Abstract
Tactile sensing is essential for robots to adequately interact with the physical world, but creating tactile sensors for the robot’s soft and flexible body surface has been a challenge. The resistance tomography-based tactile sensors have been introduced as a promising approach to creating soft tactile skins because the sensor fabrication can be greatly simplified with the aid of a computation model. This article introduces an electronic design strategy dividing frontend and backend electronics for the resistance tomography-based tactile sensors. In this scheme, the frontend is made of the piezoresistive structure and electrodes that can be changed depending on the required geometry. The backend is the electronic circuit for resistance tomography, which can be used for various frontend geometries. To evaluate the use of a unified backend for different frontend geometries, two frontend specimens with a square shape and a circular shape are tested. The minimum detectable contact force and the minimum discernible contact distance are calculated as \(0.83 \times 10^{-4}\) N/mm\(^2\), 2.51 mm for the square-shaped frontend and \(1.19 \times 10^{-4}\) N/mm\(^2\), 3.42 mm for the circular-shaped frontend. The results indicated that the proposed electronic design strategy can be used to create tactile skins with different scales and geometries while keeping the same backend design.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Tactile robotics is a fast-growing field attempting to utilize tactile information in robotics, such as contact-based decision-making, manipulation, and physical human–robot interaction [1,2,3,4]. Unlike vision or auditory systems, tactile sensing has yet stagnated due to its diverse and multidisciplinary requirements; one of the challenging requirements is applying a tactile sensing system on a robot’s flexible and soft body surfaces [5].
For many years, researchers have primarily investigated flexible and stretchable electronics to create soft tactile sensors. Highly conductive and stretchable materials have demonstrated electronic skins that are thin and stretchable [6]. Although these materials have achieved many extraordinary characteristics, practical usage of these approaches in soft robotics is challenging because these materials are typically fabricated on a plane.
Tomographic, or super-resolution, tactile sensing approac-hes have recently emerged as a promising approach to create soft tactile skins using reconstruction [7,8,9,10]. The tomographic approach generally uses sparsely distributed sensing elements with wide, overlapping sensitive fields. Although the number of sensing elements is small, tactile information of higher spatial resolution can be computed by decoupling the convoluted raw signals.
The overlapping sensitive fields can be achieved by either resistive-type transducers [11] or capacitive-type transducers [12, 13]. Among these transducing methods, tactile sensors based on resistance tomography have shown practical advantages in soft skins, since the sensor design can be simply applied to three-dimensional geometries compared to the capacitance transducer that typically requires two, thin parallel stretchable electrodes. Thus, the resistance tomography method has been successfully applied to both soft materials [8, 14] and three-dimensional geometry [15].
This paper introduces an electronic design strategy dividing frontend and backend electronics, to achieve flexible and scalable tactile skin. Figure 1 illustrates the advantage of this electronic design. Soft robots require different tactile skins, according to the body locations. The frontend is for flexible transducers that can have different geometry and scale. The backend is unified tomographic electronics for current injection and voltage measurement that can be applied to every soft robot’s body surfaces, regardless of the frontend’s geometry and scale.
This strategy is useful for tomographic tactile sensors because the change of frontend can be easily updated on the simulation model used in the resistance reconstruction. The use of a simulation model for sensing has been known to decouple hardware dependencies [16].
2 Fundamentals of the resistance tomography
Resistance tomography is a reconstruction method that the resistance distribution of the inside of a conductive medium using a low number of electrodes on the surface [17].
This approach has been applied to tactile sensing because only a few electrodes can estimate pressure distribution over a large and soft piezoresistive material [11]. This feature enabled many tactile sensors to detect multiple physical contacts on soft and stretchable materials [8, 14, 18].
2.1 Mathematical formulation
When electric current (j) is injected into a conductive medium (\(\Omega \)), the voltage distribution (\(\phi \)) is formed, as follows:
where \(\sigma \) denotes the conductivity and \(\textbf{n}\) is the unit normal vector on the boundary \(\partial \Omega \).
Equation (1) can be approximated into a linear equation form using the voltages (V) and current (I) on the electrodes [19].
where R(\(\sigma \)) is the transfer resistance matrix, which is a function of the conductivity \(\sigma \) of the piezoresistive material.
