Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Sketch Interface for Teleoperation of Mobile Manipulator to Enable Intuitive and Intended Operation: A Proof of Concept

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A sketch-based interface lets a tablet user command a mobile manipulator by drawing, and lowers operator workload compared with button-based axis control.

desk verdict A useful proof-of-concept for sketch-based mobile manipulator teleoperation, with a genuinely informative survey of natural sketch instructions, but the comparative workload claim leans on thin statistics and an unvalidated synthetic-trained grasp orientation model. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13931 v2 pith:P4HKNTKA submitted 2025-05-20 cs.RO cs.HC

Yuka Iwanaga , Masayoshi Tsuchinaga , Kosei Tanada , Yuji Nakamura , Takemitsu Mori , Takashi Yamamoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.HC
keywords sketchinterfaceteleoperationmobilemanipulationhuman-robotinteractiongraspposeestimationworkloadevaluationfreehandsketchingsharedautonomy
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 tries to show that a person can command a mobile manipulator by sketching on a tablet image of the scene, and that this is more intuitive and less demanding than steering the robot axis by axis with buttons. In a survey of 33 users, people spontaneously used C-shaped marks around objects to request grasps and lines or arrows to request movement, which the authors read as support for their first hypothesis that sketching is a natural instruction language. In a five-task comparison with ten users, the sketch interface produced lower workload scores than a conventional button interface on most subscales, including a statistically significant reduction in effort, while users gave it higher intuitiveness ratings. The paper's central claim is therefore that a sketch-based interface can let unfamiliar operators convey intended manipulation actions to a mobile manipulator with less burden.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the sketch-to-grasp pipeline. A user's tap selects the object, an image-segmentation module isolates its mask, and the masked region is fused with depth data into a point cloud. A drawn C-shaped symbol is processed into a scan line used to locate the grasp position along the object boundary, and a residual convolutional network with a global-average-pooling head takes the sketch image and depth image as a two-channel input and outputs a quaternion for palm orientation. The same interface converts a drawn path on the ground into waypoints for base movement. The pipeline lets the user express intent in one drawing while the robot supplies the autonomy for pose computation, with arrow buttons as a fine-tuning fallback.

