AS02CH01_Bicchi ARjats.

cls March 22, 2019 18:35

Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and

Autonomous Systems
A Century of Robotic Hands
C. Piazza,1 G. Grioli,2 M.G. Catalano,2 and A. Bicchi1,2
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

1
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

Centro di Ricerca “E. Piaggio” and Dipartimento di Ingegneria Informatica, Università di Pisa,
56122 Pisa, Italy; email: [Link]@[Link]
2
Soft Robotics for Human Cooperation and Rehabilitation, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia,
16163 Genova, Italy

Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019. 2:1–32 Keywords

The Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and
grasping, manipulation, robotic hands, artificial hands, soft hands
Autonomous Systems is online at
[Link]
Abstract
[Link]
105003 This article reports on the state of the art of artificial hands, discussing some
of the field’s most important trends and suggesting directions for future re-
Copyright © 2019 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved search. We review and group the most important application domains of
robotic hands, extracting the set of requirements that ultimately led to the
use of simplified actuation schemes and soft materials and structures—two
themes that clearly emerge from our examination of developments over the
past century. We provide a comprehensive analysis of novel technologies for
the design of joints, transmissions, and actuators that enabled these trends.
We conclude by discussing some important new perspectives generated by
simpler and softer hands and their interaction with other aspects of hand
design and robotics in general.

1
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

1. INTRODUCTION
Capturing the richness and complexity of the human hand has been an ambition of many fields of
human knowledge, including medicine, literature, religion, philosophy, and the arts (1). Since at
least the end of the sixteenth century (2), science and engineering have tried to match the sensory
and motor functions of the human hand. Such wide interest comes from the important functions
the hand performs, which include motor functions (grasping, holding, pushing, pulling, punching,
manipulating, etc.) and sensory functions (both active and passive exploration of surface texture,
moisture, and temperature, as well as feeling of vibration, pressure, force, etc.) and culminate in
social functions (caressing, menacing, hand shaking, pointing, saluting, playing, and all kinds of
gesturing, both voluntary and involuntary). Despite this fascination with hands, they still elude
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

full comprehension. This is one of the reasons why artificial hands remain one of the hardest
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

challenges in robotics (3, 4).

The design approach followed by many researchers has consisted of attempting to closely
replicate the appearance and dexterity of human hands with sophisticated designs integrating
many actuators and sensors; examples include the Utah/MIT Hand (5), Robonaut Hand (6), DLR
(Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt) Hand II (7), Gifu Hand II (8), and Shadow Dex-
terous Hand (9). Although the state of the art is rich with advanced prototypes in both robotics
(10–13) and prosthetics (14, 15), it can be fairly said that this approach has resulted in a limited
number of real-world applications in industry robotics, service robotics, or prosthetics. To increase
the relevance to such applications, several novel approaches and solutions have been proposed in
recent years for the development of effective and reliable artificial hands. Indeed, while achieving
perfect structural and functional anthropomorphism—i.e., resemblance to the human hand not
only in appearance but also in movement and function—might be overly complex, some recent
innovations in hand design aim at achieving robust, easily programmable, and economically viable
robotic hands capable of performing a useful subset of the functions of human hands.
International competitions such as the first Amazon Picking Challenge (16, 17), the last
DARPA Robotics Challenge (18), the 2016 Cybathlon (19), and the Robotic Grasping and Ma-
nipulation Competition (20), where most of the sophisticated grasping technologies have been
challenged, showed that approaches aiming at simplified designs provide notable benefits. The
winner of the first Amazon Picking Challenge was an end effector based on a suction system (16);
none of the humanoid robots employed in the DARPA Robotics Challenge had a fully actuated
anthropomorphic hand, and more than 15 teams (out of 25 participants) used an underactuated
hand with three or four fingers; the winner of the Powered Arm Prosthesis Race at the 2016 Cy-
bathlon used a body-powered hook (21); and an anthropomorphic but heavily underactuated hand
was the winner of the Hand in Hand competition at the 2016 Robotic Grasping and Manipulation
Competition (22).
The trend toward a principled simplification of hand design can be regarded as part of a larger
movement. In the last few decades, many robotics research groups have focused on minimalist
design approaches: While retaining many of the advantages of anthropomorphic design, a prin-
cipled simplification in both design and control can sensibly reduce the system complexity in
terms of number of actuators, sensors, and lines of code to program. Additionally, soft-robotics
approaches have been useful, with several recent hand prototypes designed according to such prin-
ciples and achieving very good results in terms of grasping versatility, robustness, and reliability—
e.g., the Open Bionics Hand (23), Delft Cylinder Hand (24), Yale Multigrasp Hand (25), and RBO
(Robotics and Biology Laboratory) Hand 2 (26).
This article reviews the state of the art of artificial hands over the past century, with a focus
on two emerging trends: the replacement of rigid mechanical structures with soft materials
and actuation, and the simplification of the hand design. To limit the scope of the survey, we

2 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

analyze these aspects while admittedly neglecting other important ones, such as kinematics and
sensorization. To a first approximation, at least, these other aspects are independent from those
considered here and are covered by other surveys (27, 28). The purpose of this work is to present
how the minimalist design approach and soft-robotics technologies have influenced the world of
hand design, particularly in their effect on the physical structure of hand joints and links, the type
and control of actuators, and the distribution and coordination of movement. This analysis is
supported by a comprehensive database of artificial hands covering 106 years of engineering (see
Supplemental Table 1). The temporal layout of this database is displayed at a glance in Figure 1.
We start by discussing, in Section 2, the main application fields of robotic hands and their re-
quirements. Section 3 explains the method used to analyze the state of the art of artificial hands.
In Section 4, we present evidence of the two trends mentioned above, and discuss their mani-
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

festations and the correlation between technological solutions adopted in different application
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

domains. Finally, in Section 5, we discuss the most interesting opportunities (in our opinion) and
novel perspectives contributed by this design approach.

2. APPLICATIONS AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Artificial hands have many potential application domains, each with different requirements. In this
section, we analyze and organize the main fields of application, with the goals of (a) highlighting
broad classes of application domains, which will be used for the analysis that follows in Section 3,
and (b) establishing a structured vision of the design goals and required properties that these ap-
plications entail, providing information about the different technological enablers (discussed in
Section 4).

2.1. Assistive Robotics

Assistive robots must be able to interact and cooperate in a safe way with the environment and
humans during their activities of daily living. These robots require hands that can operate de-
spite harsh conditions and incomplete information, and they have severe limits on encumbrance
(meaning that the hands need to be small, light, and flexible). Moreover, their hands must ensure
a high level of comfort, safety, and robustness. Examples of robotic hands designed or adapted to
assist sick or elderly people or people with disabilities include the DLR/HIT (Harbin Institute
of Technology) Hand II (103), Fluidic Hand (220), Human-Like Artificial Hand (87), and SCCA
(Self-Contained Compliant Anthropomorphic) Hand (177). Figure 2a shows one of the most
famous examples of the application of hands in this field: the DLR/HIT Hand II, used in combi-
nation with the DLR Lightweight Robot arm to assist a disabled person in a daily living task (221).

2.2. Prosthetics
Prosthetics require reduced weight and encumbrance, simple controls to accommodate the lim-
ited number of inputs available for amputees, high interaction capabilities with humans and the

Figure 1 (Figure appears on next page)

A time line of all the hands considered for the analysis presented in this review, covering 106 years of engineering (1912–2018, with
hands up through 2010 listed in panel a and hands after 2010 listed in panel b). Image of the Utah/MIT Hand courtesy of the
Computer History Museum; image of the Robonaut Hand courtesy of NASA ([Link] image of the DLR
Hand II adapted from Reference 218 with permission; image of the iCub Hand courtesy of the Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia; image of
the prosthetic gripper courtesy of the Laboratoire de Robotique at Université Laval; image of the Yale Multigrasp Hand adapted from
Reference 219 with permission; image of the SSSA-MyHand courtesy of Prensilia S.r.l. ([Link] Abbreviation:
DoF, degree of freedom.

