Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE
InternationalConference on Robotics & Automation
San Francisco, CA April 2000
An Overview of Dexterous Manipulation
Allison M . Okamura, Niels Smaby and Mark R.. Cutkosky
Dexterous Manipulation Laboratory
Stanford University
touch@cdr.stanford. edu
Abstract
This puper f o r the ICRA 2000 Symposium on Dex-
terous Manipulation presents a n oueriiieui of research
in. dexterous manipulataon. W e first define robotic
dexterous manipulation in comparison t o traditional
robotics and h u m a n manipulation. Next, kinematics,
contact types and forces are used t o formulate the dex-
terous manipulation problem. Dexterous motion plan-
ning is described, which includes grasp planning and
quality measures. W e look at mid- and low-level con-
trol fmmeuiorks, and then compare manipulation uer-
sus exploration,. Finally, we list accomplishments in
the different areas of dexterous manipulation research,
and highlight important areas f o r future work.
1 Introduction
Dexterous Manipulation is an area of robotics in
which rriultiple manipulators, or fingers, cooperate to
grasp and manipulate objects. A distinguishing char-
acteristic of dexterous manipulation is that it is object-
centered. That is, the problem is formulated in terms
of the object to be manipulated, how it should behave,
and what forces should be exerted upon it.
Although humans are not the only creatures capa-
ble of manipulation, it is quintessentially a human ac-
tivity. The large fraction of the human motor cortex
devoted to Inanipulation and the number and sensi-
tivity of mechanoreceptors in our palms and fingertips
are indications of the importance of manipulation in
humans. It should come as no surprise then that the
majority of robot hands designed for dexterous ma-
nipulation are anthropomorphic. Research has also
been done to classify human grasping and manipula-
tion with an eye to providing a knowledge-based ap-
proach to grasp choice for robots [6, 20, 26, 1.51.
While this approach has had some succcss in crnu-
lat,ing human grasp choices for particular ohject,s and
tasks, other researchers have argued that robot hands,
and the circumstances in which they work, are fun-
damentally different from the human condition. A
model-based approach, based on the kinematics and
dynamics of manipulating an object with the finger-
tips, has therefore dominated the field. The results of
0-7803-5886-4/00/$1O.OO@ 2000 IEEE
this approach are now adequate for manipulations of
objects in controlled environments.
Examples of autonomous, robotic dexterous manip-
ulation are still confined to the research laboratory.
However, the modcl-based approach has already pro-
vided considerable insight int,o the natiire of dext,erous
manipulation, both in robots and in humans [46]. A
much-abridged history of the development of dexter-
ous manipulation is shown in Figure 1.
2 Formulation of the Dexterous
Manipulation Problem
Thc first step in moving an object from uric config-
iiration to another using rohotic fingers is t o formu-
late the dexterous manipulation (DM) problem (Fig-
ure 2). This problem sets the framework for determin-
ing the required actuator forces/torques to produce
the desired motions of the object. In keeping with an
object-centered approach, we work backwards from
the object to the manipulators.
This development requires knowing the georrietric
relationships of the dexteroils manipiilator-object, sys-
tem, including the contact locations, t,he object, fin-
gertip and link geometries, and the finger kinematics.
The difficulties associated wit,h cont,rolling dexter-
ous hands stem largely from the complex kinematics
of manipulation with rolling and sliding fingertips.
The dynamic equations are dominated by these terms,
especially as velocities are modest, aiitl terms like
coriolis accelerations can he ignored.
2.1 Kinematics
2.1.1 Jacobian Relationships
The first, s k p in developing DM kinematics is to cal-
culate the required fingertip forces from a desired
force/torque wrench on the object,. The basis for this
calculation is the grasp Jacobian relationship [32].
The grasp Jacobian (or grasp map), G, can be ob-
tained by resolving each fingertip force to a common
coordinate frame cmbcddcd in thc object.
255
 Myoelectric devices Belgrade Hand
(Univ of Utah) (Tomovic, Boni)
Robot with force Pressure Sensor developed
sensing (Ernst) for robot grasp (Tomovic, Boni)

Rcmotc Ccntcr of Design of a mul!iplc

Compliance (RCC) Device rehension manipulator.
(Draper Labs) fSkinner)
Robot Hand with elastic
fingers (Hanafusa & Asada)

Work on,/ine Computcr Control of multi-

manipulation hegins Joint tin er system for
precise &ject handling (Okada)
Direct drive robot Figure 2: A typical dexterous manipulation problem:
developed (Asada) Formalizing the Grasp Problem,
introduction of the Gras Moving an object from configuration A t o configura-
Salisbury/ Stanford/JPL Hand Jacobian (Mason&Salis&lry)
tion B.