In resistance tomography, we usually inject an electric current by selecting an electrode pair and measure voltage from another electrode pair. The voltage measurement obtained from the pair selections (\(E_i\) \(_j\)) can be defined as below:
where P\(_j\) is the j-th column vector of the current injection pattern matrix and M\(_i\) is the i-th column vector of the voltage measurement pattern matrix.
These pair selections are sequentially changed to scan the entire conductive medium. In case of a piezoresistive material, the conductivity changes when it is deformed, causing a voltage measurement change \(\Delta \)E at the electrodes, as follows:
where \(\Delta \sigma \) is the conductivity change of the piezoresistive material.
When the current injection and voltage measurement are fixed, we can transform Eq. (4), as follows:
where \({\textbf {J}}\) is the Jacobian matrix calculated from the initial conductivity with a given pattern and \({\textbf {w}}\) is measurement noise.
Using the Jacobian matrix, the conductivity distribution (\(\sigma \)) can be reconstructed when a sequence of the voltage measurement change \(\Delta \) E is acquired. This procedure is often formulated with a regularization matrix to stabilize the solution:
where \(\alpha \) is a scalar hyperparameter that adjusts the strength of the regularization, and \(\varvec{\Gamma }\) is a regularization matrix established from a priori knowledge.
The hyperparameter \(\alpha \) is heuristically determined from the real data with the simulation model in this study for simplicity. For the systematic hyperparameter selection, Graham and Adler well summarized possible approaches [20].
This mapping matrix in Eq. (6) can be precomputed from the finite element model of the sensor.
2.2 Current injection and voltage measurement patterns
The choice of the current injection and voltage measurement patterns is not a trivial problem as it can influence the optimality of the measurement [21]. The adjacent pattern is widely used due to its simple implementation with moderate performance [17].
Practically, analog multiplexers are often used to control all the electrodes, instead of using multiple current sources and voltage readouts [17]. In the multiplexed electrode configuration, three electrodes are typically controlled for the voltage measurement: an electrode for the current source (voltage input), an electrode for the current sink (ground connection), and an electrode for our measurement readout (voltage output).
As illustrated in Fig. 2, for the first measurement set, the current source and sink are connected to the first and second electrodes, respectively, while the voltage of every electrode in the 64 array is sampled once in a sequence. For the second set, the current source and sink are shifted to the second and third electrodes, respectively, while the voltage sampling sequence is repeated. This shifting process and its corresponding sampling sequence are repeated 64 times to cover all the electrodes of the sensor and generate a total of 4096 voltage measurements.
In the last shifting, the current source and sink are placed at the first and last electrodes, so the next shifting will return them to their initial configuration. For this reason and since this pattern is constantly repeated to keep the measurements of the sensor updated, the current source and sink are always considered adjacent, even if they appeared to be separated in the last configuration.
3 Electronic components for resistance tomography
To implement resistance tomography-based tactile sensing, dedicated electronics are essential. Figure 1 shows an overview of the system, showing the flexible transducer frontend and the analog signal acquisition backend.
3.1 Flexible transducer frontend
The flexible transducer frontend is made of a piezoresistive layer and an underneath layer with sparsely distributed electrodes. The piezoresistive layer can be any material or structure that can change resistance when it is pressed or deformed. In this article, a piezoresistive structure consists of two conductive layers (Fig. 3): a carbon-sprayed layer (838AR, MG-Chemicals, Canada) and 5.5 mm thickness of low-resistance fabric patches (Medtex P70, Statex, Germany) with a neoprene sheet, which is introduced in the literature [15].
The layer with electrodes is a flexible-printed circuit board (fPCB) with 64 copper electrodes exposed on the surface as shown in Fig. 4. With a conductive adhesive, the conductive fabric sheet is connected to the electrodes. The electrodes are made of copper and are essentially conductors with no resistance. The carbon-sprayed layer is made on top of the respective electrodes of the fPCB. The low-resistance fabric patches are loosely placed upon the carbon-sprayed layer, creating a slight air gap. Only the edges are pasted using glue to prevent the two layers to stop contacting each other when pressure is applied. In this design, the entire frontend can maintain mechanical flexibility while keeping the electrical connection.
3.2 Analog signal acquisition backend
The key concept of the analog signal acquisition backend is to reuse the same electronics for various transducer frontends of different shapes and scales.
The core components of the circuit are an analog multiplexer (AMUX), a current source, an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), and a microcontroller. A detailed schematic is shown in Fig. 5.