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 3

 a 1900–2009
2004 MANUS Hand (77)
Utah/MIT Hand DLR Hand II SPRING Hand (78)
Yokoi Hand (79)
1980 Gripper Prehensile Hand (42) ZAR3 Hand (80)
1982 Okada Hand (43) 2000 TUAT/Karlsruhe Hand (64) ASIMO Hand (81)
Multipurpose Mechanical Hand (44) Southampton/REMEDI IOWA Hand (82) 2008 Robotiq Three-Finger Gripper (98)
Stanford JPL Hand (45) Hand (65) RCH-1 (83) Bionic hand (99)
1983 PPG Gripper (46) RGS (66) Fluidic Hand (84) FRH-4 Hand (100)
Articulated robot hand (47) 2001 DLR Hand II (7) 2005 Karlsruhe Hand (85) 15-DoF underactuated hand (101)
1986 Utah/MIT Hand (5) Harada Hand (67) NAIST Hand (86) Smarthand (102)
1987 PUMA/RAL Hand (48) LMS Hand (68) Human-like artificial DLR/HIT Hand II (103)
1912 Hosmer Prosthetic Hook (29) 1988 Barrett Hand BH8 (49) Ultralight Hand (69) hand (87) 2009 RAPHaEL Hand (104)
1919 First externally powered hand (30) 1989 Belgrade USC Hand (50) BUAA Hand (70) SoftHand (88) NAIST Hand 2 (105)
Pringle Hand (31) Dexterous gripper (51) TBM Hand (71) UB Hand III (89) Vanderbilt Hand (106)
1900
1942 Lockgrip (32) 1962 Tomovic Hand (35) 1990 THD Gripper (52) 2002 GIFU Hand II (8) 2006 SDH Three-Finger Hand (46)
1948 Hüfner Hand (33) 1964 Russian Hand (36) 1991 Soft Gripper I (53) Shadow Dexterous Hand (9) SKKU Hand II (90)
18:35

Artificial hand (34) Automatic hand (37) 1992 Mechanical hand ( 54) Gripper (72) Maeno Hand (91)
1968 Imperial Hand (32) UB Hand II (55) RTR Il Prosthetic Hand (73) HIT/DLR Prosthetic Hand (92)
1970 Yakobson Hand (38) 1993 MARCUS Hand (56) 2003 Keio Hand (74) 2007 i-Limb (93)
Ottobock Tridigit Hand (39) 1994 MPG Two-Finger Gripper (46) HIT/DLR Hand (75) Sheffield Hand (94)
1977 Three-fingered hand ( 40) 1996 Kobe Hand (57) University of Tokyo Hand (76) Asada Hand (95)
March 22, 2019

1978 Soft gripper (41) Graspar Hand (58) Cyberhand (96)

1997 AMADEUS Hand (59) KH Hand (97)
1998 DLR Hand I (60)
Shadow Dexterous Hand

Piazza et al.
DIST Hand (61)
NTU Hand (62)
1999 Robonaut Hand (6)
GIFU Hand I (63)
[Link]

Robonaut Hand

4
AS02CH01_Bicchi
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]
 b 2010–2018

5
A Century of Robotic Hands
i-Limb Quantum
SSSA-MyHand SoftHand Pro-H
2015 Open Bionics Hand (23)
i-Limb Quantum (93)
Delft Cylinder Hand (24) 2017 Co-act gripper (46) SIMBA Hand (178) Suction pinching hand (192)
Michelangelo Hand UNB Hand Soft Gripper II (139) Soft Gripper IV (165) Underactuated soft gripper (179) Electrostatic gripper (193)
SoftHand 2 (140) Soft Gripper V (166) Soft Gripper VII (180) Robotic Hand III (194)
Anthropomorphic hand (141) Underactuated hand (167) TCP Hand (181) Soft Gripper IX (195)
Valkyrie Hand (142) SSSA-MyHand (168) GR2 (182) Robust hand (196)
SMA Gripper (143) Adam’s Hand (169) Stewart Platform–inspired hand (183) Underactuated grasper (197)
2011 HRP-4C Hand (114) LARM Hand (144) JamHand (170) HERI Hand (184) Prosthetic hand (198)
Michelangelo Hand (115) Soft Hand I (145) KITECH-Hand (171) Soft-fingered hand (185) Soft Robotic Hand III (199)

•
UNB Hand (116) Touch Hand (146) MORA Hap-2 (172) Robot hand (186) LIPSA Hand (200)

[Link]
BeBionic Hand (117) SR Finger (147) Soft Gripper VI (173) HYDRA Hand (187) Taska Hand (201)
Dexhand (118) Printable robotic hand (148) Pneumatic soft hand (174) SoftHand Pro-H (188) SH Hand (202)
Dekka Hand (119) Soft Hand II (149) PUCP Hand (175) Robotic Hand II (189) OpenHand Model T24 (203)
DART Hand (120) Shear adhesion gripper (150) Robotic Hand (176) Compliant prosthetic hand (190) OpenHand Model T (203)
ECF Robot Hand (121) Baxter Gripper (151) SCCA Hand (177) Soft Gripper VIII (191) OpenHand Model O (203)
2010 MiyazakiLab Hand (107) 2012 Velvet Fingers (122) 2016 Biomimetic hand (152) 2018 Gecko elastomer actuator gripper (204)
Universal Gripper (108) Handroid Hand (123) Yale Multigrasp Hand (25) Yale Multigrasp Hand HR-Hand (205)
SDM Hand (109) Pisa/IIT SoftHand (22) Alpha Hand (153) Edgy-2 (206)
Azzurra Hand (110) Allegro Hand (124) SoftHand-D (154) Soft Gripper X (207)
18:35

iCub Hand (111) Prosthetic gripper (125) Model S Hand (155) Sensory soft hand (208)
Awiwi Hand (112) Sandia Hand (126) SoftHand Pro (156) Pneumatic gripper (209)
REEM Hand (113) SCHUNK S5FH Hand (46) RBO Hand 2 (26) Hannes (210)
Second Hand (127) Soft robotic gripper (157) Soft Gripper XI (211)
2013 RBO Hand (128) ADA Robotic Hand (158) Soft cable-driven gripper (212)
March 22, 2019

ECF Robot Hand (129) Soft prosthetic hand (159) Multifingered robotic hand (213)
iCub Hand Robotiq Two-Finger Gripper (130) Soft Robotic Hand (160) Underactuated hand (214)
UB Hand 4 (131) Bionic hand (161) Cartman Gripper (215)
Vincent Hand (132) Soft Robotic Hand II (162) Soft Hand III (216)
ACT Hand (133) Soft Gripper III (163) GraspMan Hand (217)
2014 ISR-SoftHand (134) Fetch gripper (164)
iHY Hand (135)
RBO Hand 2
RIC Hand (136)
Underactuated hand (137) Prosthetic gripper
Velo Gripper (138)
[Link]

TIAGo Hand (113)

AS02CH01_Bicchi
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

environment, and features that enable devices to operate in harsh and unstructured conditions.
Hand prostheses are artificial devices designed to replace missing limbs. The state of the art
includes many different solutions, such as the Ottobock Michelangelo Hand (115), the i-Limb
Quantum (93), the Open Bionics Hand (23), the Yale Multigrasp Hand (25), and the SoftHand
Pro (188). Figure 2b shows an example of a prosthetic hand: a BeBionic hand (117) used by an
amputee.

2.3. Supervised Manipulation

The robotic device must be able to perform manipulation tasks while assisted remotely by a human
supervisor who provides high-level decisional and planning commands. Limited perception and
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

environmental constraints make this application challenging. Indeed, the human operator usually
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

suggests the trajectory to be executed by the robot. Hands designed for this application have
requirements in terms of robustness, efficiency, and simplicity in control. This application is typical
of industrial environments. Examples of robotic hands designed or used to operate in this field are
the iHY (iRobot-Harvard-Yale) Hand (135, 223) and the electrostatic gripper presented by Schaler
et al. (193). Figure 2c shows an example: an operator using a tablet to program and supervise the
action of a robotic manipulator and its end effector.

a b c d

e f g h

i j

Figure 2
Examples of artificial hands employed in different application domains: (a) assistive robotics (the DLR/HIT Hand II and DLR
Lightweight Robot arm assisting a disabled person in a daily living task), (b) prosthetics (the BeBionic hand used by an amputee),
(c) supervised manipulation (a robotic manipulator controlled by a tablet app), (d) teleoperation (the NASA Robonaut controlled by a
teleoperator; [Link] (e) teleinteraction (a teleoperated robot interacting with a person), ( f ) social robotics
(a REEM robot helping a person in a mall), (g) entertainment (a NAO robot playing with a child), (h) service robotics (the DLR Justin
robot equipped with the DLR Hand II), (i) autonomous manipulation (the RBO Hand, used here to handle food), and ( j) logistics (the
Velvet Fingers end effector manipulating a box). Panel a adapted from Reference 221 with permission; panels b, c, e, and g adapted from
Shutterstock; panel h adapted from Reference 222 with permission; panel i courtesy of OCADO Technology.

