pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03545 · v1 · pith:JE3BQLYWnew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 💻 cs.RO

Static and Dynamic Representations for Tactile Contact-Angle Estimation with Event-Based Sensors

Yanhui Lu , Efi Psomopoulou , Benjamin Ward-Cherrier This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 10:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords event-based tactile sensingcontact angle estimationNeuroTac sensorstatic representationdynamic representationrobotic manipulationlow-latency processing
0
0 comments X

The pith

The static event contour representation estimates contact angles from NeuroTac sensor streams more accurately than dynamic or combined alternatives.

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

The paper compares three ways to turn streams of events from an event-based tactile sensor into spatial contours for estimating the angle of contact. It shows that a static representation, which holds onto a more persistent picture of the contact area, produces lower mean absolute error than a dynamic one that only uses recent events or a mix of both. This holds under training on specific motion scenarios, with all approaches running fast enough for real-time use. A sympathetic reader would care because low-latency angle feedback matters for stable robotic grasping and manipulation when objects slip or roll.

Core claim

Across tested rolling and interrupted-motion scenarios, the static representation achieves a mean overall MAE of 0.160° during continuous sensor rolling and a stop-phase mean MAE of 0.251° during randomly inserted motion interruptions, while also showing smaller performance changes when speed and indentation depth vary.

What carries the argument

The static spatial contour representation that recovers a persistent contact state from the event stream, as opposed to the dynamic representation of recent activity or their combination.

If this is right

  • All three representation pipelines keep P99 processing latency below 10 ms at the tested sampling intervals.
  • Scenario-specific training lets the static pipeline deliver the reported MAE values and reduced sensitivity to speed and depth changes.
  • The low latency supports high-frequency tactile feedback loops in robotic manipulation.
  • The static representation's smaller fluctuations across parameter variations imply more consistent behavior when grasp conditions change.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the static representation's advantage holds on other event-based tactile sensors, it could simplify sensor choice for angle-aware control.
  • The reported stop-phase error of 0.251° suggests the method might still support brief pauses in manipulation without retraining.
  • Extending the same contour extraction to multi-contact or curved surfaces would test whether the static approach scales beyond single-point rolling.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen rolling and interruption scenarios, together with the tested speed and indentation variations, produce performance numbers that generalize to other contact-rich robotic tasks with the NeuroTac sensor.

What would settle it

A direct comparison of the three representations on the same sensor but with untrained motion patterns, such as lateral sliding or object rotation not seen during training, would show whether the static advantage disappears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03545 by Benjamin Ward-Cherrier, Efi Psomopoulou, Yanhui Lu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: System-level overview of the proposed framework, where the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Implementation-level framework of the proposed system. Event-based tactile data are collected using a NeuroTac sensor mounted on a robot arm under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of regression errors under different representations and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Parameter tuning results for the static and dynamic representations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Regression errors of different representations under speed and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of contour changes in the static and dynamic repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Processing time distributions of the static, dynamic, and combined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Event-based tactile sensing offers low-latency signal acquisition for contact-rich robotic interaction. This paper investigates contact-angle estimation using event streams from an event-based tactile sensor (NeuroTac) and compares three event-derived spatial contour representations: a dynamic representation capturing recent event activity, a static representation recovering a more persistent contact state, and their combined representation. Across the evaluated motion scenarios, all representation pipelines exhibited P99 processing latency below 10 ms at all tested sampling intervals, demonstrating their potential for high-frequency event-based tactile angle estimation in robotic manipulation. The static representation consistently achieved marginally better performance than the dynamic and combined representations under scenario-specific training, yielding a mean overall MAE of 0.160{\deg} during continuous sensor rolling and a stop-phase mean MAE of 0.251{\deg} during randomly inserted motion interruptions. It also exhibited smaller performance fluctuations across speed and indentation depth variations than the other two representations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper investigates contact-angle estimation from event streams of the NeuroTac event-based tactile sensor by comparing three spatial contour representations: dynamic (recent events), static (persistent contact state), and their combination. It reports that all pipelines achieve P99 processing latency below 10 ms, with the static representation performing marginally better under scenario-specific training, achieving mean MAE of 0.160° in continuous rolling and 0.251° in stop phases during motion interruptions, and showing smaller fluctuations across speed and indentation depth variations.

Significance. If the experimental results are supported by adequate statistical analysis and documentation of methodology, this work demonstrates the potential of event-based tactile sensors for high-frequency, low-latency contact angle estimation in robotic applications. The comparison highlights the advantages of static representations for robustness in varying conditions.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports specific MAE values (0.160° and 0.251°) and latency bounds but provides no information on the number of trials, statistical tests, error bars, data exclusion rules, or how ground-truth angles were obtained. Full details in the methods and results sections are required to verify support for these performance claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract reports specific MAE values (0.160° and 0.251°) and latency bounds but provides no information on the number of trials, statistical tests, error bars, data exclusion rules, or how ground-truth angles were obtained. Full details in the methods and results sections are required to verify support for these performance claims.