The electrodes of the transducer frontend are directly connected to a 64-channel dedicated analog multiplexer (AMUX) with a current source on chip (swmux, IMS CHIPS, Germany). The schematic of the AMUX is shown in Fig. 6.
The AMUX chip consists of two analog outputs connected to 64 analog inputs. Four of these analog inputs can be connected to one pair of electrodes for the current injection and another pair of electrodes for the voltage measurement, explained in Fig. 2. The current generator is connected to a reference ground and a programmable bias current source (ranging from 0 to 40 \(\upmu \)A with a stepsize of 2.6 \(\upmu \)A).
The voltage measurement pair is connected to the two analog outputs of the AMUX, which are later connected to the ADC. The on-resistance between these input and output connections corresponds to the AMUX internal resistance that is approximately 400\(\Omega \). This resistance can be neglected if compared to the much larger resistance of the piezoresistive material.
The chip has the size of 2700 \(\times \) 2600 \(\upmu \)m\(^2\), which is compact enough for various on-board applications. The control of the chip is done through a 4-wire SPI interface. The maximum multiplexing frequency of the AMUX is designed to be 10 MHz, which is sufficient for the resistance tomography.
When the electrodes are selected from the AMUX, a voltage measurement is conducted via the ADC (ADS115, Texas Instruments, USA). This 16-bit high-resolution ADC is specifically chosen for its superior performance in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The ADC is connected to the microcontroller through an I2C protocol.
A microcontroller is required to control AMUX and ADC. Any microcontroller can be used if it has SPI and I2C interfaces. In this study, a microcontroller with the Arduino architecture (MKR1010, Smart Projects, Italy) was chosen for the ease of programming and open-source development.
4 Contact sensing experiments and results
To evaluate the frontend and backend strategy, we prepared two frontend transducers, having different geometry and scale: one with 150 mm by 150 mm square geometry and another with 120 mm diameter circular geometry (see Fig. 7).
The experiments aim to show that the same backend module can be used for different frontend transducers while achieving a similar level of contact sensing performance. The contact sensing performance is evaluated with two metrics: minimum detectable contact force (limit of detection) and minimum discernible contact distance.
To carry out the experiments, an indenter is placed on the frontend as shown in Fig. 8. The indenter is composed by a circular base of 22 mm diameter and 1.8 g that ensures the homogeneity of the contact area in all experiments and an interchangeable metallic weight.
4.1 Minimum detectable contact force
The minimum contact force detection limit is calculated using the limit of detection [22].
A sequence of the voltage is a vector of 4096 dimensions according to the current injection and voltage measurement patterns. Typically, the root mean square is used to estimate the power of the voltage measurements [23]. The limit of detection is defined by the contact force producing the voltage measurement power that is 3.3 times larger than the standard deviation of the noise signal.
As an experiment, a known weight is placed on the sensor’s central location as shown in Fig. 8. The contact area is kept using a 22 mm diameter indenter when the weight is placed, which results in an effective pressure area of 380.13 mm\(^2\).
The weight applied by the indenter starts at 1.8 g (base alone), and then, it is increased to 2.8, 3.8, 6.8, 8.8, 11.8, 16.8, 21.8, and 31.8 g. This corresponds to a force variation from 0.01766 to 0.3119 N and a pressure variation from \(0.4645\times 10^{-4}\) to \(8.2066\times 10^{-4}\) N/mm\(^2\). The variation in applied pressure modifies the \(V_{\textrm{rms}}\) value which is acquired and saved as a sequence of data points.
Figure 9 shows the power of the signal when the contact pressure increases, the first point corresponds to a measurement without the indenter. The standard deviation of the noise signal is calculated from repetitive signals (\(n=30\)) when no contact force is applied.
The minimum detectable contact force is estimated to be \(0.83\times 10^{-4}\) N/mm\(^2\) and \(1.19\times 10^{-4}\) N/mm\(^2\) for square specimen and circular specimen, respectively. The experiment was replicated five times under similar conditions, this data is illustrated in the form of box plots in Fig. 9. The compress shape of the boxes and the low presence of outliers indicate the repeatability of the measurements.
4.2 Minimum discernible contact distance
The minimum discernible contact distance is calculated using the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) between a voltage sequence from one contact position and another voltage sequence from a slightly shifted contact position.