6 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

2.4. Teleoperation
Teleoperation is the direct operation of a robotic system from a remote position. The main differ-
ence between teleoperation and supervised manipulation is that the human operator commands
the robot at a much lower level, often with an almost one-to-one correspondence between user
actions and robot motions, with an interface that aims at transparency. One of the main uses of
teleoperation is to minimize the need for humans to be physically present in dangerous situations
(e.g., in irradiated environments or at sites of chemical spills) or after catastrophic events (e.g.,
earthquakes). Other relevant applications are related to underwater robotics (e.g., the retrieval of
archaeological artifacts from the ocean) (137). These technologies must be designed to operate in
unknown and sometimes harsh scenarios and guarantee a safe interaction with the environment
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

(e.g., in order to grasp fragile or heavy objects). Such systems usually have strict requirements in
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

terms of robustness, control simplicity, and adaptivity. Examples of robotic hands designed to op-
erate in this field are the KH (Kinetic Humanoid) Hand (97), the RAPHaEL (Robotic Air Pow-
ered Hand with Elastic Ligaments) Hand (104), the Handroid Hand (123), and the SCHUNK
S5FH Hand (224). Figure 2d shows an example: teleoperation of the NASA Robonaut (225) to
accomplish a bimanual task.

2.5. Teleinteraction
Teleinteraction, which derives from teleoperation, aims at communication over distance using
audio, video, and interaction through a robotic system. These technologies are envisioned mainly
to cooperate with people, especially in daily living scenarios. Hands designed for such applications
need high specifications in terms of interaction capabilities with humans and the environment,
comfort, and pleasantness. The main design requirements are related to natural motion behaviors,
safety, robustness, and control simplicity. Examples of robotic hands designed or used in this field
of application are the mechanical hand presented by Jau (54) and the hand used by the robot
ASIMO (81). Figure 2e shows an example: a teleoperated robot interacting with a person.

2.6. Social Robotics

Social robots are systems able to communicate with humans. This type of robot is designed to
have a human-like (or human-acceptable) appearance and is usually equipped with a screen to
facilitate communication and interaction. Hands designed for these robots usually need a high
level of human–robot interaction capabilities and pleasantness, and they have strict requirements
in terms of safety and design. Examples of robotic hands designed to operate in this field are the
Alpha Hand (153) and the RBO Hand 2 (226). Figure 2f shows an example: the REEM humanoid
robot (113) helping a person in a mall.

2.7. Entertainment
The aim of entertainment applications is to have a robot for recreation (e.g., toys), for domestic
use, or for animatronics in amusement parks or museums. These robots often try to emulate a
human, animal, or cartoon character, not only in their appearance but also in their behavior. Such
robots usually do not need hands capable of complex interactions with people, and they work
in conditions that are under supervised control. Moreover, their hands are often designed with a
rigorous design formalism and are characterized by natural movements. Examples of robotic hands
designed to operate in this field of application are the hand of the iCub robot (111) and the one
used for the robot HRP-4C (114). Figure 2g shows an example: a NAO robot playing with a child.

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 7

AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

2.8. Service Robotics

Service robots are created to assist humans in performing several kinds of tasks and are often
intended to operate in a semiautonomous or fully autonomous way. They are designed to work
in scenarios such as domestic environments and require high reliability and good interaction with
humans and the environment. Their design requirements relate mainly to robustness, adaptivity,
simplicity of control, and natural motion. Examples of robotic hands designed to operate in this
field of application are the Ultralight Hand (227) and the MiyazakiLab Hand (107). Figure 2h
shows an example: the DLR Justin robot (228), equipped with the DLR Hand II, grasping a broom
and cleaning the floor.
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

2.9. Autonomous Manipulation

Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

Robots designed for autonomous manipulation are usually intended to be used in structured en-
vironments, although such robots have recently been used in unstructured environments. The
former approach is typical of pick-and-place industrial scenarios. Versatile but robust grippers
(with two or three fingers) are usually preferred. Historically, grippers (e.g., 43, 48, 52) adopted
in this context have been designed for minimum interaction with people, use in well-structured
environments, and use in environments where information about the object and the status of the
robot are always well known. Robustness, adaptivity, and design formalisms are among the main
requirements. Some recent trends are changing this approach to autonomous manipulation, look-
ing for new end effectors that can interact with the environment (and, to some extent, with people)
to show intrinsic adaptivity, and that can deal with uncertainties due to limitations in the robot
sensorization and perception. Requirements such as robustness and safety are still mandatory in
this context. Examples of possible fields of use include harvesting and bin picking from boxes
containing disorganized objects of different shapes. Examples of robotic hands designed to op-
erate in this field of application were described by Brown et al. (108), Johnson et al. (229), and
Borst et al. (230). Figure 2i shows an example: the RBO Hand, used here to perform autonomous
food-handling tasks.

2.10. Logistics
Systems adopted in logistics are intended for fast and productive handling of goods in industrial
chains. Two main approaches can be found in the state of the art of end effectors for logistics: the
use of fixed, ad hoc end effectors, explicitly designed for a certain product and a specific supply
chain, and the use of general-purpose systems, able to handle several kinds of goods and char-
acterized by intrinsic versatility. The former approach has been characterized by a high level of
reliability and an intrinsic robustness, together with the need for perfect knowledge of the envi-
ronmental conditions and a rigorous design. The latter approach is looking for systems that can
interact with the environment and work in unstructured conditions while still maintaining a high
level of robustness and efficiency. Examples of robotic hands designed to operate in this field of
application are Fetch and Freight (164) and various SCHUNK hands (46). Figure 2j shows an
example: the Velvet Fingers end effector (122) manipulating a box.

2.11. Summary
The analysis and observations above suggest some useful considerations that can be used in
the following sections. First, the different application domains can be divided into three broad
categories: prosthetics and rehabilitation (assistive robotics and prosthetics), industrial (super-
vised manipulation, autonomous manipulation, and logistics), and human–robot interaction
8 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

(teleoperation, teleinteraction, social robotics, entertainment, and service robotics). Moreover,

depending on the application domain, it is possible to isolate and highlight some design goals
and, consequently, the related design requirements. The robustness and adaptivity of the end
effector are among the main features required to accomplish most of the goals of the application
considered. This is particularly true if we consider tasks that include robot–environment inter-
action or lack of environmental information. In this case, robust systems allow a margin of error,
while adaptability helps to simplify the control required. Furthermore, high efficiency, combined
with robustness and adaptability, can limit the encumbrance. Prosthetics and rehabilitation
applications require a particular focus on the safety and naturalness of the motion of the device in
order to improve human–robot interaction, comfort, and pleasantness. Finally, another important
aspect is simplicity of control, which also facilitates operation in harsh conditions for applications
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

such as teleoperation and autonomous manipulation.

Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

Figure 3 summarizes the results of the application domain analysis, showing possible applica-
tion domains, design goals that must be respected to operate in the specific field of application,
and design requirements needed to realize the desired goals.

3. A 1912–2018 DATABASE OF ROBOT HANDS

Supplemental Table 1 provides a database of the main artificial hands developed from 1912 to
2018. This table, which includes 199 references (mainly from scientific articles), has been compiled

Robustness

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Efficiency
Adaptivity
Safety
Design formalism
Control simplicity
Natural motion

DESIGN Human– Robot– Harsh

environment Encumbrance Imperfect Comfort and
robot operating
GOALS interaction interaction lines conditions information pleasantness

Assistive robotics
Prosthetics
Supervised
manipulation
APPLICATIONS

Teleoperation
Teleinteraction
Social robotics
Entertainment
Service robotics
Autonomous
manipulation
Logistics

Figure 3
Map of possible correlations between applications (bottom left), design goals (center), and design requirements (top right). Connections
are represented by colored lines; thicker lines imply stronger connections.

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 9

AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

A system where the links are connected

Rigid using fixed mechanical elements (e.g., pins).

A system where the links are connected

Flexible using flexible elements (e.g., springs).
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

A system where the links are connected

Dislocatable using elastic and flexible elements that can
withstand severe disarticulations.

Soft A system built using continuously flexible

continuous materials.

Figure 4
Different types of hand joints: rigid, flexible, dislocatable, and soft continuous. Images of the rigid, flexible, and soft continuous systems
courtesy of DLR, the University of Bologna, and the Robotics and Biology Laboratory at Technische Universität Berlin, respectively.

based on the criteria explained below. The table reports the following information for each device:
year of publication, device name, and reference; number of joints and their type; number of degrees
of freedom (DoFs) and degrees of actuation (DoAs); transmission architecture; number of motors
and type of actuation; and application field(s) among the three broad areas indicated in Section 2
(prosthetics and rehabilitation, industrial, and human–robot interaction).

3.1. Compilation Criteria

We used the compiled information to analyze trends and isolate the technological enablers that
are driving the development of the next generation of artificial hands, with particular attention to
joint design, transmission architecture, and actuation systems. To include all the different design
arrangements and solutions proposed to date, we considered four types of joints: rigid, flexible,
dislocatable, and soft continuous (see Figure 4). We also considered the most common actuation
principles in the literature (Figure 5) and different transmission architectures (Figure 6).

