ReviewAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)2026
Habitat-Specific Design Strategies for Untethered Soft Robots.
Review in Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Untethered soft robots are governed by habitat-specific constraints because operation without physical tethers requires their compliant structures, actuation mechanisms, and energy-delivery pathways to remain compatible with the environment. Adopting a habitat-centric framework, this review compares untethered soft robots across terrestrial, aquatic, aerial, and in vivo environments. On terrestrial substrates, design strategies are shaped by locomotion-specific demands, including contact modulation in crawling, energy storage and release in jumping, switchable adhesion in climbing, and granular fluidization in burrowing. In aquatic habitats, the dominant constraint shifts with depth, from capillary support at the air-water interface, to hydrodynamic drag in shallow water, and to hydrostatic pressure in the deep sea. In aerial environments, strict mass and power limits favor actively flapping insect-scale robots, buoyancy-assisted vehicles, and passively dispersed aeroelastic structures. In vivo, miniaturization and biocompatibility confine the viable design space to magnetic, acoustic, and biohybrid actuation. A multi-environment comparison shows that no single actuation modality is universally optimal. Each habitat filters actuation strategies by the compatibility between energy transmission and the local medium. Material longevity, onboard energy autonomy, multi-environment transition, extraterrestrial operation, and perception and feedback control are identified as cross-cutting challenges whose resolution is required to translate laboratory demonstrations into real-world deployment.
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.