What would settle it

Collect the natural freehand sketches from the interface evaluation and compare the network's predicted palm orientation against human-labeled orientations for the same objects; if the mean angular error exceeds roughly 0.08 radians (the fine-tuning step) or users must adjust the pose in most trials, the effort savings attributed to the sketch interface would not generalize beyond its specific setup.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that rough sketches can carry enough information for a mobile manipulator to infer both where and how to grasp an object, and that operators experience less workload using this channel than using conventional axis-control buttons. The authors implemented a web interface in which the user taps the target object, the system segments it and shows its point cloud, and the user draws a C-shaped gripper symbol around it; the system then computes a grasp position by scanning depth along the sketch and estimates grasp orientation with a residual convolutional network trained on tens of thousands of simulated pseudo-sketches. In comparative trials, all workload subscale scores for the sketch interface were lower than the conventional interface except frustration, and the effort reduction was significant (one-tailed t-test $p<0.05$). The authors interpret these results, together with positive questionnaire responses on intuitiveness, as supporting both stated hypotheses: sketching is intuitive for navigation and manipulation (H1), and the sketch interface lowers operator workload relative to conventional control (H2).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the grasp-orientation network, trained on synthetic straight-line pseudo-sketches in a simulator, will work on the irregular freehand sketches that real users draw; the paper does not report an accuracy evaluation of that network on its collected user sketches.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Novice operators could command a mobile manipulator through a web browser on a tablet, with no prior robotics or axis-control training.
  • Because the user draws the action rather than selecting a pre-registered operation, sketch instructions can express tasks outside a fixed menu.
  • Effort becomes intermittent rather than continuous, letting users think about what to do next instead of holding button commands.
  • The workload advantage is not uniform: frustration was higher for the sketch interface, so future versions must improve grasp-pose accuracy and reduce retries to secure the advantage.
  • For objects requiring complex grasp postures, the sketch interface already showed a higher success rate and shorter completion time, suggesting the autonomy layer is most valuable exactly where axis control is hardest.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the orientation estimator is retrained on real freehand sketches or given a correction-feedback loop, the time spent on fine-tuning could drop, potentially making the sketch interface faster than button control on completion time, not just workload.
  • The observed sketch vocabulary—C-shapes for grasps, lines and arrows for movement, circles for target locations, and text for quantities—could be expanded into a richer instruction language that combines sketches with text or speech.
  • The sim-to-real gap in the synthetic pseudo-sketches suggests a direct improvement: generate training data with freehand noise or collect user sketches in the loop, then measure whether fine-tuning time falls.
  • Because the robot's own camera image is the drawing surface, the interaction depends on good segmentation and depth; in cluttered or transparent-object scenes, the same interface may fail regardless of the sketch language.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a tablet-based sketch interface for teleoperating a Toyota HSR mobile manipulator, in which users draw navigation paths and C-shaped grasp sketches directly on the robot's camera image. The system uses FastSAM segmentation, point-cloud processing, and a per-object ResNet18 model to convert sketches into grasp poses, with a 3D viewer for fine-tuning. The evaluation consists of two studies: an online survey with 33 participants performing 27 sketching tasks (Experiment 1) and a within-subjects comparison with 10 participants performing five grasping tasks using the sketch interface versus a conventional nine-axis button interface (Experiment 2). The authors report lower NASA-TLX scores on most workload subscales for the sketch interface, higher subjective intuitiveness, and mixed results on task completion time and success rate, and they interpret the results as supporting hypotheses H1 and H2 that sketch instructions are intuitive and enable lower-workload intended operation.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the interface would be a meaningful step toward accessible teleoperation of mobile manipulators on commodity tablets, with potential value for novice users. The paper's strengths include the systematic selection of grasping tasks from a grasp taxonomy, the collection of natural sketch data before system implementation, a genuine comparative within-subject design against a conventional interface, and a proof-of-concept pipeline that integrates segmentation, learned grasp orientation, and user fine-tuning. The main contributions are the empirical characterization of sketch conventions and the initial comparative evidence on workload and intuitiveness. However, the evidence is preliminary: the workload advantage rests on a single hypothesis test with ten participants, and the grasp-orientation estimator is not validated on the real freehand sketches it must serve, which directly weakens the 'intended operation' component of H2. No code or data are released, but the paper is explicitly positioned as a proof of concept, which is appropriate for its scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-C.3 and Section IV-B.1] The grasp-orientation estimator is trained exclusively on synthetic Gazebo data with randomized LINE STRIP markers (three straight lines) and no accuracy is reported on the real freehand sketches collected in Experiment 2. Section IV-B.1 attributes approximately 50% of the completion time for the CD and AC adapter tasks to fine-tuning caused by 'low accuracy in the grasp pose computed by the system.' Because the intended-operation component of H2 depends on this estimator, the paper should either report its accuracy on the actual user sketches or explicitly limit the workload and intent claims to navigation and simple grasps.
  2. [Section IV-B.1, Fig. 10] The sentence 'All scores for the sketch interface are lower than the conventional interface, except for frustration, supporting H2' is internally inconsistent, because frustration is one of the six NASA-TLX workload subscales; a higher frustration score counts against the lower-workload claim rather than as a neutral exception. In addition, the statistical support is reported only as 'one-tailed t-test p < 0.05' for one workload measure, with no means, standard deviations, effect sizes, confidence intervals, or correction for the multiple subscales, and task completion time favored the conventional interface on average. Please report the full paired statistics for all subscales and explain how the frustration result is reconciled with the workload-reduction claim.
  3. [Section IV-A and Section V-A] H1 is asserted to be supported by the frequency of sketch types, e.g., 71% of grasping trials used a C-shaped symbol and 86% of movement trials used lines or arrows. These frequencies show that participants converged on common drawing conventions; they do not directly measure whether the instructions were intuitive or whether participants felt the interface was natural. To support H1, the paper needs either a subjective intuitiveness rating collected during Experiment 1 or a reframing of H1 as a descriptive hypothesis about sketch conventions rather than perceived intuitiveness.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-C.3] The word 'separete' should be 'separate'.
  2. [Figs. 10 and 11] The plots show only point estimates; adding error bars or confidence intervals would substantially improve interpretability, especially with n=10.
  3. [Section IV-B.1] The term 'effort' should be tied to the specific NASA-TLX subscale or to the weighted workload score, and the exact p-value and test type (paired one-tailed t-test) should be stated.
  4. [Section IV-B.1, Fig. 12] The relationship between the 'movement time' categories in Fig. 12 and the task-level success and completion-time results in Fig. 11 is not defined; please clarify how the recorded operation phases were segmented.
  5. [References] Some references contain inconsistent spacing around '=' and in DOI strings; please format them consistently according to the venue style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the workload and intuitiveness comparison is measured against an external conventional interface, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (H1 and H2) are evaluated by a user survey and by a within-subject comparison against an external axis-control interface implemented from Cabrera et al.'s design. The NASA-TLX scores, task success rates, completion times, and Likert responses are measured outcomes, not quantities derived from the paper's own fitted constants. The grasp-orientation estimator is trained on synthetic Gazebo LINE STRIP pseudo-sketches and then used inside the tested system, but the paper does not report that estimator's training performance as evidence for the interface's workload claims; instead, the workload and usability conclusions come from the actual comparative experiment. The self-citations to the Toyota HSR platform [32] and the home-robot field study [13] are descriptive background for the hardware and prior interface style, not load-bearing derivations, and the cited platform is an independent physical system. The lack of a reported accuracy evaluation for the grasp-orientation estimator on real freehand sketches is a genuine validity limitation, consistent with the paper's own explanation that about 50% adjustment time in two tasks reflects low grasp-pose accuracy, but it is a generalization gap rather than a circular reduction: no equation or fitted parameter in the paper is reintroduced as a self-fulfilling prediction. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard is present.