10 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

Output shaft
A device with negligible compliance that can reach
Gearbox and hold a specific position if external forces are
Rigid actuator Motor exerted on its output. These actuators, which derive
directly from industrial servomotors, are preferred
when high accuracy is required.

Output shaft Torque sensor Similar to a rigid actuator but featuring an appreciable
amount of compliance on its output, which comes from
Gearbox
very fine tuning of control gains and/or the integration of
Actuator with Motor an output torque (or force) sensor. This actuator can
active impedance/ actively regulate the compliance (and damping) of the
admittance control θ0 = C(s) τ system and display more flexible interaction behavior, but
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

its performance is constrained by the bandwidth of the

Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

Admittance controller control system, and its robustness is constrained by the

torque limits of the output sensor (when present).
Output shaft
Motor output
Gearbox Spring An actuator where the output shaft is driven through a
spring. The system presents a fixed physical elasticity
Series elastic actuator Motor provided by the spring, which, being intrinsic, is not limited
in bandwidth and is more robust than a torque sensor.
τ = K(s) q – θ

Impedance controller
Output shaft
Motor output An evolution of the series elastic actuator that includes a
Variable spring physical elastic element on its output that can adjust its
Gearbox
stiffness thanks to a second (usually smaller) actuation
Explicit stiffness unit and a suitable mechanism. Because the implemented
Motor
variation actuator variable stiffness is physical, it has no bandwidth limitations,
and the position and stiffness are regulated independently.

Stiffness-regulating motor

Output shaft
A system with an output behavior similar to that of the
Motor output explicit stiffness variation actuator. It combines two similar
Nonlinear
(usually equal) prime movers, each connected to the
Agonist–antagonist Gearbox springs output shaft through a nonlinear elastic transmission. It
variable-stiffness can control both the position and the physical stiffness of
actuator Motor its output shaft by applying synchronous or opposite
motions of the two prime movers. Stiffness and position
are not controlled independently, and the stiffness
Antagonist motor behavior is usually nonlinear.

Output shaft A further evolution of the actuators described above in

Motor output which both the stiffness and the damping of the actuator
Variable output impedance can be changed, and both are
Gearbox impedance
implemented by the physical action of one or more elastic
Variable-impedance Motor and damping elements. The equilibrium position depends
actuator on external forces and the mechanical properties of the
actuator. Implementations, as well as advantages and
disadvantages of the system, may vary significantly
Impedance-regulating motor depending on the physical principles used to implement
the variable stiffness and damping.
Figure 5
Different actuation principles: rigid actuator, actuator with active impedance/admittance control, series elastic actuator, explicit stiffness
variation actuator, agonist–antagonist variable-stiffness actuator, and variable-impedance actuator.

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 11

AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

A system with direct control on each joint through

Fully actuated a dedicated actuator for each joint.

A system in which the number of joints is higher

than the number of degrees of freedom, and the
Coupled movement of one joint is always proportional to
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

the joint(s) coupled to it.

Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

A system designed to allow passive movements

between the degrees of freedom, which are
Underactuated often used to allow the adaptation of the hand
shape to the grasped object.

Figure 6
Different types of transmission architectures: fully actuated (e.g., 7), coupled (e.g., 103), and underactuated (e.g., 125). Images of the
fully actuated and coupled systems courtesy of DLR; image of the underactuated system courtesy of the Laboratoire de Robotique at
Université Laval.

4. EMERGING TRENDS
From Supplemental Table 1, one can obtain the distribution over the years of hands with rigid
joints versus those with soft joints, hands with rigid actuation versus those with soft actuation, and
hands with independent control of fingers versus those with a different approach to the simplifi-
cation of the motion architecture of fingers (for a detailed description, see Section 4.2). Figure 7
shows this comparison in terms of the cumulative number of hands of each type, and Figure 8
does so in terms of the percentages of each type.
As shown in Figure 8, there is distinct growth after the year 2000 in the use of soft actuation
systems and simplified architectures (e.g., underactuated hands). Moreover, Figures 7c and 8c
highlight an increasing interest in the use of hands with synchronized motion principles.
Figure 9 shows the cumulative number and percentages of hands for the three classes of ap-
plications. Although prosthetics and rehabilitation is the largest application field over the entire
period, there was an increased interest in the development of hands for industrial applications
starting at the end of the 1970s and a growing interest in hands designed for human–robot inter-
action starting at the end of the 1990s. Notably, hands have been much more evenly distributed
across the three domains in the past few years than they have been in the past.
The number of hands developed and published has increased considerably in the last decade,
with an explosion of new prototypes in the last three years in particular. In our opinion, this inter-
esting phenomenon stems from two main factors: an increasing interest in open-source hardware
and the increasing dissemination of rapid prototyping technologies, which enables the easy and
economical fabrication of mechanical components with complex geometries. The first factor is

12 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

200 Rigid joints

a Soft continuous joints
150
Flexible joints
100 Dislocatable joints

50
Number of hands (cumulative)

200 Rigid actuation

b Soft actuation
150

100
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

50

200 Coupled transmission

c Fully actuated
150 transmission
Underactuated
100 transmission
Hand synchronized
50 motion

0
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year
Figure 7
Cumulative distributions of hands from 1912 to 2018 based on (a) the joint type (rigid, soft continuous, flexible, or dislocatable), (b) the
actuation type (rigid or soft), and (c) the transmission architecture type (coupled, fully actuated, or underactuated). In panel c, the red
line shows the cumulative number of hands that embed hand synchronized motion.

supported by the growing number of open-source initiatives—such as the Open Hand Project
(203), the Natural Machine Motion Initiative (231), the Soft Hands platform (232), the open-
source e-NABLE community (233), and the OpenBionics Initiative (234)—that aim to foster and
disseminate designs and approaches. Moreover, many of the proposed new solutions are based
on open-source licenses for both software and mechanics. Examples include the standard Baxter
Gripper (151), which derives from the Yale OpenHand Project’s Model T42 (203); the Hannes
prosthetic hand (210); and the hand of the robot TIAGo from Pal Robotics (113), the last two
of which adopt technologies from the Pisa/IIT (Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia) SoftHand (22)
under the Natural Machine Motion Initiative’s OpenHardware licensing scheme. Open-source
hardware and rapid prototyping are enabling researchers to easily reproduce different proposed
technologies and then build new prototypes and test new ideas.

4.1. Soft-Robotics Technologies and Hands

As shown by Figure 7, many research groups have been investigating the development of artificial
hands that take inspiration from biological structures—moving from rigid, machine-like designs to
solutions where softness is embedded in the mechanics of both the articulations and the actuation
systems. This section discusses these two aspects in more detail.

4.1.1. Softness in joint design. Traditionally, most hand devices have used rigid joints, but
novel solutions such as flexible or soft joints are becoming increasingly popular. As described by

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 13

AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

100 Rigid joints

a Soft continuous joints
Flexible joints
50 Dislocatable joints

0
100 Rigid actuation
b Soft actuation
Ratio (%)

50
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

0
100 Coupled transmission
c
Fully actuated
transmission
Underactuated
50 transmission
Hand synchronized
motion

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
Figure 8
Relative distributions of hands from 1978 to 2018 based on (a) the joint type (rigid, soft continuous, flexible, or dislocatable), (b) the
actuation type (rigid or soft), and (c) the transmission architecture type (coupled, fully actuated, or underactuated). In panel c, the red
line shows the percentage of hands that embed hand synchronized motion.

Shintake et al. (235) and Hughes et al. (236), the implementations of soft joints range from artic-
ulated structures, where the flexibility results from the use of elastic elements, to fully compliant
systems that are continuously deformable into myriad possible shapes. Softness is typically created
by using different material fabrication techniques, from casting and molding to 3-D printing. In
general, soft articulated solutions take more direct inspiration from the human musculoskeletal
system and produce systems where the compliance is concentrated in the joints, as in the Model
S Hand (155), Alpha Hand (153), Delft Cylinder Hand (24), Handroid Hand (123), Bionic Hand
(99), FRH-4 Hand (100), Keio Hand (74), and UB (University of Bologna) Hand III (89).
Soft continuous systems—such as the RBO Hand 2 (26), ECF (Electro-Conjugate Fluid) Robot
Hand (129), MiyazakiLab Hand (107), Universal Gripper (108), SDM (Shape Deposition Man-
ufacturing) Hand (109), Karlsruhe Hand (85), and Ultralight Hand (69)—take inspiration from
invertebrates, and their whole structure is built using continuously flexible materials. Successful
examples like the RBO Hand 2 (26), Soft Gripper (165), Open Bionics Hand (23), Delft Cylinder
Hand (24), and Yale Multigrasp Hand (25) highlight the use of soft robotic hands in a wide range
of applications.
Soft robotic hands exploit the flexibility of joints to adapt the shape of the figures to the ob-
ject (or environment) when grasping, substantially simplifying the control strategies (as in, e.g.,
125, 135). Soft robotic hands are particularly suitable for use in unstructured environments, where
conventional rigid hands require complex control algorithms just to approach an object, and for
avoiding collisions with the environment (as in, e.g., 112). Interactions with objects and environ-
mental constraints are used to functionally change the shape of the hand (as in, e.g., 22, 26, 135).

