cs.ROApr 13, 2026

Micro-Dexterity in Biological Micromanipulation: Embodiment, Perception, and Control

Authors: Kangyi Lu, Lan Wei, Zongcai Tan, Dandan Zhang

Organizations: Department of Bioengineering, Imperial-X AI Initiative, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Microscale manipulation has advanced substantially in controlled locomotion and targeted transport, yet many biomedical applications require precise and adaptive interaction with biological micro-objects. At these scales, manipulation is realized through three main classes of platforms: embodied microrobots that physically interact as mobile agents, field-mediated systems that generate contactless trapping or manipulation forces, and externally actuated end-effectors that interact through remotely driven physical tools. Unlike macroscale manipulators, these systems function in fluidic, confined, and surface-dominated environments characterized by negligible inertia, dominant interfacial forces, and soft, heterogeneous, and fragile targets. Consequently, classical assumptions of dexterous manipulation, including rigid-body contact, stable grasping, and rich proprioceptive feedback, become difficult to maintain. This review introduces micro-dexterity as a framework for analyzing biological micromanipulation through the coupled roles of embodiment, perception, and control. We examine how classical manipulation primitives, including pushing, reorientation, grasping, and cooperative manipulation, are reformulated at the microscale; compare the architectures that enable them, from contact-based micromanipulators to contactless field-mediated systems and cooperative multi-agent platforms; and review the perception and control strategies required for task execution. We identify the current dexterity gap between laboratory demonstrations and clinically relevant biological manipulation, and outline key challenges for future translation.