Utah/MIT Hand Grasp Choice Algorithms Joint Contact Object

(Laugier & Pertin, Jameson)
cdencc Grasp Taxonomies Grasp/
!Hogan) Contact Kinematiis (Cutkosky)
ForceITorque JhT
n
Space

x
Velocity Jh
Space U
Contact E uations Grasp/Contact Kinematics
(2ontana)l (Ken & Roth)

Early 1990s
Figure 3: The role of the hand and grasp Jacobians.
G p s g p l i t y Touch Sensors
Mcasurcs (Li ashy) (Allen, Howe, Maekawa ) For the fingers, r is the vector of joint torques and 9 is
the vector of joint velocities. For the contacts, f, is the
Late 1990s vector of contact forces and xc is the vector of contact
Phase Based Grasp Gaiting (Leveroni) point, velocities. For the object, the result,ant, force
Manipulation (Hyde)
Mani ulatiodExploration vector and the vector of object velocities are shown.
Grasp Force of UAnown Ob ects
Optimizations (Buss) (Allen, Bicchi, dkamura, Pai)

I
1
2000 I
I
These individual Jacobians are brought together t o
form the hand Jacobian.
Figure 1: An abridged time line of the development, of
robotic dexterous manipulation.
o o r
Typically the fingertip forces are represented in a
coordinate frame at, the instantaneous cont.act point, on
.JF ...

1 ftiz

the surface of the object. Then, knowing each contact

type (see the sections below), the number of allowable
force directions at each contact is determined. For a
detailed treatment of this topic see [22, 32, 341.
In order to produce these forces a t the fingertips,
we now develop a hand Jacobian, which will allow us
to calculate the joint torques from the contact forces
[22]. The hand Jacobian, Jh, is based on the standard
Jacobian, which relates end effector forces to individ-
ual joint torques for a robotic manipulator (in this case
one for each finger).
A conceptual picture of the roles of the grasp and
hand Jacobians is shown in Figure 3 [28]. This figure
shows the force/tmqiie antl kinematic relationships as
linear mappings using the hand and grasp Jacobians.
The kinematic arid force relationships described by
the above equations antl Figure 3 RR not, necessarily
one to one. The syst,em may be over-constjrained (i.e.
the fingers may not be able t o accommodate or re-
sist all object motions or forces) or the system may
be under-constrained (i.e. there are multiple choices
for finger joint velocities or torques). Typically, an
under-constrained system is desired for dexterous ma-
nipulation tasks.

256
 Relative velocities Velocities of contact
of contact points on frames on objects
each of the two objects ( I and 2) and spin

:A
vx:
I
V..

WY
Contact
Equations
I
j :) il

i*

Figure 4: Contact variables (adapted from [33]).