14 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

Number of hands (cumulative)

200 Prosthetics and
a rehabilitation
Industrial
150 Human–robot
interaction

100

50

0
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
100
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

b
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

80
Ratio (%)

60

40

20

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
Figure 9
(a) Cumulative distributions of artificial hands from 1912 to 2018 and (b) relative distributions of artificial hands from 1978 to 2018 for
the three broad application classes: prosthetics and rehabilitation, industrial, and human–robot interaction.

The compliance of the joints considerably increases the robustness of the robotic hand, which
can support strong impacts with the environment or heavy disarticulation. These characteristics
guarantee safe human–robot interaction, extending the use of soft robotic hands to various areas,
including medical applications.
The growing research interest and technological advancement in soft robotics will lead to a
significant increase in the use of soft robots in service robotics, industrial settings, and health care
in the next few years. Such a trend is already evident in Figure 10, which shows correlations
among the three application domains and the different types of joints.
Human–robot interaction applications, for example, tend to avoid using rigid joints, probably
because of the unnatural and unsafe behavior of rigid joint technologies. Designs for human–
robot interaction applications tend to prefer dislocatable joints, designs for industrial applications
tend to prefer flexible and soft continuous joints, and designs for prosthetics and rehabilitation
applications tend to prefer flexible and dislocatable joints.

4.1.2. Softness in actuation principles. Rigid actuation has been the most used approach for
finger movement for many years, but as shown in Figures 7 and 8, alternative compliant solutions
are becoming increasingly popular. Indeed, recent applications, such as human–robot interaction,
have introduced novel and challenging design goals where the use of compliant actuators can
provide significant advantages over traditional actuation.
As presented in Figure 5, the compliance in the actuation mechanisms can be introduced
through stiffness or impedance modulation or by using soft and flexible materials. The latter are
particularly suitable for soft continuous robotic hands, such as shape-memory alloy actuators and
pneumatic actuators, which modulate stiffness by controlling the pressure of compressed air.

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 15

AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

a b
Number of hands

Number of hands
80 40
60 30
40 20
20 10
0 0

Prosthetics and Rigid Prosthetics and Rigid

Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

rehabilitation Soft rehabilitation Soft

Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

Industrial continuous Industrial continuous

Flexible Flexible
Application Human–robot Joints Application Human–robot Joints
interaction Dislocatable interaction Dislocatable

Figure 10
Correlations among the three broad classes of application (prosthetics and rehabilitation, industrial, and human–robot interaction) and
the four types of soft joints (rigid, soft continuous, flexible, and dislocatable) for (a) 1912–2018 and (b) 2009–2018.

Figure 11 shows the correlations among the three application domains and the two types of
actuation. Especially in the last decade, the number of soft actuators employed in the design of
artificial hands has noticeably increased, with the highest rate of use in industrial and human–robot
interaction applications.

4.2. Architecture Simplification

Figure 7 highlights the ongoing interest of the research community in solutions that simplify the
motion architecture of artificial hands. Several approaches have been adopted, the most relevant
of which (fully actuated, coupled, and underactuated) were described in Figure 6. Note that the

a b

80 40
Number of hands

Number of hands

60 30

40 20

20 10

0 0

Prosthetics and Prosthetics and

rehabilitation rehabilitation

Industrial Industrial
Rigid Rigid
Application Human–robot Actuation Application Human–robot Actuation
interaction Soft interaction Soft

Figure 11
Correlations among the three broad classes of application (prosthetics and rehabilitation, industrial, and human–robot interaction) and
the two types of actuation (rigid and soft) for (a) 1912–2018 and (b) 2009–2018.

16 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

adoption of one of these motion architectures is not directly related to the adoption of a spe-
cific kind of joint (rigid or soft) or actuation principle (rigid or soft). Some prototypes have also
combined all three transmission architectures in a single device.
The first and, for many years, most common approach to hand motion was full actuation, where
the number of DoFs is equal to the number of joints; the DLR Hand II is a significant example of
this architecture. A different approach to simplification is the coupled architecture. These hands
use one actuator to control each DoF, and if one of the joints reaches a contact, all the joints cou-
pled to it will stop. Fully actuated and coupled architectures have been predominant in the last
decade, but underactuation has now emerged as a novel way to simplify designs. Underactuated
systems allow passive movements between DoFs, which are determined by the equilibrium of the
contact forces with passive elements such as springs or, less often, clutches or brakes (see 237,
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

238). Because they use fewer motors, they save space, weight, and cost, which has led to the devel-
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

opment of a large number of underactuated hands and adaptive grippers (for a complete review,
see 239).
One particularly investigated aspect of robotic and prosthetic underactuated hands is adap-
tivity. Hands and grippers [such as those proposed by Laliberté et al. (72) and Dollar & Howe
(109), respectively] are characterized by many DoFs but just one DoA. The use of a coupled or
underactuated motion architecture can be related to some of the DoFs of the hand, e.g., fingers
or pairs of fingers. Some special approaches in the design of the motion architecture extend the
idea behind coupled and underactuated actuation to all of a hand’s joints. This approach is trivial
in hands with a reduced number of DoFs and DoAs (e.g., prosthetic grippers) but nontrivial in
anthropomorphic hands with many DoFs. Only in the last two decades has a novel approach to
the simplification and coordination of finger movements emerged. This approach, which we refer
to as hand synchronized motion (as opposed to synchronized motion only within each finger),
takes inspiration from biology and neuroscience and proposes a systematic method for designing
artificial hands with a simplified architecture. Neuroscience studies suggest that the brain uses the
hand as an organized and ordered ensemble. Particular patterns of muscular activities can form a
so-called base set, analogous to the concept of basis in the theory of vector spaces (240): a minimal
number of linearly independent elements that, under specific operations, generate all members of
a given set, in this case, the set of all movements. Such a base set is referred to as the space of pos-
tural synergies or the eigengrasp space (241, 242). Different approaches in robotics have recently
tried to take advantage of the idea of synergies, aiming to reproduce the same coordinated and
ordered ensemble of human hand motion (95, 141). The word synergies is strictly related to the
neuroscientific context and can generate confusion if used improperly in an engineering context.
For that reason, we prefer the term hand synchronized motion, which is purely descriptive and
does not necessarily imply a connection with any neuroscientific context.
The results shown in Figure 12 highlight how, in the last decade, hands with underactuated
transmissions dominate in all applications, even if there are still a good number of solutions with
coupled transmission in prosthetics and rehabilitation and with independent transmission in in-
dustrial applications. Almost all solutions that implement hand synchronized motion rely on un-
deractuated transmissions.

5. FURTHER PERSPECTIVES
The previous sections have highlighted some new trends and technological solutions in artificial
hands. The primary aim of this review was to analyze these trends and highlight the main methods
and approaches proposed over the years, and a complete analysis of the consequences that such
new designs can have in the use, planning, and control of novel and future hands is beyond the

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 17

AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

a b
Number of hands

60

Number of hands
50
40
40
30
20
20
10
0 0

Prosthetics and Prosthetics and

Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

rehabilitation rehabilitation
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

Underactuated Underactuated
Industrial Industrial
Fully actuated Fully actuated
Application Human–robot Transmission Application Human–robot Transmission
interaction Coupled interaction Coupled

Figure 12
Correlations among the three broad classes of application (prosthetics and rehabilitation, industrial, and human–robot interaction) and
the three types of transmission architectures (coupled, fully actuated, or underactuated) for (a) 1912–2018 and (b) 2009–2018.

scope of the article. However, we would like to discuss a few important consequences that these
emerging trends are having, or could have, in the field of artificial hands.

