and its application to underwater manipulation,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 6151–6157

work page 2022