    Authors: We agree that abstracts are necessarily concise and that transparency requires clear methodological documentation. The Methods section of the manuscript fully describes the experimental protocol, including the procedure for obtaining ground-truth contact angles via the robotic positioning system, the total number of trials and repetitions across speed and depth conditions, data collection and preprocessing steps (with no exclusions applied), and the computation of MAE. The Results section reports the mean MAE values together with measures of variability across conditions. To further strengthen the abstract's self-containment, we will add a brief clause noting that the reported figures derive from repeated trials under controlled motion scenarios, with complete experimental details provided in the Methods section. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is a purely empirical study comparing three event-derived spatial contour representations (dynamic, static, combined) for contact-angle estimation on the NeuroTac sensor. It reports measured MAE values (e.g., 0.160° overall, 0.251° stop-phase) and latency bounds directly from experimental trials under defined motion scenarios, speeds, and indentation depths. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citations appear in the load-bearing claims. The central results are scoped experimental outcomes, not reductions to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical measurements collected from the NeuroTac sensor under controlled rolling and interrupted motion scenarios. No free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities are stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5692 in / 1101 out tokens · 26760 ms · 2026-06-28T10:04:27.115731+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references

  1. [1]

    The sensory neurons of touch,

    V . E. Abraira and D. D. Ginty, “The sensory neurons of touch,”neuron, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 618–639, 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    A review of the neurobiomechanical processes underlying secure gripping in object manipulation,

    H. O’Shea and S. J. Redmond, “A review of the neurobiomechanical processes underlying secure gripping in object manipulation,”Neuro- science & Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 123, pp. 286–300, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Neurotac: A neuro- morphic optical tactile sensor applied to texture recognition,

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

    2020

  4. [4]

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

    N. Funk, E. Helmut, G. Chalvatzaki, R. Calandra, and J. Peters, “Evetac: An event-based optical tactile sensor for robotic manipulation,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 3812–3832, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Recent event camera innovations: A survey,

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

    2024

  6. [6]

    Real-time grasping strategies using event camera,

    X. Huang, M. Halwani, R. Muthusamyet al., “Real-time grasping strategies using event camera,”Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 593–615, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    A neuromorphic incipient slip detection system using papillae morphology,

    Y . Lu, Z. Deng, S. J. Redmond, E. Psomopoulou, and B. Ward- Cherrier, “A neuromorphic incipient slip detection system using papillae morphology,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2026

    2026

  8. [8]

    A neuromorphic system for the real-time classification of natural textures,

    G. Brayshaw, B. Ward-Cherrier, and M. J. Pearson, “A neuromorphic system for the real-time classification of natural textures,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 1070–1076

    2024

  9. [9]

    Merkel cells and neurons keep in touch,

    S.-H. Woo, E. A. Lumpkin, and A. Patapoutian, “Merkel cells and neurons keep in touch,”Trends in cell biology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 74–81, 2015

    2015

  10. [10]

    Slowly adapting mechanoreceptors in the borders of the human fingernail encode fingertip forces,

    I. Birznieks, V . G. Macefield, G. Westling, and R. S. Johansson, “Slowly adapting mechanoreceptors in the borders of the human fingernail encode fingertip forces,”Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 29, no. 29, pp. 9370–9379, 2009

    2009

  11. [11]

    Slowly-adapting type ii afferents con- tribute to conscious touch sensation in humans: Evidence from single unit intraneural microstimulation,

    R. H. Watkins, M. Durao de Carvalho Amante, H. Backlund Wasling, J. Wessberg, and R. Ackerley, “Slowly-adapting type ii afferents con- tribute to conscious touch sensation in humans: Evidence from single unit intraneural microstimulation,”The Journal of Physiology, vol. 600, no. 12, pp. 2939–2952, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Learning robot in-hand manipulation with tactile features. in 2015 ieee-ras 15th international conference on humanoid robots (humanoids),

    H. Van Hoof, T. Hermans, G. Neumann, and J. Peters, “Learning robot in-hand manipulation with tactile features. in 2015 ieee-ras 15th international conference on humanoid robots (humanoids),”Seoul, Korea (South), pp. 121–127, 2015

    2015

  13. [13]

    Tactile dexterity: Manipulation primitives with tactile feedback,

    F. R. Hogan, J. Ballester, S. Dong, and A. Rodriguez, “Tactile dexterity: Manipulation primitives with tactile feedback,” inIEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), 2020, pp. 8863–8869

