Learning tactile skills through curious exploration
Open accessAbstract
We present curiosity-driven, autonomous acquisition of tactile exploratory skills on a biomimetic robot finger equipped with an array of microelectromechanical touch sensors. Instead of building tailored algorithms for solving a specific tactile task, we employ a more general curiosity-driven reinforcement learning approach that autonomously learns a set of motor skills in absence of an explicit teacher signal. In this approach, the acquisition of skills is driven by the information content of the sensory input signals relative to a learner that aims at representing sensory inputs using fewer and fewer computational resources. We show that, from initially random exploration of its environment, the robotic system autonomously develops a small set of basic motor skills that lead to different kinds of tactile input. Next, the system learns how to exploit the learned motor skills to solve supervised texture classification tasks. Our approach demonstrates the feasibility of autonomous acquisition of tactile skills on physical robotic platforms through curiosity-driven reinforcement learning, overcomes typical difficulties of engineered solutions for active tactile exploration and underactuated control, and provides a basis for studying developmental learning through intrinsic motivation in robots.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The progress-based approach allows robots to efficiently learn repertoires of skills in high dimensions and under strong time constraints.
“First, it allows robots to efficiently learn repertoires of skills in high dimensions and under strong time constraints”
From Information-seeking, curiosity, and attention: computational and neural mechanisms (2013) · cites this paper as L. Pape 2012
The progress-based approach has been used most successfully in real-world situations.
“This progress-based approach has been used most successfully in real-world situations.”
From Information-seeking, curiosity, and attention: computational and neural mechanisms (2013) · cites this paper as L. Pape 2012
The progress-based approach allows robots to avoid unfruitful activities that are either well learnt and trivial, or which are random and unlearnable.
“and to avoid unfruitful activities that are either well learnt and trivial, or which are random and unlearnable (L. Pape 2012; Ngo, Luciw et al. 2012; Baranes and Oudeyer 2013; Nguyen and Oudeyer 2013).”
From Information-seeking, curiosity, and attention: computational and neural mechanisms (2013) · cites this paper as L. Pape 2012
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 51
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Gordon G. Ahissar E. (2011). Reinlorcement active learning hierarchical loops, in International Joint Conference of Neural Networks (IJCNN), (San Jose, CA).
- Jones L. A. Lederman S. J. (2006). Tactile sensing, in Human Hand Function, eds Jones L. A. Lederman S. J. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 44– 74
- Vigorito C. M. Barto A. G. (2010). Autonomous learning of high-level states and actions in continuous environments. IEEE Trans. Auton. Ment. Dev. 2, 132– 143
- Authors
- Pape, L., Oddo, C. M., Controzzi, M., Cipriani, C., Förster, A., Carrozza, M. C., & Schmidhuber, J.
- Affiliations
- Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence Research (CH)
- Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Pape, Leo
- ORCID
- Venue
- Frontiers in Neurorobotics
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 6-6
- ISSN
- 1662-5218 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3401897
- OpenAlex
- W2101382642
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5
- FWCI
- 5.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Neurorobotics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- European Commission (231722)
- Göteborgs Universitet
- FP7 Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production Technologies (228844)
- FP7 Information and Communication Technologies
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Soft Robotics and Applications
- Keywords
- tactile exploration, intrinsic motivation, texture classification, underactuated control
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review