As an experiment, the voltage sequence of the sensor’s central location is first obtained. A 10 g weight is used for this experiment, as this weight is sufficiently heavy to generate significant voltages. Secondly, the contact location of the weight is shifted, and another voltage sequence is measured. The PCC is calculated between the voltage from the origin and the voltage from the shifted location. This procedure is repeated until the shift distance reaches 40 mm.
Figure 10 shows that PCC decreases as the shift distance increases. In this article, the minimum discernible distance (MDD) is defined as the distance where PCC is 0.9 \(({\hbox {MDD}}_{0.9})\) and 0.5 \(({\hbox {MDD}}_{0.5})\). For the square-shaped frontend, the \({\hbox {MDD}}_{0.9}\) was 2.51 mm and \({\hbox {MDD}}_{0.5}\) was 16.92 mm. For the circular-shaped frontend, the \({\hbox {MDD}}_{0.9}\) was 3.42 mm and \({\hbox {MDD}}_{0.5}\) was 15.53 mm. Similarly to the minimum detectable contact force, the box plots in Fig. 10 were construct using the data of five experiments and show the repeatability of the measurements.
4.3 Demonstration
The frontend was mounted on a curved surface and resistance reconstruction is conducted when various contacts were applied. The curved surface was a cylindrical shape with a diameter of 190 mm and both the printed circuit board and the low-resistance fabric patches were attached, as shown in Fig. 11.
The sensor was exposed to three types of stimuli as shown in Fig. 12. First, a moderate pressure was applied to a point located in the upper-left corner. The corresponding resistance distribution is reconstructed and shown on the screen. As a second test, high pressure was applied on the same point, causing higher resistance change. Finally, two contact points were pressed. This multi-contact has successfully reconstructed from the sensor, showing two peaks on the screen.
5 Discussion
This article introduces the transducer frontend and signal acquisition backend for tomographic tactile sensing. The scheme of frontend and backend design has been widely used in tactile sensing systems; however, a specific design for resistance tomography-based tactile sensors has been less focused.
The result in Sect. 4 indicates that the analog multiplexer with a programmable current source can be reused for frontends of different geometry and scale, achieving similar sensing performance: The circular-shaped frontend has 143.37% for the minimum detectable contact force (LOD), 136.26% for the minimum discernible contact distance \(({\hbox {MDD}}_{0.9})\), compared to the square-shaped frontend. Considering that the 11,310.73 mm\(^2\) area of the circular-shaped frontend (60 mm radius) is the 50.27% of the square-shaped frontend (150 mm square) 22,500 mm\(^2\) area, this performance difference appears to be acceptable.
The piezoresistive layer of the frontend is made of carbon spray, which may be inhomogeneous. This inhomogeneous conductivity results in simulation inaccuracy, causing overall performance reduction. The data-driven approaches have shown promising performance in handling this fabrication inhomogeneity [15]. Although the flexible-printed circuit boards are used as transducer frontend in this study, they can be extended to stretchable transducers if soft and stretchable electronics are used. The use of a stretchable transducer can be useful to soft robot systems, such as soft grippers.
Regarding the backend, the current AMUX chip in Fig. 4 is installed on a much larger package due to a supply problem. The entire backend circuit can be tremendously miniaturized when a proper package is used. The ADC can also be integrated as an application-specific integrated circuit in the future. Since the AMUX selection can be modified by software, the backend developed in this study is able to handle the connection to a frontend with a different number of electrodes (up to 64). This is an advantage of the frontend and backend scheme as it only requires changes in the simulation model.
It should be noted that a small computer systems interface (SCSI) cable was used to connect electrodes from the frontend to the backend. This analog interface may be limited when the frontend is distanced from the backend or high-speed multiplexing is required.
Although there are more metrics to evaluate resistance tomography-based tactile sensors [18], two essential metrics were chosen to show the unified backend can achieve similar sensing performance for different frontends. Since the data obtained from the experiments does not fall exactly on the LOD and the MDD, these values were estimated by finding a rough intersection point. As a future study, the effect of the geometrical change in terms of electrode arrangement can be further analyzed.
In Sect. 4.3, the curved surface is used to demonstrate the single- and multi-contact sensing capability of the proposed system. Although a simple cylindrical geometry is used in this study, this approach can be applied to even more complex-shaped surfaces.