    2020

  14. [14]

    Tactile pose feedback for closed-loop manipulation tasks,

    K. Ota, S. Jain, M. Zhang, and D. K. Jha, “Tactile pose feedback for closed-loop manipulation tasks,” inRobotics: Science and Systems workshop, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Real-time fault detection in robotic manufacturing using high-bandwidth event vision-based tactile sensing,

    E. Sherif, A. Khairi, H. Sajwaniet al., “Real-time fault detection in robotic manufacturing using high-bandwidth event vision-based tactile sensing,”Sensors International, p. 100355, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Events-to-video: Bringing modern computer vision to event cameras,

    H. Rebecq, R. Ranftl, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “Events-to-video: Bringing modern computer vision to event cameras,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 3857–3866

    2019

  17. [17]

    Back to event basics: Self- supervised learning of image reconstruction for event cameras via photometric constancy,

    F. Paredes-Vall ´es and G. C. De Croon, “Back to event basics: Self- supervised learning of image reconstruction for event cameras via photometric constancy,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 3446–3455. 8

    2021

  18. [18]

    Learning event guided high dynamic range video reconstruction,

    Y . Yang, J. Han, J. Liang, I. Sato, and B. Shi, “Learning event guided high dynamic range video reconstruction,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 13 924–13 934

    2023

  19. [19]

    Lifetime estimation of events from dynamic vision sensors,

    E. Mueggler, C. Forster, N. Baumli, G. Gallego, and D. Scaramuzza, “Lifetime estimation of events from dynamic vision sensors,” inIEEE international conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2015, pp. 4874–4881

    2015

  20. [20]

    Hots: a hierarchy of event-based time-surfaces for pattern recognition,

    X. Lagorce, G. Orchard, F. Galluppi, B. E. Shi, and R. B. Benosman, “Hots: a hierarchy of event-based time-surfaces for pattern recognition,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 1346–1359, 2016

    2016

  21. [21]

    Continuous-time intensity estimation using event cameras,

    C. Scheerlinck, N. Barnes, and R. Mahony, “Continuous-time intensity estimation using event cameras,” inAsian Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2018, pp. 308–324

    2018

  22. [22]

    Elastomer-based visuotactile sensor for normality of robotic manufacturing systems,

    I. M. Zaid, M. Halwani, A. Ayyadet al., “Elastomer-based visuotactile sensor for normality of robotic manufacturing systems,”Polymers, vol. 14, no. 23, p. 5097, 2022

    2022

  23. [23]

    A novel vision-based multi- functional sensor for normality and position measurements in precise robotic manufacturing,

    M. Halwani, A. Ayyad, L. AbuAssiet al., “A novel vision-based multi- functional sensor for normality and position measurements in precise robotic manufacturing,”Precision Engineering, vol. 88, pp. 367–381, 2024

    2024

  24. [24]

    Neuromorphic tactile edge orientation classification in an unsupervised spiking neural network,

    F. L. Macdonald, N. F. Lepora, J. Conradt, and B. Ward-Cherrier, “Neuromorphic tactile edge orientation classification in an unsupervised spiking neural network,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 18, p. 6998, 2022

    2022

  25. [25]

    Tactigraph: An asynchronous graph neural network for contact angle prediction using neuromorphic vision-based tactile sensing,

    H. Sajwani, A. Ayyad, Y . Alkendiet al., “Tactigraph: An asynchronous graph neural network for contact angle prediction using neuromorphic vision-based tactile sensing,”Sensors, vol. 23, no. 14, p. 6451, 2023

    2023

  26. [26]

    High speed and high dynamic range video with an event camera,

    H. Rebecq, R. Ranftl, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “High speed and high dynamic range video with an event camera,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1964–1980, 2019

    1964

  27. [27]

    The roles and functions of cutaneous mechanorecep- tors,

    K. O. Johnson, “The roles and functions of cutaneous mechanorecep- tors,”Current opinion in neurobiology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 455–461, 2001

    2001

  28. [28]

    Population coding strategies in human tactile afferents,

    G. Corniani, M. A. Casal, S. Panzeri, and H. P. Saal, “Population coding strategies in human tactile afferents,”PLOS Computational Biology, vol. 18, no. 12, p. e1010763, 2022

    2022

  29. [29]

    Artificial sa-i, ra-i and ra-ii/vibrotactile afferents for tactile sensing of texture,

    N. Pestell and N. F. Lepora, “Artificial sa-i, ra-i and ra-ii/vibrotactile afferents for tactile sensing of texture,”Journal of The Royal Society Interface, vol. 19, no. 189, 2022

    2022