Figure 5: The contact frames for rolling. u1 and u2

2.1.2 Rolling and Sliding
In general, fingertips may roll and slide upon the sur-
face of the object as they manipulate it. Including
rolling and sliding constraints in the DM problem in-
volves the application of differential geometry and a
parameterization of the fingertip and object surfaces.
This analysis takes as inputs the relative velocities
(linear and angular) of contact coordinate frames on
the fingertip and object, and outputs parameterized
velocities t,hat describe the motions of the contact
frames over the fingertip and object surfaces (Fig-
ure 4). The case of rolling without sliding results in
a non-holonomic constraint: velocities of the contact
points on the fingertip and object must be equal. Fig-
ure 5 shows a typiral example of the progression of
the finger and object contact coordinate frames for a
finger rolling on the surface of an object. For a de-
tailed treatment of the differential geometry involved
in rolling see [33]. The velocity constraints necessary
t o maintain contact, prevent sliding, prevent spinning,
or ensure planar rolling are listed in Table 1.
Although sliding is common when humans manipu-
late objects with their fingers, it is rare in robotic ma-
nipulation. As discussed in Secticjn 6, one difficiilt,y is
that reliable tactile sensors are generally not available
t o keep track of the contact locations on the finger-
tips and indicate the onset of slip. For a more detailed
treat,ment of sliding manipulation see [4, 21, 411. The
analysis of friction to prevent unwanted sliding is cov-
ered in the next section.
2.2 Contact Types, Manipulability, and
Force and Form Closure
Early in the st,iidy of dexterous manipulat,ion it,
was recognized that, the kinematics and dynamics are
Maintain contact I U, = 0
No sliding
..
I U% = 0, wY = 0
No spin w, = 0
are the contact frames for objects 1arid 2. After rolling
occurs, the new contact, frames are U; and U;.
Frictioiiless Point contact Soft-finger
point contact with friction contact
Friction
constraints:
Figure 6 : Common contact types and their associated
forces/moments, with friction constraint equations.
strongly influenced, even dominated, by the contact
conditions [7]. The most commonly used contact, mod-
els are: point contact, without, friction, point contact
with friction, and soft finger contact (Figure 6). The
point contact without friction can only resist a unidi-
rectional force normal to the surface; adding friction
allows it t o resist tangential forces, up to thc friction
limit. A soft, fingertip can aAditionally resist, moments
about, the surface normal. For point contacts, t,he stan-
dard friction cone defined by Coulomb friction de-
termines the ratio of tangent,ial t o normal force that
can be sustained without slipping. A somewhat more
complicated friction limit surface can similarly be de-
fined for soft contacts [13, 501.
The t,ypes of contacts and their arrangement, also
determine whet,her an object, is immobilized in the
fingertips. The most, conservative approach is to re-
quire form closure, or complete kinematic restraint.
More commonly, friction is required and force closure
is maintained such that, with sufficient grasp forces,
the object ca.ri resist, any directiori of disturbing force
or moment, [32, 401. (There are also i1nport,ant7non-
force closure manipulations - pushes, tips, eitc. [29] .)
For the fingertips t,o impart arbitrary motions to the
object, the grasp must also he manipulable [28]. A
more detailed discussion of these issues is provided in
the Contact and Grasp Symposium [25].

