Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35910016›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022

The Roles and Comparison of Rigid and Soft Tails in Gecko-Inspired Climbing Robots: A Mini-Review.

Guangyuan Zang, Zhendong Dai, Poramate Manoonpong

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Guangyuan ZangInstitute of Bio-inspired Structure and Surface Engineering, College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China.
Zhendong DaiInstitute of Bio-inspired Structure and Surface Engineering, College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China.
Poramate ManoonpongInstitute of Bio-inspired Structure and Surface Engineering, College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China.
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics · CNVidyasirimedhi Institute of Science and Technology · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Geckos use millions of dry bristles on their toes to adhere to and rapidly run up walls and across ceilings. This has inspired the successful development of dry adhesive materials and their application to climbing robots. The tails of geckos also help realize adaptive and robust climbing behavior. Existing climbing robots with gecko-inspired tails have demonstrated improved locomotion performance. However, few studies have focused on the role of a robot's gecko-inspired tail when climbing a sloped surface and its effects on the overall locomotion performance. Thus, this paper reviews and analyzes the roles of the tails of geckos and robots in terms of their climbing performances and compares the advantages and disadvantages of robots' tails made of rigid and soft materials. This review could assist roboticists decide whether a tail is required for their robots and which materials and motion types to use for the tail in order to fulfill their desired functions and even allow the robots to adapt to different environments and tasks.

Indexed as

bio-inspired tailsbiomimetic designclimbing robotsgecko locomotionsoft material

Identifiers

PMID35910016
PMCPMC9335492
OpenAlexW4285593526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.