Figures & tables

Fig. 1: From macroscale manipulation to micro-dexterity capability space. Upper left: macroscale dexterity with high-DOF embodiment and multimodal sensing. During downscaling, two fundamental shifts emerge: physics inversion from inertia-dominated to adhesion-dominated interactions, and an environment gradient from open substrates to in vivo vasculature (lower left). Right: the multidimensional capability space of manipulation primitives, target objects, and operational modes.
Fig. 2: Overview of embodiments for micro-dexterous manipulation: harnessing diverse physical interactions and scaling laws to engineer embodied intelligence at the microscale. Tethered MEMS actuators: (A) an electrothermally actuated bimorph microgripper and (B) an electrothermal-magnetic actuated shape memory microgripper. Untethered strategies mirroring the macro-evolution from simple tweezers to complex multi-finger enclosing architectures: (C) a two-finger magnetic microgripper for grasp–transport–release and (D) a multi-arm microgripper with programmable 3D magnetization, (E) reconfigurable multifunctional ferrofluid droplet robots. Alternative physics approaches exploiting (F) capillary forces in bubble-based manipulation and (G) rolling entrapment via magnetic lassos. “Virtual Fingers” enabling non-contact dexterity via field traps: (H) collision-free multi-object navigation via OET and (I) multi-DoF manipulation via acoustic traps. (J) Distributed 6D manipulation via multi-agent and (K) reconfigurable magnetic swarms for collective tasks. Panel (A) is adapted from Ref. [ 36 ] , CC BY 4.0; Panel (B) is reprinted with permission from Ref. [ 37 ] , Copyright 2025, Wiley-VCH GmbH; Panel (E) is reprinted from Ref. [ 38 ] , CC BY-NC-ND 4.0; Panel (F) is reprinted from Ref. [ 39 ] , CC BY 4.0; Panels (H), (I), (J), and (K) are adapted from Refs. [ 40 ] , [ 41 ] , [ 42 ] , and [ 43 ] , respectively, all under CC BY 4.0.
Fig. 3: Sensing, perception, and state estimation for micro-dexterous manipulation. (A) Overview of multi-modal sensing modalities, including tethered force sensors, in vitro and in vivo imaging, and field-coupled sensing. (B-C) Computational pipelines for planar localization, tracking, and depth inference. (D) Force inference from observed kinematic responses. (E-F) Volumetric state estimation for deep-tissue navigation via optoacoustic tracking and vascular mapping. (G) Sim-to-real frameworks for training perception models under limited experimental data. Panel (B) is reprinted from Ref. [ 71 ] , CC BY 4.0; Panel (C) is reprinted from Ref. [ 72 ] , CC BY 4.0; Panel (D) is reprinted with permission from Ref. [ 73 ] , Copyright 2017, Elsevier; Panel (E) is reprinted from Ref. [ 74 ] , CC BY 4.0; Panel (F) is reprinted from Ref. [ 33 ] , CC BY-NC-ND 4.0; Panel (G) is adapted from Ref. [ 75 ] .
Fig. 4: Control and learning for micro-dexterous manipulation. Columns show the progression from external field generation to closed-loop control and learned policies, while rows correspond to magnetic (A, D, G), acoustic/ultrasonic (B, E, H), and optical (C, F, I) actuation. (A-C) Representative actuation mechanisms for each field modality. (D-F) Perception-guided feedback control for manipulation in complex environments. (G-I) Learning-based policies that map observations to control actions for adaptive navigation and task execution. Panels (D) and (G) are reprinted from Ref. [ 105 ] , CC BY 4.0; Panels (E) and (H) are reprinted from Ref. [ 106 ] , CC BY 4.0; Panel (F) is reprinted from Ref. [ 107 ] , CC BY-NC 4.0; Panel (I) is reprinted from Ref. [ 93 ] , CC BY-NC 4.0.
Fig. 5: Task-level micro-dexterous capabilities arranged by increasing dexterity complexity. (A-D) Pick-and-place: reversible capture, transport, and release using soft encapsulation and programmable microgrippers. (E-H) In-hand manipulation: reorientation enabled by micromanipulators and field-defined “virtual fingers”. (I-K) Assembly and intervention: micro-assembly, probing and interventional actions, and collective behaviors for cooperative transport and construction. Panel (C) is reprinted from Ref. [ 54 ] , CC BY-NC-ND 4.0; Panel (F) is reprinted from Ref. [ 119 ] , CC BY-NC-ND 4.0; Panel (G) is reprinted from Ref. [ 120 ] , CC BY-NC 4.0; Panel (H) is reprinted from Ref. [ 67 ] , CC BY-NC-ND 4.0; Panel (I) is reprinted from Ref. [ 121 ] , CC BY 4.0; Panel (J) is reprinted from Ref. [ 107 ] , CC BY-NC 4.0; Panel (K) is reprinted from Ref. [ 122 ] , CC BY 4.0.
Fig. 6: Roadmap towards clinically viable micro-dexterity. This chart illustrates the projected evolution of microrobotics to bridge the current “dexterity gap” where four parallel tracks are outlined: (1) establishing standardized benchmarks and metrics; (2) shifting towards embodied intelligence and reconfigurable architectures; (3) closing the feedback loop via wireless sensing and physics-informed inference; and (4) translating system integration from in vitro proofs to compliant in vivo clinical interventions.

Explore similar work

CardsList

  1. A Digital Twin Framework for Virtual Visuo-Haptic Teleoperation of Complex-Shaped Optical Microrobots

    May 27, 2026Zongcai Tan, Lan Wei, Dandan ZhangRobot TeleoperationRobotics

    Department of Bioengineering, Imperial-X AI Initiative, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

  2. DexTeleop-0: Force-Aware Bimanual Dexterous Teleoperation with Ego-Centric Perception towards Shared Autonomy

    Jun 22, 2026Haichao Liu, Yuyao Jiang, Hyunsun Park +2Dexterous ManipulationBimanual Robotic Manipulation

    Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · OOJU, USA

  3. A Bilateral Teleoperation Framework for Dexterous Manipulation

    Jun 13, 2026Stefano Dalla Gasperina, Dong Ho Kang, Haiyun Zhang +10Dexterous ManipulationContact-Rich Robotic Manipulation

    The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA · Sony Group Corporation, Tokyo, Japan · Meta Reality Labs Research, Redmond, WA, USA