257
2.3 Internal and External Forces
With three or more fingers, there arc generally morc
than enough cont,act,sto manipulate the object, while
resisting external forces and moments on it. The re-
dundancy results in internal forces that lie in the null
space of the grasp map, G [32, 48, 511. These internal
forces are typically used to keep the normal compo-
nents of the contact forces large enough to prevent
slipping, independent of producing thc required extcr-
nal force and moment, (including inertial forces). The
analisis and opt,imization of grasqp forces has received
extensive treatment in the literature, as discussed fur-
ther in the next section.
3 Dexterous Grasp and Motion
Planning
In dexterous motion planning, there are two main
objectives t o consider:
planning thc motion of the object t o achieve a
desired configuration or accomplish a ta.sk, which
includes planning the contact locations and mo-
tions of the fingers;
analyzing the grasp and choosing an optimal set
of cont,act forces.
This discussion overlaps with grasp planning and op-
t,imization work reviewed in the Contact and Grasp
Symposium [25].
3.1 Grasp Planning for Desired Object
Motion
In this section we address methods for finding a se-
quence of local motions and regrasps that will result in
a final desired object motion. Solutions to this prob-
lem are found using robot hand kinematics, reachabil-
ity analysis and regraspinglgaiting.
Given a desired object motion, one must first deter-
mine whether the fingers can move the object wittholit
regrasping. This can be accomplished by a reachabil-
ity analysis [22]. Using the range of possible manipula-
tions for a given hand and object, a workspace can be
constructed that is a function of the hand and object
and whether the contacts are rolling or sliding.
The range of motion that can be imparted to an
object without regrasping is limited by the finger
joints, interferences among the finger links and the
object, and the limited range of contact locations
that can achieve a stable grasp. For motion planning,
one useful approach is t o construct a grasp map, a
graphical representation of all stable grasps, that
can be consulted t o determine whether regrasping
is needed [27]. A sequence of finger motions and
regrasps is kriown as a yrusp yuit. 111 planning, it is
also important to realize that, a new grasp cannot
always be found if the object is moved locally until a
finger reaches a workspace limit; often a regrasp must
occur before the limit is reached.
3.2 Grasp Optimizations and Quality
Measures
Manipulators used for dexterous manipulation typ-
ically have kinematic redundancy. In addition, there
are usually multiple choices for contact locations that
will achieve force closure on an object. Furthermore,
for each choice of contact locations, there are many so-
liitions for applying contact forces that will sat,isfy the
external force requirements while providing sufficient
internal forces t o prevent slipping.
Therefore, there can be an infinite number of possi-
ble grasps for a manipulation. The task of picking the
best grasp has resulted in a rich area of research.
There are many different ways t o choose the optimal
contact, locations, contact forces, and finger poses for a
particular manipulator, object and task combination.
In order to choose the best grasp, a metric can be
used t o measure the quality of a given grasp, which
will often depend on task requirements. An example of
such a measure was developed by Li and Sastry [28],
who separated the task requirements into two parts:
wrench (or force) requirement and twist (or motion)
requirement. Each is represented by task ellipsoids,
whose axes indicate the relative magnitude require-
ments for the elements of the wrench or twist vec-
tor. Another measure of grasp quality is calculated by
treating the fingerslobject combination as a parallel-
chain mechanism and evaluating the manzpulabilzty of
the object with respect to the palm [22]. A cornparison
of such grasp measures with the considerations that af-
fect human grasp choice is provided in [6]. More recent
work has considered the dynamic stability of the grasp
with respect to external disturbances [49].
While researchers have formulated good conceptual
quality measures for grasps, using these mcasurcs for
automatic grasp choice remains difficult. Marly suc-
cessful optimization techniques have been developed
for specifying contact forces given known contact, loca-
tions and task requirements [ll]. Some of these are ef-
ficient enough for real time computation [5]. Searching
for the optimal contact locations is inherently more dif-
ficult, because the quality measure is typically a non-