6 Conclusion
The resistance tomography-based tactile sensors are promising to create soft tactile skins that may have various scales, geometries, and flexibility. To enhance the adaptability of the tactile skin, an electronic design strategy dividing frontend and backend electronics is investigated. The frontend is dedicated to the flexible transducer part with the piezoresistive structure. The backend is the tomographic electronics comprising an analog multiplexer, a current source, an analog-to-digital converter, and a microcontroller. The use of a unified backend is validated from the experiments of two frontends that have different scales and geometries. In the future, this electronic scheme can be potentially used in soft robots, which require diverse geometries with challenging mechanical compliance.
References
Dahiya RS, Metta G, Valle M, Sandini G (2010) Tactile sensing: from humans to humanoids. IEEE Trans Robot 26:1–20
Zou L, Ge C, Wang ZJ, Cretu E, Li X (2017) Novel tactile sensor technology and smart tactile sensing systems: a review. Sensors 17:2653
Wang C, Dong L, Peng D, Pan C (2019) Tactile sensors for advanced intelligent systems. Adv Intell Syst 1:1900090
Pyo S, Lee J, Bae K, Sim S, Kim J (2021) Recent progress in flexible tactile sensors for human-interactive systems: from sensors to advanced applications. Adv Mater 33:2005902
Roberts P, Zadan M, Majidi C (2021) Soft tactile sensing skins for robotics. Curr Robot Rep 2:343–354
Yang JC et al (2019) Electronic skin: recent progress and future prospects for skin-attachable devices for health monitoring, robotics, and prosthetics. Adv Mater 31:1904765
Lepora NF et al (2015) Tactile superresolution and biomimetic hyperacuity. IEEE Trans Robot 31:605–618
Lee H, Kwon D, Cho H, Park I, Kim J (2017) Soft nanocomposite based multi-point, multi-directional strain mapping sensor using anisotropic electrical impedance tomography. Sci Rep 7:39837
Sun H, Martius G (2022) Guiding the design of superresolution tactile skins with taxel value isolines theory. Sci Robot 7:eabm0608
Yan Y et al (2021) Soft magnetic skin for super-resolution tactile sensing with force self-decoupling. Sci Robot 6:eabc8801
Silvera-Tawil D, Rye D, Soleimani M, Velonaki M (2015) Electrical impedance tomography for artificial sensitive robotic skin: a review. IEEE Sens J 15:2001–2016
Ma G, Soleimani M (2020) A versatile 4d capacitive imaging array: a touchless skin and an obstacle-avoidance sensor for robotic applications. Sci Rep 10:11525
Liu X, Yang W (2023) Robot sensing based on electrical capacitance tomography sensor with rotation. Meas Sci Technol 34:085125
Park K et al (2022) Biomimetic robotic skin implemented with hydrogel-elastomer hybrids and tomographic imaging methods. Sci Robot 7:eabm7187
Park K, Park H, Lee H, Park S, Kim J (2020) An ERT-based robotic skin with sparsely distributed electrodes: structure, fabrication, and DNN-based signal processing. IEEE, pp 1617–1624
Hardy N, Ahmad A (1999) De-coupling for re-use in design and implementation using virtual sensors. Auton Robot 6:265–280
Holder DS (2004) Electrical impedance tomography: methods, history and applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Lee H, Park K, Kim J, Kuchenbecker KJ (2021) Piezoresistive textile layer and distributed electrode structure for soft whole-body tactile skin. Smart Mater Struct 38:085036
Lionheart WRB, Paridis K, Adler A (2012) Resistor networks and transfer resistance matrices
Graham B, Adler A (2006) Objective selection of hyperparameter for EIT. Physiol Meas 27:S65
Paulson K, Lionheart W, Pidcock M (1993) Optimal experiments in electrical impedance tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 12:681–686
Gibbons RD, Coleman DE, Coleman DD (2001) Statistical methods for detection and quantification of environmental contamination. Wiley
Isaacson D (1986) Distinguishability of conductivities by electric current computed tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 5:91–95
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study was funded by the Christian Bürkert Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sánchez-Delgado, A., Garg, K., Scherjon, C. et al. Frontend and backend electronics achieving flexibility and scalability for tomographic tactile sensing. Intel Serv Robotics 17, 75–83 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-023-00502-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-023-00502-5