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

The central claim is an empirical usability claim, not a mathematical derivation. The main load-bearing components are the grasp interpretation model, which is fitted to synthetic data, and several domain assumptions about how users express intent through sketches. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Grasp orientation model weights (ResNet18, per object) = not disclosed
    Trained on approximately 20,000 synthetic data pairs per object in Gazebo; the system's grasp orientation output depends on these weights, and accuracy on natural sketches is not reported.
  • Fine-tuning step sizes = 1 cm translation, 0.08 radians rotation
    Manually chosen adjustment granularity in the 3D viewer (Section III-C.3); affects how precisely users can correct the proposed grasp pose.
  • Navigation path point spacing = 5 cm minimum
    Adjacent points on the sketch are automatically spaced at least 5 cm apart (Section III-C.3); an arbitrary threshold that influences the generated path.
  • Depth threshold for object boundary = not specified
    The boundary between object and environment is detected by thresholding depth differences (Section III-C.3); the threshold value is not stated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A C-shaped sketch around an object conveys the intended grasp position and orientation for a two-finger gripper.
    The interface is built on this mapping. Experiment 1 shows users naturally draw C-shapes, but the system's interpretation assumes this symbol is sufficient to specify a grasp.
  • domain assumption Users can convey navigation and manipulation intent by drawing on the robot's egocentric camera image.
    The whole interface is defined as drawing over the head camera view; no alternative input modality is supported.
  • domain assumption FastSAM point-prompt segmentation yields a correct mask of the target object.
    The point cloud for grasp calculation is generated from the segmentation mask (Section III-C.3). The paper notes partial segmentation results for bags and bouquets.
  • ad hoc to paper Synthetic Gazebo training data with random LINE STRIP pseudo-sketches is representative of natural freehand user sketches.
    The grasp orientation ResNet is trained on simulated pseudo-sketches (Section III-C.3); no cross-validation on real user sketches is reported.
  • domain assumption Depth threshold scanning along the green line distinguishes object boundaries in the point cloud.
    The grasp position calculation relies on threshold processing of depth values along the scan line (Section III-C.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sketch Interface for Teleoperation of Mobile Manipulator to Enable Intuitive and Intended Operation: A Proof of Concept." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P4HKNTKA

@misc{pith2026250513931,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sketch Interface for Teleoperation of Mobile Manipulator to Enable Intuitive and Intended Operation: A Proof of Concept},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P4HKNTKA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13931}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in robotics have underscored the need for effective collaboration between humans and robots. Traditional interfaces often struggle to balance robot autonomy with human oversight, limiting their practical application in complex tasks like mobile manipulation. This study aims to develop an intuitive interface that enables a mobile manipulator to autonomously interpret user-provided sketches, enhancing user experience while minimizing burden. We implemented a web-based application utilizing machine learning algorithms to process sketches, making the interface accessible on mobile devices for use anytime, anywhere, by anyone. In the first validation, we examined natural sketches drawn by users for 27 selected manipulation and navigation tasks, gaining insights into trends related to sketch instructions. The second validation involved comparative experiments with five grasping tasks, showing that the sketch interface reduces workload and enhances intuitiveness compared to conventional axis control interfaces. These findings suggest that the proposed sketch interface improves the efficiency of mobile manipulators and opens new avenues for integrating intuitive human-robot collaboration in various applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13931 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UI for evaluation application. The participants comprehend the task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental environment with system overview. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Grasp position calculation. Process the user’s sketch line (left image) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Graph categorizing sketches by task category. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of user sketches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Average results of NASA-TLX score. of the viewpoint change ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Results of the breakdown of the completion time of the sketch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Results of the questionnaire. 2) Qualitative Metrics: The results of three 5-point Likert scale questions are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Interface for human machine interaction for assistant devices: A review,