convex (and non-linear) function over thc search space
and tliiis standard ronvpx optimization techniqiies can
not be used. There have been attempts a t contact
location synt#hesis,but no algorithm has been widely
adopted. (Early investigations of this problem can be
found in [17] and [35].) Some of the more successful au-
tonomous contact location choice systems are knowl-
edge based [26, 431.
 High-Level Task planning, discrete event
systems, grasp choice
Mid-Level Phases, transitions, event detec-
tion
Low-Level Operational space dynamics, co-
operative object impedance con-
trol, kinematics, forces
Table 2: Levels of Control for Dexterous Manipulation
4 Dynamics and Control Frameworks
Like legged locomotion, dexterous manipulation has
the characteristics of a hybrid discrete/continuous sys-
tem. The control of dexterous manipulation can be
decomposed into three main levels, as shown in Table
2. High-level control includes tasklmotion planning
and grasp choice, which have been reviewed already.
Mid-level control includes manipulation phases (for ex-
ample whether the fingers are operating independently
or cooperatively) piinctuated by discret,e events such
as making or breaking contact. The low level concerns
the dynamics and control formulation for each phase.
4.1 Mid-Level Control
Research in neurophysiology has shown that hu-
mans grasping and manipulating objects receive sig-
nals from specialized skin cells that trigger shifts be-
tween phases (e.g., approach, grasp, lift) of a information from commands, through control laws, to
manipulation task [HI. A similar approach can be
applied t o the middle level of control for robotic dex-
terous manipulation [14].
Different manipulation phases often require differ-
ent control laws. For example, the control may switch
from fingertip motion control to object force control as
the fingers close upon an object. Smooth transitions
between phases are needed, particularly when event
detection relies on dynamic sensors that are inherently
sensitive to vibrations and motion discontinuities.
Knowing when a particular event,, such as a finger
making contact with an object, has occurred is often
a difficult task in the presence of other events thats
result in similar sensor signals. Thus, context-sensitive
event detection and sensor fusion are used to define the
probability that a particular event has occurred [9, 141.
4.2 Dynamics and Low-Level Control
In comparison to mid-level cont(ro1, the low-level
control of dexterous manipulation has received thor-
ough attention in previous work. This is primarily
because the strategies are a direct extension of those
used or single and cooperating robot arms.
The operational space dynamics formulation [23]
is particularly suited for dexterous manipulation.
Through joint spaceloperational space relationships
formed using Jacobians and a Lagrange or Newton-
Euler dynamics formulation, an operational space dy-
namic model of the system is created:
A(x)X + P(X,X ) + p(x) = F, (4)
where A(.) is the mass matrix, p(x,X) is the term
for centxifiigal and Coriolis forces, p(x) is the term for
gravity, and F is the operational space force.
Using this framework, a control structure can be
chosen for dynamic decoupling and motion control.
For example, a basic PD (proportional-derivative) con-
troller of the form
F = -k,(X-X,) (5)
may be used to move the operat(iona1 point, to a goal
position xg when no particular trajectory is required.
In dexterous manipulation it is often less impor-
tant to follow a precise trajectory than it is t o re-
spond gracefully to disturbances such as unexpected
contacts with the environrnent. Impedance control
[lo], in which we specify the apparent mass, stiffness
and damping of the grasped object,, has therefore been
a popular control law.
The control block diagram in Figure 7 shows a
control framework using object impedance control for
rolling manipulation. This diagram shows the path of
application on the dexterous hand [14]. Many exten-
sions are possible. For example, explicit, control of the
contact trajectories in rolling manipulation is possible
using the controller presented in 1421.
5 Manipulation Versus Exploration
As shown by Klatzky and Lederman [24], manipula-
tion and exploration go hand in hand. We can obtain
a precise definition for each separately: Pure manip-
ulation occurs when the objcct is complctcly known.
Piire exploration happens when the ohject, is fix-
tured and is not, known. Most dexterous manipulation
is a combination of the two. And in a non-ideal world,
we need manipulation for exploration and vice versa.
Robotic exploration through manipulation is a re-
