A 3D-Printable Dataset for Fair Testing and Comparisons of Tactile Sensors

Tactile sensing plays a key role in enabling dexterous and reliable robotic manipulation, but realizing this capability requires substantial calibration to convert raw sensor readings into physically meaningful quantities. Despite its near-universal necessity, the calibration process remains ad hoc and labor-intensive. Here, we introduce 3D Cal, an open-source library that transforms a low-cost 3D printer into an automated probing device capable of generating large volumes of labeled training data for calibrating vision-based tactile sensors. 3D Cal also provides an end-to-end, user-friendly pipeline for training custom convolutional networks to produce high-quality depth reconstructions. Using 3D Cal, we systematically explore the relationship between training data volume and spatial reconstruction performance on two commercially available sensors, DIGIT and GelSight Mini, and derive practical, empirically-grounded guidelines for calibrating these sensors. Finally, we demonstrate depth reconstruction performance on the DIGIT and GelSight Mini comparable to state-of-the-art methods, achieving average reconstruction errors of 156 $\mathrm{μm}$ and 205 $\mathrm{μm}$ on unseen objects, respectively. By automating tactile sensor calibration, 3D Cal can accelerate tactile sensing research, simplify sensor deployment, and facilitate the integration of tactile sensing in robotic platforms.

Human-centric data collection is emerging as a significant paradigm for robot skill acquisition, but seamlessly integrating low-cost, scalable tactile sensing systems that capture fine-grained fingertip interactions without compromising natural operation remains a key challenge. This reduces the reliability of human-to-robot transfer in contact-rich tasks. In this work, we present TacPrint, a wearable fingertip tactile sensor, where protrusions on the inner surface of the silicone skin are aligned one-to-one with 24 capacitive taxels to enable localized capacitive responses. A real-to-sim-to-real pipeline estimates a 35 $\times$ 26 contact-depth map from 24-channel capacitive signals. Against simulation-generated labels, the model achieved a contact-region RMSE of 0.223 $\pm$ 0.161 mm, a weighted-centroid error of 1.213 $\pm$ 2.379 pixels, and an IoU of 0.829 $\pm$ 0.169. With measured capacitive inputs, the network-predicted depth evaluated at the guide-calibrated contact center showed a mean absolute error of 0.085 $\pm$ 0.057 mm across all 40 controlled trials, while the mean contact-position error was 0.250 $\pm$ 0.208 mm across the 37 trials whose reference contact regions were not truncated by the sensing boundary. In human-to-robot replay, tactile-guided compensation increased grasping and wiping success rates from 0% to 91.67% and 90%, respectively. In closed-loop grasping, dense-depth feedback achieved success rates of 87.5% over all tested positions and 85% under edge-contact conditions, compared with 67.5% and 45% for raw-taxel feedback.

Resistive pressure arrays are the cheapest and most widely shipped tactile sensors, yet tactile representation learning has concentrated on optical sensors that image a deforming gel. We present Tactus, an open model that answers text queries from pressure data alone: on the STAG benchmark (27 objects, held-out recordings), it reaches 0.771 +/- 0.062 top-1 over four runs (top-3 0.935), matching, and at best exceeding, the dataset's supervised closed-set CNN at 0.76, with no trained classifier head. The recipe is small-data: 187 training recordings, masked-autoencoder pretraining on 144k unlabeled same-sensor frames, and the sensor's own calibration affine, which recovered more accuracy than every architecture change combined. The released model's errors concentrate in a few contact-ambiguous classes, are uncorrelated with text-target geometry (Spearman rho <= 0.05 over 702 class pairs), and survive paraphrased and even bare-name queries within one point; two diverse frames recover 89% of eight-frame accuracy. Failures are reported with equal precision: cross-sensor pretraining pooling gave no gain, vision co-training degraded touch, and a mis-normalized input pipeline silently discarded 97% of the sensor's dynamic range while producing plausible intermediate results. Weights, code, and the memory layer the model plugs into are released openly.