Page 1 of 2
Vision-based vs tactile-based grasp confidence - which do you trust more?
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2025 4:17 pm
by karen.chen3
Trying to organize my own thinking on this, so bear with me.
Grasp planning for deformable or non-rigid objects (bags, cables, cloth) remains one of the genuinely unsolved problems in manipulation - rigid-body grasp models simply don't capture how the object will behave once contact starts. Object occlusion by the robot's own hand during the final approach to a grasp is a common and annoying perception problem - the closer the hand gets to a good grasp position, the more it blocks the camera's view of exactly what it's about to grab.
Let me know if I'm missing something obvious.
Re: Vision-based vs tactile-based grasp confidence - which do you trust more?
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2025 8:04 pm
by giulia.roberts4
@karen.chen3 Speaking from personal experience here,
Payload-to-hand-weight ratio varies a lot across current dexterous hands, and it's a meaningful tradeoff - more DoF and finer sensing generally means more actuators and mass in the hand itself, which eats into the arm's usable payload budget.
Re: Vision-based vs tactile-based grasp confidence - which do you trust more?
Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2025 12:02 am
by scott.andersson5
@giulia.roberts4 Speaking from personal experience here,
Palm sensing gets less attention than fingertip sensing, but a lot of power grasps (holding a box, a tool handle) rely more on palm and lateral finger contact than fingertip contact, so under-sensing the palm can leave a real blind spot in grasp confidence. Bimanual manipulation - two arms coordinating on one task - is harder than it looks mostly because of the added degrees of freedom and the timing/force coordination required; a lot of 'two-handed' demos are actually closer to two independent single-hand tasks done in sequence.
Re: Vision-based vs tactile-based grasp confidence - which do you trust more?
Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2025 4:07 am
by servoken70
@scott.andersson5 Same conclusion I've come to. Also worth noting:
Compliant wrists that absorb impact during a bad approach or misjudged contact reduce mechanical stress on the whole arm, which matters a lot for long-term reliability even though it's a less visible feature than the hand itself.
Re: Vision-based vs tactile-based grasp confidence - which do you trust more?
Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2025 8:19 am
by rossi30
@servoken70 Can I ask a dumb follow-up -
Figure's fourth-generation Dexterous Hand (on Figure 02/03) reportedly offers 16 degrees of freedom per hand with sensors integrated into each finger, aimed at fine force control tasks like handling small electronic components without crushing them.
Re: Vision-based vs tactile-based grasp confidence - which do you trust more?
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2025 7:42 am
by choi98
I'd take that specific number with a grain of salt, honestly.
Imitation learning from human demonstration video (without robot teleoperation data) is an appealing way to scale up training data cheaply, but it runs into the embodiment gap - human hand kinematics and force profiles don't map directly onto a robot hand's very different mechanism. Wet, oily, or otherwise low-friction objects are still a genuine edge case for most current hands, since tactile sensing and grasp-force controllers are typically tuned and validated on dry, higher-friction test objects.
Re: Vision-based vs tactile-based grasp confidence - which do you trust more?
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2025 5:32 pm
by ethan17
@choi98 I'd take that specific number with a grain of salt, honestly.
A lot of the manipulation shown in production demos still leans heavily on teleoperation, particularly for anything involving fine force control or novel objects - autonomous grasp success rates on genuinely unstructured, previously-unseen clutter are still well below what teleoperation can achieve. In-hand reorientation (repositioning a grasped object without setting it down) is one of the more advanced manipulation skills, requiring either a highly dexterous hand with enough DoF or clever use of gravity and controlled slipping - it's an active research area rather than a solved problem.
Makes me wonder how this looks in another five years.
Re: Vision-based vs tactile-based grasp confidence - which do you trust more?
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:26 pm
by carol.robinson
Slightly off-topic, but related:
Vision-based grasp confidence estimation (predicting success before attempting a grasp) and tactile-based confirmation (confirming after contact) are complementary rather than competing - vision helps you choose a grasp, tactile tells you if it actually worked. Cable routing through a wrist joint with multiple degrees of freedom is a genuinely tricky mechanical design problem - tendons and wiring both need enough slack to avoid binding through the full range of motion without tangling or fraying over thousands of cycles.
Re: Vision-based vs tactile-based grasp confidence - which do you trust more?
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:39 am
by pierregreen
Not to derail, but this reminds me of something adjacent:
Tendon-driven fingers let you move the heavier actuators back into the palm or forearm, keeping the fingers themselves light and fast, but they introduce cable routing, tensioning, and long-term wear problems that direct-actuated fingers don't have.
Re: Vision-based vs tactile-based grasp confidence - which do you trust more?
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2025 4:21 pm
by zoeanderson
Minor factual note:
Underactuated hands (fewer actuators than joints, using mechanical coupling to shape the grasp) are a reasonable engineering compromise for robust power grasps on a budget, but they generally can't do fine in-hand manipulation the way a fully actuated hand can.