5.1. Planning
In our opinion, softness and adaptivity enable artificial hands to carry out real interactions with
objects, the environment, and people. As discussed by Bonilla et al. (243), such new capabilities
shift the conventional paradigm of grasp planning, moving it away from a timid approach, in which
the fingers must interact only with the object when performing a grasp, without perturbing the
equilibrium of the object, the environment, or the hand itself. This approach to manipulation,
which is a consequence of the rigidity of the contacts and the fragility of the hand, has been
recently challenged by the introduction of adaptable, underactuated, and/or soft hands. Devices
such as the underactuated Robotiq Three-Finger Gripper (98), RBO Hand and RBO Hand 2 (26,
128), iHY Hand (135), and Pisa/IIT SoftHand (22) are designed to be much simpler and much
more robust with respect to the entire interaction process. This approach allows these hands to
be used in more daring interactions with the objects in an environment—using their full surface
for enveloping grasps and exploiting objects and environmental constraints to functionally shape
the hand, going beyond its nominal kinematic limits by exploiting structural softness (as discussed
in, e.g., 244).
Figure 13 illustrates the differences between the rigid and soft approaches to manipulation.
In the classical paradigm (Figure 13a), the planner searches for suitable points on the object that
generate a nominal grasp of good quality and for trajectories that can bring the fingertips there
while avoiding contact with the environment. In the corresponding example shown in Figure 13b,
in order to grasp the cup while avoiding the wall on the left, the planner must find a path in a
narrow passage. Soft manipulation (Figure 13c) subverts this scheme. In the example shown in
Figure 13d, hand–object, object–environment, and hand–environment contacts are not avoided;
rather, they are sought after and exploited to shape the hand itself around the object. The set of
all possible physical interactions among the hand, the object, and the environment, which define
the hand–object functional interaction, is sometimes referred to as the set of enabling constraints.

18 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

a Rigid manipulation paradigm b Rigid manipulation example

Contacts

Timid Object
hand

s Re
cle ac t
sta ion
Ob s
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

Environment

c Soft manipulation paradigm d Soft manipulation example

Contacts

Daring Object
hand
Complex
interactions
ng ts Re
ivi ac t
Dr strain ion
n s
co

Environment
Enabling
constraints
Figure 13
Paradigm shift in manipulation, from (a,b) rigid manipulation to (c,d) soft manipulation. Primary colors
identify the scenario’s main actors: red for the robotic hand, blue for the environment, and green for the
target object. Secondary colors codify simple interactions between the actors: yellow for hand–object, cyan
for object–environment, and purple for environment–hand. Complex interactions that involve all three
actors simultaneously are shown in white. Figure adapted from Reference 243 with permission.

The analysis of such possibilities constitutes a new challenge for existing grasping algorithms.
Adaptation to entirely or partially unknown scenes remains difficult, and only a few approaches
have been investigated so far.

5.2. Sensorization
For many years, one of the main challenges in the development of artificial hands related to adding
different kinds of sensors, such as joint torque measurement and finger posture reconstruction.
The novel approaches proposed in the last three decades require fewer sensors and, at least in some
fields, reduce the need for precision and accuracy in the sensorization. A new set of minimalist
sensor systems (as in 245–247) can minimize the amount of sensorization and help to further
simplify hand designs.

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 19

AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

5.3. Robustness
One of the most evident benefits of the new design trends toward simplified soft hands is the
unprecedented level of robustness. Such robustness will bring new attention to some aspects that
will require consideration: the need for a new set of benchmarks and evaluation criteria that can
guide the development of new hands and the need to maintain focus on systems that can benefit
from this new capability. For instance, because artificial hands can now be used in the real world,
the designs must be reliable and effective, and parameters like material life and fatigue need to be
assessed quantitatively. A set of physical tests was presented by Falco et al. (248), and examples of
proposed solutions or achievement were described by Grebenstein et al. (249) for the DLR Hand
and by Zisimatos et al. (250) for the Open Bionics Hand.
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

5.4. Tactile Exploration

Besides vision-based methods, hand compliance offers the real possibility of using tactile explo-
ration for 3-D reconstruction of unknown environments and objects. Tactile sensing can solve
some severe limitations of computer vision, such as sensitivity to illumination and limited per-
spective. As an example, a combined procedure based on dynamic potential fields that aims to
reconstruct 3-D object models, which are then used for grasp planning and execution, was pre-
sented by Bierbaum et al. (251) and subsequently extended by Herzog et al. (252).

5.5. Costs
Reduced complexity and the possibility of using new fabrication technologies are opening the way
to reduced costs for the production of artificial hands. Moreover, the design of robust and com-
pliant joints comes with an interesting side effect: the possibility of using materials with lower
mechanical strength and precision. The softness of the joints and actuation enables the use of
rubber and plastic materials, allowing for fabrication processes that can reduce costs for commer-
cial devices (e.g., by using injection molding) and for advancement in research (e.g., by using rapid
prototyping techniques).

6. CONCLUSION
The main objective of this article was to analyze the state of the art of artificial hands as well as new
trends that are emerging in the field. We reviewed and grouped the most important application
domains of robotic hands, extracting the set of requirements that ultimately led to the development
of soft-robotics solutions and the simplification of actuation arrangements. We also provided a
comprehensive analysis of the novel enabling technologies for the design of joints, transmissions,
and actuators that enabled these two novel trends. We limited our discussion to these aspects
while neglecting others (such as finger kinematics and sensors), aiming to emphasize the effect
of these two new approaches over other design parameters that, at least in our opinion, have had
a minor impact. We concluded with an in-depth discussion of the advantages of soft and simple
hand designs and by reporting the most important new perspectives generated by those designs
and their interaction with other aspects of hand design and robotics in general.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Some of the research described in this article has received funding from the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreements 688857 (SoftPro)
and 645599 (SOMA). The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the authors. The

20 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

European Commission or its services cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of
the information it contains.

LITERATURE CITED
1. Alpenfels EJ. 1955. The anthropology and social significance of the human hand. Artif. Limbs 2:4–21
2. Zuo KJ, Olson JL. 2014. The evolution of functional hand replacement: from iron prostheses to hand
transplantation. Plast. Surg. 22:44–51
3. Bicchi A. 2000. Hands for dexterous manipulation and robust grasping: a difficult road toward simplicity.
IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 16:652–62
4. Biagiotti L, Lotti F, Melchiorri C, Vassura G. 2004. How far is the human hand? A review on anthropomor-
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

phic robotic end-effectors. Rev. Pap., Univ. Bologna, Bologna, Italy. [Link]
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

data/deis-lar-publications/[Link]
5. Jacobsen S, Iversen E, Knutti D, Johnson R, Biggers K. 1986. Design of the Utah/M.I.T. dextrous hand.
In 1986 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3, pp. 1520–32. New York: IEEE
6. Lovchik C, Diftler MA. 1999. The Robonaut hand: a dexterous robot hand for space. In 1999 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 2, pp. 907–12. New York: IEEE
7. Butterfaß J, Grebenstein M, Liu H, Hirzinger G. 2001. DLR-Hand II: next generation of a dextrous
robot hand. In 2001 ICRA: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 1, pp. 109–14.
New York: IEEE
8. Kawasaki H, Komatsu T, Uchiyama K. 2002. Dexterous anthropomorphic robot hand with distributed
tactile sensor: Gifu Hand II. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 7:296–303
9. Shadow Robot Co. 2018. Shadow Dexterous Hand. Shadow Robot Company. [Link]
com/products/dexterous-hand
10. Gama Melo EN, Aviles Sanchez OF, Amaya Hurtado D. 2014. Anthropomorphic robotic hands: a re-
view. Ing. Desarro. 32:279–313
11. Tai K, El-Sayed AR, Shahriari M, Biglarbegian M, Mahmud S. 2016. State of the art robotic grippers
and applications. Robotics 5:11
12. Mattar E. 2013. A survey of bio-inspired robotics hands implementation: new directions in dexterous
manipulation. Robot. Auton. Syst. 61:517–44
13. Kirori AK, Dua RL. 2012. Review of control mechanism of multi-fingered robotic arm and proposal of
new design. IOSR J. Eng. 2:1251–54
14. Belter JT, Segil JL, SM B. 2013. Mechanical design and performance specifications of anthropomorphic
prosthetic hands: a review. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 50:599–618
15. Vujaklija I, Farina D, Aszmann O. 2016. New developments in prosthetic arm systems. Orthop. Res. Rev
8:31–39
16. Correll N, Bekris KE, Berenson D, Brock O, Causo A, et al. 2018. Analysis and observations from the
first Amazon Picking Challenge. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 15:172–88
17. Eppner C, Höfer S, Jonschkowski R, Martín-Martín R, Sieverling A, et al. 2016. Lessons from the Ama-
zon Picking Challenge: four aspects of building robotic systems. In Robotics: Science and Systems XII, ed.
D Hsu, N Amato, S Berman, S Jacobs, chap. 36. N.p.: Robot. Sci. Syst. Found.
18. Pratt G, Manzo J. 2013. The DARPA Robotics Challenge. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 20:10–12
19. Riener R. 2016. The Cybathlon promotes the development of assistive technology for people with phys-
ical disabilities. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 13:49
20. IEEE Tech. Comm. Robot. Hand Grasping Manip. 2016. Robotic Grasping and Manipulation Com-
petition. IEEE Technical Committee on Robotic Hand Grasping and Manipulation. [Link]
org/activities/competition_iros2016
21. Dipo Power. 2018. Dipo Power website. [Link]
22. Catalano MG, Grioli G, Farnioli E, Serio A, Piazza C, Bicchi A. 2014. Adaptive synergies for the design
and control of the Pisa/IIT SoftHand. Int. J. Robot. Res. 33:768–82
23. Kontoudis GP, Liarokapis MV, Zisimatos AG, Mavrogiannis CI, Kyriakopoulos KJ. 2015. Open-
source, anthropomorphic, underactuated robot hands with a selectively lockable differential mechanism:

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 21

AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

towards affordable prostheses. In 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
(IROS), pp. 5857–62. New York: IEEE
24. Smit G, Plettenburg DH, van der Helm FC. 2015. The lightweight Delft Cylinder Hand: first multi-
articulating hand that meets the basic user requirements. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 23:431–40
25. Belter JT, Dollar AM, Leddy M. 2016. Multi-grasp prosthetic hand. US Patent Appl. 15/240819
26. Deimel R, Brock O. 2016. A novel type of compliant and underactuated robotic hand for dexterous
grasping. Int. J. Robot. Res. 35:161–85
27. Pons J, Ceres R, Pfeiffer F. 1999. Multifingered dextrous robotics hand design and control: a review.
Robotica 17:661–74
28. Saudabayev A, Varol HA. 2015. Sensors for robotic hands: a survey of state of the art. IEEE Access 3:1765–
82
29. Dorrance DW. 1912. Artificial hand. US Patent 1,042,413
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

30. Schlesinger G. 1919. Der mechanische Aufbau der künstlichen Glieder. In Ersatzglieder und Arbeit-
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

shilfen für Kriegsbeschädigte und Unfallverletzte, ed. M Borchardt, K Hartmann, H Leymann, R Radike,
G Schlesinger, H Schwiening, pp. 321–661. Berlin: Springer
31. Pringle A. 1919. Artificial hand. US Patent 1,324,564
32. Becker Mech. Hand Co. 2018. Products. Becker Mechanical Hand Company. [Link]
[Link]/products
33. Reiter R. 1948. Eine neue Electrokunsthand. Grenzgebiete Med. 4:133–35
34. Dale FL. 1948. Artificial hand. US Patent 2,457,305
35. Tomovic R, Boni G. 1962. An adaptive artificial hand. IRE Trans. Autom. Control 7:3–10
36. Sherman ED. 1964. A Russian bioelectric-controlled prosthesis: report of a research team from the
Rehabilitation Institute of Montreal. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 91:1268–70
37. Rakić M. 1964. An automatic hand prosthesis. Med. Electron. Biol. Eng. 2:47–55
38. Moiseevich B, Pinkhasovich P, Savelievich Y. 1970. Artificial hand for prostheses with bioelectrical control.
US Patent 3,521,303
39. Ottobock. 2018. Solution overview: upper limb prosthetics. Ottobock. [Link]
com/prosthetics/upper-limb-prosthetics/solution-overview/
40. Crossley FE, Umholtz F. 1977. Design for a three-fingered hand. Mech. Mach. Theory 12:85–93
41. Hirose S, Umetani Y. 1978. The development of soft gripper for the versatile robot hand. Mech. Mach.
Theory 13:351–59
42. TRS. 2018. About TRS. TRS. [Link]
43. Okada T. 1982. Computer control of multijointed finger system for precise object-handling. IEEE Trans.
Syst. Man Cybernet. 12:289–99
44. Rovetta A, Franchetti I, Vicentini P. 1982. Multi-purpose mechanical hand. US Patent 4,351,553
45. Salisbury JK, Craig JJ. 1982. Articulated hands: force control and kinematic issues. Int. J. Robot. Res.
1:4–17
46. SCHUNK. 1983. Milestones of innovation. SCHUNK. [Link]
schunk/innovation-milestones
47. Hanafusa H, Kobayashi H, Terasaki N. 1983. Fine control of the object with articulated multi-finger
robot hands. In 1983 International Conference on Advanced Robotics, pp. 245–52. Tokyo: Jpn. Ind. Robot
Assoc.
48. Kim J, Blythe D, Penny D, Goldenberg A. 1987. Computer architecture and low level control of the
PUMA/RAL hand system: work in progress. In 1987 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au-
tomation, Vol. 4, pp. 1590–94. New York: IEEE
49. Ulrich N, Paul R, Bajcsy R. 1988. A medium-complexity compliant end effector. In 1988 IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 434–36. New York: IEEE
50. Rakić M. 1989. Multifingered robot hand with selfadaptability. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 5:269–76
51. Vanbrussel H, Santoso B, Reynaerts D. 1989. Design and control of a multi-fingered robot hand pro-
vided with tactile feedback. In Proceedings of the NASA Conference on Space Telerobotics, Vol. 3, pp. 89–101.
Washington, DC: NASA

22 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

52. Paetsch W, Kaneko M. 1990. A three fingered, multijointed gripper for experimental use. In IEEE
International Workshop on Intelligent Robots and Systems: Towards a New Frontier of Applications, Vol. 2,
pp. 853–58. New York: IEEE
53. Suzumori K, Iikura S, Tanaka H. 1991. Development of flexible microactuator and its applications to
robotic mechanisms. In 1991 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1622–27. New
York: IEEE
54. Jau BM. 1992. Man-equivalent telepresence through four fingered human-like hand system. In 1992
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 843–48. New York: IEEE
55. Melchiorri C, Vassura G. 1992. Mechanical and control features of the University of Bologna hand
version 2. In Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
Vol. 1, pp. 187–93. New York: IEEE
56. Kyberd P, Tregidgo R, Sachetti R, Schmidl H, Snaith M, et al. 1993. The Marcus intelligent hand pros-
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

thesis. In Rehabilitation Technology: Strategies for the European Union, ed. E Ballabio, I Palencia-Porrero,
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

R Puig de la Bellacasa, pp. 98–102. Amsterdam: IOS

57. Okuno R, Yoshida M, Akazawa K. 1996. Development of biomimetic prosthetic hand controlled by
electromyogram. In 1996 4th International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, Vol. 1, pp. 103–8. New
York: IEEE
58. Crisman JD, Kanojia C, Zeid I. 1996. Graspar: a flexible, easily controllable robotic hand. IEEE Robot.
Autom. Mag. 3:32–38
59. Lane DM, Davies JBC, Casalino G, Bartolini G, Cannata G, et al. 1997. AMADEUS: advanced manip-
ulation for deep underwater sampling. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 4:34–45
60. Butterfass J, Hirzinger G, Knoch S, Liu H. 1998. DLR’s multisensory articulated hand. I. Hard- and
software architecture. In 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3, pp. 2081–
86. New York: IEEE
61. Caffaz A, Cannata G. 1998. The design and development of the DIST-hand dextrous gripper. In 1998
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3, pp. 2075–80. New York: IEEE
62. Lin LR, Huang HP. 1998. NTU hand: a new design of dexterous hands. ASME J. Mech. Des. 120:282–92
63. Kawasaki H. 1999. Mechanism design of anthropomorphic robot hand: Gifu Hand I. J. Robot. Mechatron.
11:269–73
64. Fukaya N, Toyama S, Asfour T, Dillmann R. 2000. Design of the TUAT/Karlsruhe humanoid hand. In
2000 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 3, pp. 1754–59. New York:
IEEE
65. Light C, Chappell P. 2000. Development of a lightweight and adaptable multiple-axis hand prosthesis.
Med. Eng. Phys. 22:679–84
66. Kolluru R, Valavanis KP, Smith S, Tsourveloudis N. 2000. Design fundamentals of a reconfigurable
robotic gripper system. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. A 30:181–87
67. Keymeulen D, Assad C. 2001. Investigation of the Harada robot hand for space. Paper presented at the 2nd
IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Tokyo, Nov. 22–24
68. Gazeau JP, Zehloul S, Arsicault M, Lallemand JP. 2001. The LMS hand: force and position controls
in the aim of the fine manipulation of objects. In 2001 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, Vol. 3, pp. 2642–48. New York: IEEE
69. Schulz S, Pylatiuk C, Bretthauer G. 2001. A new ultralight anthropomorphic hand. In 2001 IEEE Inter-
national Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3, pp. 2437–41. New York: IEEE
70. Zhang Y, Han Z, Zhang H, Shang X, Wang T, et al. 2001. Design and control of the BUAA four-fingered
hand. In 2001 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3, pp. 2517–22. New York:
IEEE
71. Dechev N, Cleghorn W, Naumann S. 2001. Multiple finger, passive adaptive grasp prosthetic hand.
Mech. Mach. Theory 36:1157–73
72. Laliberté T, Birglen L, Gosselin C. 2002. Underactuation in robotic grasping hands. Mach. Intell. Robot.
Control 4:1–11