cent area of research. Bicchi, et al. [3] manipulate
by rolling, building a modcl of thc objcct as thcy go.
,Maekawa uses a ta.ctile swsor to permit object explo-
ration and manipulation without, any prior model [31].
Okamura, et al. manipulate an object. for which the
general shape is known but surface features remain
to be explored [38, 371. Allen uses exploration with
robot fingers, sometimes in combination with vision,
to build up an object model using mathematical shape
descriptions (sup(:rquadrics) [l]. Pais ACME (ACtivc
 Commands Control Laws
Figure 7: Control block diagram for manipulation wikh rolling.
MEasurement) facility can be used to obtain a rich set
of object, measurements, including shape, reflectance,
sound, and contact forces [39].
6 Accomplishments and Future Work
While the of study dexterous manipulation and
robotic fingers has matured in the last decade, thcrc
remain significant, research problems to be solved. In
this section, we review the major accomplishments in
dexterous manipulation (both in hardware and soft-
ware/algorithms) and highlight areas for future work.
6.1 Hardware
Hand design. Many robotic hands have been de-
signed over the last two decades. With a few no-
table exceptions (e.g, [S, 31) most of these have
been anthropomorphic designs with three [32, 363
or four [16] multi-jointed fingers drivcn by cables.
The size and shape of the hand workspace is of-
ten carefully chosen for specific tasks [32, 451. In
recent, years the focus of research has shifted from
hand design to development of the hardware com-
ponents and algorithms for manipulation.
Actuotion. Actuators for dexterous rnanipulation
should be small and lightweight, in comparison t,o
the robotic hand. In many hand designs, back-
drivable systems are used so that small motion
errors will not result in high interaction forces.
Low friction is also desirable for better control.
Large motors are located remotely, and complex
cabling systems are often used t o transmit motor
torques to the fingertips. Small actuators with
high specific force or torque will be needed if ca-
bles are to be eliminated.
Sensing. Sensors are essential for dexterous n a -
nipulation, as feedback of contact information is
Application and Feedback
vital to accomplish any task where uncertainties
are present. To illustrate the point, consider what
happens when your fingers are cold and numb.
Simple tasks likc buttoning a jacket become dif-
ficult. The main problcm is not with your mus-
cles (which are mainly in the forearms, and com-
paratively warm) but. with the cutaneous sensors
which have become anaesthetized. In robotic dex-
terous manipulation, tactile sensors are the pri-
mary sources of information (although some work
has been done on combining vision sensors with
dexterous manipulation/haptic cxploratiori [2]).
Tactile sensors can be divided into two categories:
extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic sensors can sense
contact location and, in some cases, contact pres-
sures and shear stresses. Examples include capac-
itive arrays, pin arrays, micromachined force sen-
sor arrays, and optical measurement systems (i.e.,
CCD). Problems with these sensors include sensi-
t,ivity to noise, delicacy, poor resolution, slow data
acqiiisit,ion and processing, difficulties in manu-
facturing, large numbers of wires, and cost [12].
Intrinsic sensors use global measiirements from
which cont,act information can be extracted. In-
trinsic sensors include force/st,rain sensors [32],
optical sensors (i.e. PSD), and joint torque sens-
ing [19]. While these sensors are often robust and
fast, they providc limitcd iriformation. For cxam-
ple, the optical waveguide tact,ile sensor designed
by Maekawa, et al. gives the centroid and inten-
sity of all contact, locations [30]. Intrinsic sensors
also cannot, differentiat,e between one and multiple
contacts.
Miniaturization. The miniaturization of manip-
ulation is another area with promise. Manipula-
tions occurring on a very small scale are domi-
nated by friction and Van dcr Waals forces. Sta-
ble grasping is often not necessary; at this level
objects can stick directly to tjhe manipulator [44].
6.2 Software and Algorithms
0 Automated grasping and motion planning There
remains a gap between theoretical promise and
practical delivery due to the complexity of spec-
ifying and controlling automated grasping and
manipulation tasks. There are several areas in
which better algorithms are required. Currently,
most, grasp choice and optimization systems that
use multiple fingers are slow and the calculat,ions
must be done off-line, particularly when contact
locations must be determined. Another area for
