0
Technical Brief

Actuation Configurations of Bionic Hands for a Better Anthropomorphism Index

[+] Author and Article Information
Mahmoud Tavakoli

Institute for Systems and Robotics,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Coimbra,
Coimbra, Portugal
e-mail: mahmoud@isr.uc.pt

Baptiste Enes, Lino Marques

Institute for Systems and Robotics,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Coimbra,
Coimbra, Portugal

Thomas Feix

Department of Mechanical Engineering and Material Science,
Yale University,
New Haven, CT 06510
e-mail: thomasfeix@xief.net

Manuscript received April 6, 2015; final manuscript received December 10, 2015; published online March 7, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Jun Ueda.

J. Mechanisms Robotics 8(4), 044502 (Mar 07, 2016) (4 pages) Paper No: JMR-15-1083; doi: 10.1115/1.4032405 History: Received April 06, 2015; Revised December 10, 2015

In this study, we analyze different actuation configurations for bionic hands in order to improve their level of anthropomorphism. We used a previously developed benchmark, the anthropomorphism index (AI), for 15 different actuation configurations of hands from one to five actuators. By comparing the AI of these configurations, we obtained important conclusions regarding the actuation strategy of the anthropomorphic hands with a limited number of actuators. Results show that the actuation configuration is very important for increasing the level of anthropomorphism of the hands. It is shown that with an appropriate actuation configuration, a configuration with lower number of actuators can result in a higher AI than a configuration with higher number of actuators. We also showed the best actuation configurations for each category of 1–5 actuators. Results can be used as a guideline for development of hands with high anthropomorphism in terms of grasping postures.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Tavakoli, M. , Enes, B. , Santos, J. , Marques, L. , and Almeida, A. T. , 2015, “ Underactuated Anthropomorphic Hands: Actuation Strategies for a Better Functionality,” Rob. Auton. Syst., 74, pp. 267–282. [CrossRef]
Feix, T. , Romero, J. , Ek, C. , Schmiedmayer, H.-B. , and Kragic, D. , “ Grade Your Hand Toolbox,” http://grasp.xief.net
Feix, T. , Romero, J. , Ek, C. H. , Schmiedmayer, H.-B. , and Kragic, D. , 2013, “ A Metric for Comparing the Anthropomorphic Motion Capability of Artificial Hands,” IEEE Trans. Rob., 29(1), pp. 82–93. [CrossRef]
Otto Bock, “ Sensorhand Speed,” http://www.ottobock.com
Otto Bock, “ Michel Angelo Hand,” http://www.living-with-michelangelo.com/gb/home/
Gaiser, I. , Schulz, S. , Kargov, A. , Klosek, H. , Bierbaum, A. , Pylatiuk, C. , Oberle, R. , Werner, T. , Asfour, T. , Bretthauer, G. , and Dillmann, R. , 2008, “ A New Anthropomorphic Robotic Hand,” 8th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Daejeon, Dec. 1–3, pp. 418–422.
Fukaya, N. , Toyama, S. , Asfour, T. , and Dillmann, R. , 2000, “ Design of the TUAT/Karlsruhe Humanoid Hand,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Takamatsu, Japan, Vol. 3, pp. 1754–1759.
Chu, J.-U. , Jung, D.-H. , and Lee, Y.-J. , 2008, “ Design and Control of a Multifunction Myoelectric Hand With New Adaptive Grasping and Self-Locking Mechanisms,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Pasadena, CA, May 19–23, pp. 743–748.
Mitsui, K. , Ozawa, R. , and Kou, T. , 2013, “ An Under-Actuated Robotic Hand for Multiple Grasps,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Tokyo, Japan, Nov. 3–7, pp. 5475–5480.
Pons, J. L. , Rocon, E. , Ceres, R. , Reynaerts, D. , Saro, B. , Levin, S. , and Van Moorleghem, W. , 2004, “ The Manus-Hand Dextrous Robotics Upper Limb Prosthesis: Mechanical and Manipulation Aspects,” Auton. Rob., 16(2), pp. 143–163. [CrossRef]
Cipriani, C. , Controzzi, M. , and Carrozza, M. C. , 2010, “ Objectives, Criteria and Methods for the Design of the Smarthand Transradial Prosthesis,” Robotica, 28(6), pp. 919–927. [CrossRef]
RSLsteeper, “ Bebionic Hand,” http://www.rslsteeper.com/
TouchBionics, “ iLimb Hand,” http://www.touchbionics.com/
MekaBot, 2009, Meka H2 Compliant Hand Datasheet, MekaBot, San Francisco.
Tavakoli, M. , and de Almeida, A. T. , 2014, “ Adaptive Under-Actuated Anthropomorphic Hand: ISR-Softhand,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (IROS), Chicago, IL, Sept. 14–18.
Tavakoli, M. , Enes, B. , Marques, L. , and de Almeida, A. T. , 2014, “ Actuation Strategies for Underactuated Anthropomorphic Hands,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IRO), Chicago, IL, Sept. 14–18.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Tested hands, and projection of the fingertip movements to the latent space and their AI. Left: Sensorhand (AI = 0.25) [4], middle: Michelangelo (AI = 2.8) [5], and right: FRH-4 (AI = 5.2) [3,6].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The evolution of the configurations from one to five actuators (without the ones with manual ab/ad of the thumb), and their corresponding AI for both hand kinematics. Arrows show the progression of the added actuator. Above the arrow: the added actuator, below arrow: the increases in the AI for each of the hands.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Number and symbol designations and the coordinate system to which the measurements are referenced

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

ISR-Softhand model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Left to right: projection of the fingertip movements of configuration 1.0, 2.0, and 2.M for the ISR-Softhand in the latent space with a relative coverage of 0.25%, 0.33%, and 1.14%, respectively

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Projection of the fingertip movements of configurations with three actuators with the ISR-Softhand. Left to right-configuration 3.0(0.33% coverage), 3.0 M(1.47% coverage), 3.1(1.63% coverage), 3.2(1.06% coverage), and 3.3(1.63% coverage).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Projection of the fingertip movements of configurations with four actuators with the ISR-Softhand. Left to right: 4.0(1.96% coverage), 4.0 M(1.55%), 4.1(1.88%), 4.2(0.33%), and 4.3(0.33%).

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In