    S. Mahmud, X. Lin, and J.-H. Kim, “Interface for human machine interaction for assistant devices: A review,” in 2020 10th Annual Computing and Com- munication Workshop and Conference (CCWC) , 2020, pp. 0768–0773. DOI: 10 . 1109 / CCWC47524 . 2020 . 9031244

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Cheng, J

    X. Cheng, J. Li, S. Yang, G. Yang, and X. Wang, Open-television: Teleoperation with immersive active visual feedback, 2024. arXiv: 2407.01512 [cs.RO]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01512

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    A. Iyer, Z. Peng, Y . Dai, I. Guzey, S. Haldar, S. Chin- tala, and L. Pinto, Open teach: A versatile teleoperation system for robotic manipulation , 2024. arXiv: 2403. 07870 [cs.RO]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2403.07870

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Multimodal multi-user mixed reality human–robot interface for re- mote operations in hazardous environments,

    K. A. Szczurek, R. M. Prades, E. Matheson, J. Rodriguez-Nogueira, and M. D. Castro, “Multimodal multi-user mixed reality human–robot interface for re- mote operations in hazardous environments,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 17 305–17 333, 2023. DOI: 10.1109/ ACCESS.2023.3245833

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    S. Dass, W. Ai, Y . Jiang, S. Singh, J. Hu, R. Zhang, P. Stone, B. Abbatematteo, and R. Mart ´ın-Mart´ın, Tele- moma: A modular and versatile teleoperation system for mobile manipulation , 2024. arXiv: 2403 . 07869 [cs.RO]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2403.07869

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    A systematic review of commercial smart gloves: Current status and applica- tions,

    M. Caeiro-Rodr ´ıguez, I. Otero-Gonz ´alez, F. A. Mikic- Fonte, and M. Llamas-Nistal, “A systematic review of commercial smart gloves: Current status and applica- tions,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 8, 2021, ISSN : 1424-8220. DOI: 10 . 3390 / s21082667. [Online]. Available: https : //www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/8/2667

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    C. Wang, H. Shi, W. Wang, R. Zhang, L. Fei-Fei, and C. K. Liu, Dexcap: Scalable and portable mocap data collection system for dexterous manipulation , 2024. arXiv: 2403 . 07788 [cs.RO]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07788

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Corrective shared autonomy for addressing task variability,

    M. Hagenow, E. Senft, R. Radwin, M. Gleicher, B. Mutlu, and M. Zinn, “Corrective shared autonomy for addressing task variability,” IEEE Robotics and Au- tomation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3720–3727, 2021. DOI: 10.1109/LRA.2021.3064500

    arXiv 2021

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    T. Z. Zhao, V . Kumar, S. Levine, and C. Finn, Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hard- ware, 2023. arXiv: 2304.13705 [cs.RO]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13705

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    P. Wu, Y . Shentu, Z. Yi, X. Lin, and P. Abbeel, Gello: A general, low-cost, and intuitive teleoperation framework for robot manipulators , 2024. arXiv: 2309 . 13037 [cs.RO]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2309.13037

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Y . Qin, W. Yang, B. Huang, K. V . Wyk, H. Su, X. Wang, Y .-W. Chao, and D. Fox, Anyteleop: A general vision-based dexterous robot arm-hand teleoperation system, 2024. arXiv: 2307.04577 [cs.RO]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.04577

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A comparison of remote robot teleoperation interfaces for general object manipulation,

    D. Kent, C. Saldanha, and S. Chernova, “A comparison of remote robot teleoperation interfaces for general object manipulation,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Association for Computing Machinery, 2017, pp. 371–379, ISBN...

