ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Texture and Friction Classification: Optical TacTip vs. Vibrational Piezoeletric and Accelerometer Tactile Sensors.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tactile sensing is increasingly vital in robotics, especially for tasks like object manipulation and texture classification. Among tactile technologies, optical and electrical sensors are widely used, yet no rigorous direct comparison of their performance has been conducted. This paper addresses that gap by presenting a comparative study between a high-resolution optical tactile sensor (a modified TacTip) and a low-resolution electrical sensor combining accelerometers and piezoelectric elements. We evaluate both sensor types on two tasks: texture classification and coefficient of dynamic friction prediction. Various configurations and resolutions were explored, along with multiple machine learning classifiers to determine optimal performance. The optical sensor achieved 99.9% accuracy on a challenging texture dataset, significantly outperforming the electrical sensor, which reached 82%. However, for dynamic friction prediction, both sensors performed comparably, with only a 5~% accuracy difference. We also found that the optical sensor retained high classification accuracy even when image resolution was reduced to 25% of its original size, suggesting that ultra-high resolution is not essential. In conclusion, the optical sensor is the better choice when high accuracy is required. However, for low-cost or computationally efficient systems, the electrical sensor provides a practical alternative with competitive performance in some tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.