improvement is motion planning. As with grasp
choice, current algorithms are slow and cannot be
arxomplished during the manipulat.ion t,ask.
0 3D Manipulation with Rolling. The mathemati-
cal complexity involved in spatial rolling and slid-
ing manipulations has also impeded the applica-
tion of 3-D multi-fingered hands. The state of
the a r t is that, limited rnariipulations with rolling
and sliding have been demonstrated, but general
purpose manipulation will probably await the de-
velopment, of better tactile sensors as described
above.
0 Tactile data interpretation. Understanding and
using t,act,ile sensor output for direct servoing has
been the subject of some recent work [31, 37, 521,
however, improvements in tactile sensing and data
interprettation are still needed to support general
manipulation wit,h unknown objects.
0 C071trd through supervised manipulation. Al-
t,hough aut,onomous dexterous manipulation and
explorat,ion remains impractical outside of the
laboratory, a promising interim solution is su-
pervised manipulation. In this approach, a hu-
man provides the high-level grasp and manip-
ulation planning, while the robot performs fine
manipulations [37]. Another method is teaching
by demonstration (gest,ure-based programming)
[20, 471. The human may also perform the high-
level interpretation of tactile information in su-
pervised remote exploration.
References
[l] P. K . 411en and P. Michelman. Acquisition and inter-
pretation of 3-d sensor data from touch. IEEE !l'ran,s.
on Robotics and Autom.ation, 6(4):397-404, 1990.
[2] P. K. Allen, A. T. Miller, P. Y. Oh, and B. S. Lci-
bowitz. Using tactile and visual sensing with a robotic
hand. Proc. IEEE ICRA, pages 676-681, 1997.
[3] A. Bicchi, A. Marigo, and D. Prattichizzo. Dexter-
ity through rolling: Manipulation of unknown objects.
Proc. IEEE ICRA, pages 1583-1588, 1999.
261
D. L. Brock. Enhancing the dexteritv of a rohot hand
using controlled slip. Proc. IEEE ICRA, pages 249-
251, 1988.
hI. Buss, H. Hashimoto, and J . B. Moore. Dextrous
hand grasping force optimization. IEEE Trans. on
Robotrcs u r d A7rto~natron,12(3):406-418, June 1996.
hl. R. Cutkosky and R. D. Howe. Human grasp choice
and robotic grasp analysis. In S . T. Venkataraman and
T. Iberall. editors, Dextrous Robot Hands, pages 5-31.
Springer-Verlag, 1990.
hl. R.. Cutkosky and P. Wright. Friction, stability and
the design of robot fingers. IJRR, 5(4):20-37, 1986.
P. Datseris and W.Palm. Principles on the devel-
opment of mechanical hands which c,an manipulate
objects by means of active control. Journal of Mech-
anism.s, !l'ransmission,,s, and Automation i n Design,
1O7(2) :148--1S6,1985.
B. Eberman and ,J. K. Salisbury. Application of
change detection to dynamic contact sensing. I.JRR,
13(5):369-394, 1994.
N. Hogan. Impedance control: An approach to manip-
ulat,ion: Parts i, ii, and iii. ASME Joirrnnl of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control, 107:l-24, 1985.
W. S. Howard and V. Kuniar. 011the stability of
grasped objects. IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Au-
tomation, 12(6):904-917, 1996.
R. D. Howe and M. R. Ciit,kosky. Touch scnsing for
robotic manipulation and recognition. In 0. Khatib,
J. Craig, and T. Lozano-Perez, editors, T h e Robotics
Revie,w 2: pages 5 5 - 112. RlIT Press, 1992.
R.. D. Howe and M. R.. Cutkosky. Practical force-
motion models for sliding manipulation. I.JRR,
15(6):557-572, 1996.
J. M. Hyde, M. Tremblay, and M. R.. Cutkosky. An
object-oriented framework for event-driven dexterous
manipulation. In Experimental Robotics IV. Springer-
Verlag, 1995.
T. Iberall. A neural network for planning hand shapes
in human prehension. Proc. of the 198s Automatic
Controls Conference, pages 2288-2293, 1988.
S . Jacobsen, J. Wood, D. Knutti, and I<. Biggers.
Utah/m.i.t. dextrous hand: Work in progress. I.JRR,
3(4):21 50, 1984.
J. W.Jameson. Analytic techn,iques for automated
grasp. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, 1985.
R.. Johansson and G . Westling. Afferent signals dnr-
ing nianipiilativt! tasks in man. In 0 . Franzen and
J. Westman, editors, Information Processing in the
Somatosensory System: Proc. of an Intl. Sem.in.ar at
the Wenmer-Gran. Center. Macmillan, 1991.
RI. Kaneko and K. Tanie. Contact point detection
for grasping an iinknown object using self-posture
changeability. IEEE Tranu. on Robotics and Automa-
tion, 10(3):355 367, 1994.
[20] S. B. Kang and K. Ikeuchi. Toward automatic robot
instruction from perception-mapping human grasps
to manipiilator grasps. IEEE Pans. on Robotics and
Automation, 13(1):81 95, 1997.
[21] I. Kao and M. R.. Cutkosky. Qiiasistatic manipulation
with c:onipliance and sliding. I.lRR, 11(1):20 40, 1992.