    2017

  5. [13]

    A field study of the human support robot in the home environment,

    K. Hashimoto, F. Saito, T. Yamamoto, and T. Ikeda, “A field study of the human support robot in the home environment,” in 2013 IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts , 2013, pp. 143–150. DOI: 10.1109/ARSO.2013.6705520

    2013

  6. [14]

    Interactive markers: 3-d user interfaces for ros applications [ros topics],

    D. Gossow, A. Leeper, D. Hershberger, and M. Cio- carlie, “Interactive markers: 3-d user interfaces for ros applications [ros topics],” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 14–15, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    Strategies for human-in-the-loop robotic grasping,

    A. Leeper, K. Hsiao, M. Ciocarlie, L. Takayama, and D. Gossow, “Strategies for human-in-the-loop robotic grasping,” in 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Confer- ence on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2012, pp. 1–8. DOI: 10.1145/2157689.2157691

    2012

  8. [16]

    Leveraging depth data in remote robot teleoperation interfaces for general object manipulation,

    D. Kent, C. Saldanha, and S. Chernova, “Leveraging depth data in remote robot teleoperation interfaces for general object manipulation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 39–53, 2020. DOI: 10.1177/0278364919888565

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Touchme: An augmented reality based remote robot manipulation,

    S. Hashimoto, A. Ishida, M. Inami, and T. Igarashi, “Touchme: An augmented reality based remote robot manipulation,” in The 21st International Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence, Proceedings of ICAT2011, vol. 2, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    An exploration of accessible remote tele- operation for assistive mobile manipulators in the home,

    M. E. Cabrera, T. Bhattacharjee, K. Dey, and M. Cakmak, “An exploration of accessible remote tele- operation for assistive mobile manipulators in the home,” in 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO- MAN), 2021, pp. 1202–1209. DO...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Sketchstory: Telling more engaging stories with data through freeform sketching,

    B. Lee, R. H. Kazi, and G. Smith, “Sketchstory: Telling more engaging stories with data through freeform sketching,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 2416–2425,

  12. [20]

    A sketch interface for robust and natural robot control,

    D. Shah, J. Schneider, and M. Campbell, “A sketch interface for robust and natural robot control,” Proceed- ings of the IEEE , vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 604–622, 2012. DOI: 10.1109/JPROC.2011.2179772

    2012

  13. [21]

    W. Zu, W. Song, R. Chen, Z. Guo, F. Sun, Z. Tian, W. Pan, and J. Wang, Language and sketching: An llm-driven interactive multimodal multitask robot navi- gation framework, 2024. arXiv: 2311.08244 [cs.RO]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08244

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Autonomous indoor robot navigation using a sketch interface for drawing maps and routes,

    F. Boniardi, A. Valada, W. Burgard, and G. D. Tipaldi, “Autonomous indoor robot navigation using a sketch interface for drawing maps and routes,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016, pp. 2896–2901. DOI: 10.1109/ICRA. 2016.7487453

    2016

  15. [23]

    Robot navigation in hand-drawn sketched maps,

    F. Boniardi, B. Behzadian, W. Burgard, and G. D. Tipaldi, “Robot navigation in hand-drawn sketched maps,” in 2015 European Conference on Mobile Robots (ECMR), 2015, pp. 1–6. DOI: 10.1109/ECMR.2015. 7324188

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Path drawing for 3d walkthrough,

    T. Igarashi, R. Kadobayashi, K. Mase, and H. Tanaka, “Path drawing for 3d walkthrough,” in Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology , Association for Computing Machinery, 1998, pp. 173–174, ISBN : 1581130341. DOI: 10 . 1145 / 28839...

    1998

  17. [25]

    Sketch and run: A stroke-based interface for home robots,

    D. Sakamoto, K. Honda, M. Inami, and T. Igarashi, “Sketch and run: A stroke-based interface for home robots,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , ser. CHI ’09, 2009, pp. 197–200, ISBN : 9781605582467. DOI: 10.1145/1518701.1518733. [O...

    2009

  18. [26]

    Pinpointfly: An egocentric position-control drone inter- face using mobile ar,

    L. Chen, K. Takashima, K. Fujita, and Y . Kitamura, “Pinpointfly: An egocentric position-control drone inter- face using mobile ar,” in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , ser. CHI ’21, vol. 150, 2021, pp. 1–13, ISBN : 9781450380966. ...

