The Potential of Haptic Foundation Models
Organizations: University of Ottawa · University of Ottawa and Dayan Technologies
Abstract
Despite the success of foundation models in language and vision, their expansion into embodied AI is bottlenecked by a lack of generalized touch sensing. This limitation is especially relevant to consumer electronics, where smartphones, wearables, VR controllers, home robots, and health monitoring devices require safe and adaptive physical interaction. Constrained by hardware heterogeneity and the necessity of active physical data collection, current haptic models remain rigidly task-specific. To overcome these limitations, this article explores the transformative potential and developmental trajectory of Haptic Foundation Models (HFMs). We detail the paradigm shift required to transition from passive Large Language Models and Vision Language Models into active HFMs across four core dimensions: action coupling, physical dynamical representation space, continuous time-series data granularity, and action-conditioned future state prediction. Furthermore, we synthesize existing large-scale tactile datasets and benchmark UniTouch, AnyTouch, T3, and Sparsh on TacBench for force estimation, slip detection, and relative pose estimation.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Modalities / Sensor Type | Scale | Key Annotations | HFM pretraining Suitability |
| CLAMP [ 17 ] | Force, thermal, vision, audio; microphone, contact microphone, camera, thermal sensor, FSR, IMU | 12.3M data points; 5357 daily objects | Compliance; material labels | High: in-the-wild multimodal physical grounding |
| FoTa [ 23 ] | Vision, tactile; 13 optical visuo-tactile sensors | 3.08M images | Task data; spatial alignment | Very high: unified format and cross-sensor alignment |
| FreeTacMan [ 19 ] | Vision, tactile, proprioception, action; visuo-tactile sensors and wrist camera | 3M pairs; 10k trajectories; 50 tasks | 6D pose; action instructions | High: robot-free collection for manipulation dynamics |
| ToucHD [ 7 ] | Vision, tactile, physical mechanics, action; force and visuo-tactile sensors | 2.42M samples; 1043 3D objects | Dynamic action attributes; force parameters | Very high: dynamic touch-force paired learning |
| exUMI [ 20 ] | Vision, tactile, proprioception; visuo-tactile sensors and camera | 1M frames; diverse real-world scenes | Action trajectories; contact states | High: action-aware and portable collection |
| Touch100k [ 3 ] | Vision, tactile, language; visuo-tactile sensors | 100k triplets | Multi-granularity text semantics | High: tactile-language-vision semantic grounding |
| Model | pretraining Data | Supported Sensors | Input Modalities | Parameters | Estimated Comp. Cost | Eval. Protocol |
| UniTouch [ 18 ] | Vision-tactile aligned pairs | DIGIT, GelSight, Taxim, Tacto | Vision, Tactile | ~86 M | Moderate | Frozen encoder + linear head |
| AnyTouch [ 1 ] | Cross-sensor static & dynamic tactile data | Multiple visuo-tactile sensors | Vision, Tactile, Temporal | ~86 M | Moderate | Frozen encoder + linear head |
| T3-small [ 16 ] | Multi-sensor task-agnostic data (FoTa) | DIGIT, GelSight | Vision, Tactile | 45 M | Low | Frozen encoder + linear head |
| T3-medium [ 16 ] | Multi-sensor task-agnostic data (FoTa) | DIGIT, GelSight | Vision, Tactile | 174 M | Moderate | Frozen encoder + linear head |
| T3-large [ 16 ] | Multi-sensor task-agnostic data (FoTa) | DIGIT, GelSight | Vision, Tactile | 304 M | High | Frozen encoder + linear head |
| Sparsh-MAE [ 14 ] | 460k+ unlabeled tactile images | DIGIT, GelSight, GelSight Mini | Vision, Tactile | ~86 M | Moderate | Frozen encoder + linear head |
| Force -DIGIT | Force -GelSight | Slip -DIGIT | Slip -GelSight | Pose Trans. | Pose Rot. | |
| UniTouch | ||||||
| AnyTouch | ||||||
| T3-small | ||||||
| T3-medium | ||||||
| T3-large | ||||||
| Sparsh-MAE |