Nonprehensile Manipulation for Rapid Object Spinning via Multisensory Learning from Demonstration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dexterous manipulation concerns the control of a robot hand to manipulate an object in a desired manner. While classical dexterous manipulation strategies are based on stable grasping (or force closure), many human-like manipulation tasks do not maintain grasp stability and often utilize the dynamics of the object rather than the closed form of kinematic relation between the object and the robotic hand. Such manipulation strategies are referred as nonprehensile or dynamic dexterous manipulation in the literature. Nonprehensile manipulation often involves fast and agile movements such as throwing and flipping. Due to the complexity of such motions and uncertainties associated with them, it has been challenging to realize nonprehensile manipulation tasks in a reliable way. In this paper, we propose a new control strategy to realize practical nonprehensile manipulation. First, we make explicit use of multiple modalities of sensory data for the design of control law. Specifically, force data are employed for feedforward control, while position data are used for feedback control. Secondly, control signals (both feedback and feedforward) are obtained through multisensory learning from demonstration (LfD) experiments designed and performed for specific nonprehensile manipulation tasks of concern. To prove the concept of the proposed control strategy, experimental tests were conducted for a dynamic spinning task using a sensory-rich, two-finger robotic hand. The control performance (i.e., the speed and accuracy of the spinning task) was also compared with that of classical dexterous manipulation based on force closure and finger gaiting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".