(221 .J. Kerr and B. R,oth. Analysis of multifingered hands.
IJRR, 4(4):3-17, 1986.
[23] 0. Khatib. Unified approach for motion and force
control of robot manipulators: the operational space
formulation. ZEEE Journal of Robotics and Automa-
tion, 3(7):43-53, 1987.
[24] R. L. Klatzky and S. Lederman. Intelligent explo-
ration by the human hand. In S. T. Venkataraman
and T. Iherall, editors, Dextrous Robot Hands, pages
66 81. Springer-Verlag, 1990.
[25] V. Kumar and A. Bicchi. R.obotic grasping and con-
tact: A rcvicw. Symposium Proc. IEEE ZCRA, 2000.
[26] C. Laugier and 3. Pertin. Automatic grasping: A case
study in acccssibility analysis. In A. Danthine and
M. Geradin, editors, Advanced Software in Robotics,
pages 201-214. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1984.
[27] S. R. Leveroni. Grasp gaits for planar object manip-
ulation. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 1997.
[28] Z. Li and S. S. Sastry. Issues in dextrous robot hands.
In S. T. Venkataraman and T. Iherall, editors, Dex-
trous Robot Hands, pages 154~-186.Springer-Verlag,
1990.
[29] K. M. Lynch. Nonprehensile robotic manipulation:
Controllability and planning. PhD thesis, Robotics
Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 199G.
[30] H. Maekawa, K. Tanie, and K. Komoriya. A finger-
shaped tactile sensor using an optical waveguide.
Proc. of the IEEE Zntl. Conference on Systems, Man
and Cybernetics, pages 403-408, 1993.
[31] H. Maekawa, K. Tanie, and K. Komoriya. Tactile scn-
sor based manipulation of an unknown object by a
multifingered hand with rolling contact. Proc. lEEE
ZCRA, pages 743-750, 1995.
I321 M. T. Mason and J. K. Salisbury. Robot Hands and
the Mechanics of Manipulation. The MIT Press, 1985.
[33] D. Montana. The kinematics of contact and grasp.
I.JRR, 7(3):17-32, 1988.
[34] R.. Murray, Z. Li, and S. Sastry. A Mathematical In-
troduction to Robotic Manipulation. CR.C Press, 1994.
(351 V.-D. Nguyen. Constructing force closure grasps.
IJRR, 7(3):3-16, 1988.
[36] T. Okada. Computer control of multijointed finger
system for precise object-handling. ZEEE Trans. on
Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 12(3):289-299, 1982.
262
[37] A. M. Okamura, M. A. Costa, M. L. Turner,
C. Richard, and M. R. Cutkosky. Haptic exploration
of surfaces. In P. Corke and .J. Trevelyan, editors,
Experimental Robotics VI. Springer-Verlag, 2000.
[38] A. M. Okamura, M. L. Turner, and M. R.. Cutkosky.
Haptic exploration of objects with rolling axid sliding.
Proc. IEEE ICRA, 3:2485--2490, 1997.
[39] D. K. Pai, J. Lang, J. E. Lloyd, and R.. J. Wood-
ham. Acme, a telerobotic activc measurement facility.
In P. Corke and J. Trevelyan, editors, Experimental
Robotics VI. Springer-Verlag, 2000.
[40] J. Ponce and B. Faverjon. On computing three-finger
force-closure grasps of polygonal objects. IEEE Pans.
o n Robotics and Automation, 11(6):868-881, 1995.
[41] D. R.us. In-hand dexterous manipulation of piecewise-
smooth 3-d objects. ZJRR, 18(4):355-381, 1999.
[42] N. Sarkar, X. Yun, and V. Kumar. Dynamic control of
3-d rolling contacts in two-arm manipulation. ZEEE
Trans. on Robotics and Automation, 13(3):364-376,
1997.
[43] S. Stansfield. A robotic perceptual system utilizing
passive vision and active touch. IJRR, 7(6):138-161,
1988.
[44] T. Tanikawa and T. Arai. Development of a micro-
manipulator system having a two-fingered micro-
hand. ZEEE T h n s . on Robotics and Automation,
15(1):152 -162, 1999.
[45] C. Tischler, A. Samuel, and K. Hunt. Dexterous
robotic fingers with desirable kinematic forms. ZJRR,
17(9):996-1012, 1999.
[46] F. Valero-Cuevas. Applying principles of robotics to
understand the biomechanics, neuromuscular control
and clinical rehabilitation of human digits. Symposium
Proc. IEEE ICRA, 2000.
[47] R. M. Voyles and P. K. Khosla. Gesture-based pro-
gramming: a preliminary demonstration. Proc. IEEE
ZCRA, pagcs 708--713, 1999.
[48] D. Williains and 0 . Khatih. The virtual linkage: a
modcl for internal forccs in multi-grasp manipulation.
Proc. ZEEE ZCRA, 1:1025-1030, 1993.
[49] C.-H. Xiong, Y.-F. Li, H. Ding, and Y.-L. Xiong. 011
the dynamic stability of grasping. IJRR, 18(9):951-
958, 1999.
[50] N. Xydas and I. Kao. Modeling of contact mechanics
and friction limit surface for soft fingers in robotics
with experimental results. ZJRR., 18(9):941-950, 1999.
[5l] T. Yoshikawaand K. Nagai. Analysis of multi-fingered
grasping and manipulation. In S. T. Venkataraman
and T. Iherall, editors, Dextroiis Robot Hnn,ds, pages
5-31. Springer-Verlag, 1990.
[52] H. Zhang, H. Maekawa, and K. Tanie. Sensitiv-
ity analysis and experiments of curvature estimation
based on rolling contact. Proc. ZEEE ZCRA, pages
3514-3519, 1996.