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Airways: Optimization-based planning of quadrotor trajectories according to high-level user goals,

    C. Gebhardt, B. Hepp, T. N ¨ageli, S. Stev ˇsi´c, and O. Hilliges, “Airways: Optimization-based planning of quadrotor trajectories according to high-level user goals,” in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , ser. CHI’16, ACM, May 2016....

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    I know what you draw: Learning grasp detection conditioned on a few freehand sketches,

    H. Lin, C.-H. Cheang, Y . Fu, and X. Xue, “I know what you draw: Learning grasp detection conditioned on a few freehand sketches,” 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 8417–8423, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Sketching robot pro- grams on the fly,

    D. Porfirio, L. Stegner, M. Cakmak, A. Saupp ´e, A. Albarghouthi, and B. Mutlu, “Sketching robot pro- grams on the fly,” in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ser. HRI ’23, 2023, pp. 584–593, ISBN : 9781450399647. DOI: 10 . 11...

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Gu et al., Rt-trajectory: Robotic task generalization via hindsight trajectory sketches , 2023

    J. Gu et al., Rt-trajectory: Robotic task generalization via hindsight trajectory sketches , 2023. arXiv: 2311. 01977 [cs.RO]

    2023

  23. [31]

    The design of stretch: A compact, lightweight mobile manipulator for indoor human environments,

    C. C. Kemp, A. Edsinger, H. M. Clever, and B. Mat- ulevich, “The design of stretch: A compact, lightweight mobile manipulator for indoor human environments,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation (ICRA), 2022, pp. 3150–3157. DOI: 10.1109/ ICRA46639.2022.9811922

    2022

  24. [32]

    Development of human support robot as the research platform of a domestic mobile manipulator,

    T. Yamamoto, K. Terada, A. Ochiai, F. Saito, Y . Asa- hara, and K. Murase, “Development of human support robot as the research platform of a domestic mobile manipulator,” vol. 6, no. 4, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s40648-019-0132-3

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Tiago: The modular robot that adapts to different research needs,

    J. Pages, L. Marchionni, and F. Ferro, “Tiago: The modular robot that adapts to different research needs,” in International Workshop on Robot Modularity, IROS , 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    An- notating everyday grasps in action,

    J. Liu, F. Feng, Y . C. Nakamura, and N. Pollard, “An- notating everyday grasps in action,” in Dance Notations and Robot Motion , Springer, Nov. 2015, pp. 263–282

    2015

  27. [35]

    A comprehensive grasp taxonomy,

    T. Feix, R. Pawlik, H.-B. Schmiedmayer, J. Romero, and D. Kragic, “A comprehensive grasp taxonomy,” in Robotics, science and systems: workshop on un- derstanding the human hand for advancing robotic manipulation, Seattle, W A, USA; vol. 2, 2009, pp. 2–3

    2009

  28. [36]

    Grasp taxonomy in action online database

    J. Liu, F. Feng, Y . Nakamura, and N. Pollard. “Grasp taxonomy in action online database.” (2014), [Online]. Available: http : / / graphics . cs . cmu . edu / nsp / projects / graspDatabase/database.html

    2014

  29. [37]

    Rosbridge: Ros for non-ros users,

    C. Crick, G. Jay, S. Osentoski, B. Pitzer, and O. C. Jenkins, “Rosbridge: Ros for non-ros users,” in Robotics Research : The 15th International Symposium ISRR , H. I. Christensen and O. Khatib, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 493–504, ISBN : 978-3-319-29363-9

    2017

  30. [38]

    Ros: An open- source robot operating system,

    M. Quigley, K. Conley, B. P. Gerkey, J. Faust, T. Foote, J. Leibs, R. Wheeler, and A. Y . Ng, “Ros: An open- source robot operating system,” in ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software , 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    X. Zhao, W. Ding, Y . An, Y . Du, T. Yu, M. Li, M. Tang, and J. Wang, Fast segment anything , 2023. arXiv: 2306.12156 [cs.CV]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  33. [41]

    Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator,

    N. Koenig and A. Howard, “Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator,” in 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) , vol. 3, 2004, pp. 2149– 2154

    2004

  34. [42]

    Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,

    H. Sandra G and S. Lowell E, “Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,” in Advances in Psychology , vol. 52, 1988, pp. 139–183

    1988

  35. [2013]

    DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2013.191

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.