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 23

AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

73. Massa B, Roccella S, Carrozza MC, Dario P. 2002. Design and development of an underactuated pros-
thetic hand. In 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 4, pp. 3374–79. New
York: IEEE
74. Yamano I, Takemura K, Maeno T. 2003. Development of a robot finger for five-fingered hand using
ultrasonic motors. In 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 3,
pp. 2648–53. New York: IEEE
75. Gao X, Jin M, Jiang L, Xie Z, He P, et al. 2003. The HIT/DLR dexterous hand: work in progress. In
2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3, pp. 3164–68. New York: IEEE
76. Namiki A, Imai Y, Ishikawa M, Kaneko M. 2003. Development of a high-speed multifingered hand
system and its application to catching. In 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, Vol. 3, pp. 2666–71. New York: IEEE
77. Pons J, Rocon E, Ceres R, Reynaerts D, Saro B, et al. 2004. The MANUS-HAND dextrous robotics
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

upper limb prosthesis: mechanical and manipulation aspects. Auton. Robots 16:143–63
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

78. Carrozza MC, Suppo C, Sebastiani F, Massa B, Vecchi F, et al. 2004. The SPRING hand: development
of a self-adaptive prosthesis for restoring natural grasping. Auton. Robots 16:125–41
79. Yokoi H, Arieta AH, Katoh R, Yu W, Watanabe I, Maruishi M. 2004. Mutual adaptation in a prosthetics
application. In Embodied Artificial Intelligence, ed. F Iida, R Pfeifer, L Steels, Y Kuniyoshi, pp. 146–59.
Berlin: Springer
80. Boblan I, Bannasch R, Schwenk H, Prietzel F, Miertsch L, Schulz A. 2004. A human-like robot hand
and arm with fluidic muscles: biologically inspired construction and functionality. In Embodied Artificial
Intelligence, ed. F Iida, R Pfeifer, L Steels, Y Kuniyoshi, pp. 160–79. Berlin: Springer
81. Matsuda H. 2004. Multi-finger hand device. EP Patent Appl. EP20020758875
82. Yang J, Abdel-Malek K, Pitarch EP. 2004. Design and analysis of a cable actuated hand prosthesis. In
ASME 2004 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in En-
gineering Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 273–80. New York: Am. Soc. Mech. Eng.
83. Roccella S, Carrozza MC, Cappiello G, Dario P, Cabibihan JJ, et al. 2004. Design, fabrication and pre-
liminary results of a novel anthropomorphic hand for humanoid robotics: RCH-1. In 2004 IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 1, pp. 266–71. New York: IEEE
84. Schulz S, Pylatiuk C, Kargov A, Oberle R, Bretthauer G. 2004. Progress in the development of an-
thropomorphic fluidic hands for a humanoid robot. In 2004 4th IEEE/RAS International Conference on
Humanoid Robots, Vol. 2, pp. 566–75. New York: IEEE
85. Schulz S, Pylatiuk C, Reischl M, Martin J, Mikut R, Bretthauer G. 2005. A hydraulically driven multi-
functional prosthetic hand. Robotica 23:293–99
86. Ueda J, Ishida Y, Kondo M, Ogasawara T. 2005. Development of the NAIST-Hand with vision-based
tactile fingertip sensor. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
pp. 2332–37. New York: IEEE
87. Kargov A, Asfour T, Pylatiuk C, Oberle R, Klosek H, et al. 2005. Development of an anthropomorphic
hand for a mobile assistive robot. In 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 182–86.
New York: IEEE
88. Carrozza MC, Cappiello G, Stellin G, Zaccone F, Vecchi F, et al. 2005. A cosmetic prosthetic hand
with tendon driven under-actuated mechanism and compliant joints: ongoing research and preliminary
results. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 2661–66.
New York: IEEE
89. Lotti F, Tiezzi P, Vassura G, Biagiotti L, Palli G, Melchiorri C. 2005. Development of UB Hand 3: early
results. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 4488–93.
New York: IEEE
90. Choi B, Lee S, Choi HR, Kang S. 2006. Development of anthropomorphic robot hand with tactile
sensor: SKKU Hand II. In 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
pp. 3779–84. New York: IEEE
91. Maeno T, Hino T. 2006. Miniature five-fingered robot hand driven by shape memory alloy actuators.
In Proceedings of the 12th IASTED International Conference on Robotics and Applications, ed. MH Hamza,
pp. 174–79. Calgary, Can.: ACTA Press

24 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

92. Zhao D, Jiang L, Huang H, Jin M, Cai H, Liu H. 2006. Development of a multi-DOF anthropomorphic
prosthetic hand. In 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, pp. 878–83. New York:
IEEE
93. Touch Bionics. 2018. History. Touch Bionics. [Link]
94. Elumotion. 2018. Elumotion website. [Link]
95. Brown CY, Asada HH. 2007. Inter-finger coordination and postural synergies in robot hands via me-
chanical implementation of principal components analysis. In 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2877–82. New York: IEEE
96. Zollo L, Roccella S, Guglielmelli E, Carrozza MC, Dario P. 2007. Biomechatronic design and control of
an anthropomorphic artificial hand for prosthetic and robotic applications. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mecha-
tron. 12:418–29
97. Mouri T, Kawasaki H. 2007. A novel anthropomorphic robot hand and its master slave system. In Hu-
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

manoid Robots, Human-Like Machines, ed. M Hackel, pp. 29–42. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

98. Robotiq. 2008. Robotiq 3-Finger Adaptive Robot Gripper Instruction Manual. Lévis, Can.: Robotiq.
[Link]
99. Takamuku S, Fukuda A, Hosoda K. 2008. Repetitive grasping with anthropomorphic skin-covered hand
enables robust haptic recognition. In 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, pp. 3212–17. New York: IEEE
100. Gaiser I, Schulz S, Kargov A, Klosek H, Bierbaum A, et al. 2008. A new anthropomorphic robotic hand.
In 8th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, pp. 418–22. New York: IEEE
101. Gosselin C, Pelletier F, Laliberte T. 2008. An anthropomorphic underactuated robotic hand with 15
dofs and a single actuator. In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 749–54.
New York: IEEE
102. Controzzi M, Cipriani C, Carrozza MC. 2008. Mechatronic design of a transradial cybernetic hand. In
2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 576–81. New York: IEEE
103. Liu H, Wu K, Meusel P, Seitz N, Hirzinger G, et al. 2008. Multisensory five-finger dexterous hand: the
DLR/HIT Hand II. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3692–97.
New York: IEEE
104. Hong D, Smith C, McCraw A, Guevara C, Cothern K. 2009. RAPHaEL: Robotic Air-Powered Hand with
Elastic Ligaments. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Am-
bient Intelligence, Gwangju, South Korea, Oct. 29–31
105. Kurita Y, Ono Y, Ikeda A, Ogasawara T. 2009. NAIST Hand 2: human-sized anthropomorphic robot
hand with detachable mechanism at the wrist. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots
and Systems, pp. 2271–76. New York: IEEE
106. Dalley SA, Wiste TE, Withrow TJ, Goldfarb M. 2009. Design of a multifunctional anthropomorphic
prosthetic hand with extrinsic actuation. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 14:699–706
107. Honda Y, Miyazaki F, Nishikawa A. 2010. Control of pneumatic five-fingered robot hand using antag-
onistic muscle ratio and antagonistic muscle activity. In 2010 3rd IEEE RAS and EMBS International
Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, pp. 337–42. New York: IEEE
108. Brown E, Rodenberg N, Amend J, Mozeika A, Steltz E, et al. 2010. Universal robotic gripper based on
the jamming of granular material. PNAS 107:18809–14
109. Dollar AM, Howe RD. 2010. The highly adaptive SDM hand: design and performance evaluation. Int.
J. Robot. Res. 29:585–97
110. Prensilia. 2010. IH1 Azzurra series. Data Sheet, Prensilia, Pontedera, Italy. [Link]
[Link]/pdfs/H1_Azzurra_Hand.pdf
111. Schmitz A, Pattacini U, Nori F, Natale L, Metta G, Sandini G. 2010. Design, realization and sensoriza-
tion of the dexterous iCub hand. In 2010 10th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots,
pp. 186–91. New York: IEEE
112. Grebenstein M, Chalon M, Hirzinger G, Siegwart R. 2010. Antagonistically driven finger design for the
anthropomorphic DLR Hand Arm System. In 2010 10th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid
Robots, pp. 609–16. New York: IEEE
113. PAL Robot. 2018. Products. PAL Robotics. [Link]

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 25

AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

114. Kaneko K, Kanehiro F, Morisawa M, Tsuji T, Miura K, et al. 2011. Hardware improvement of cybernetic
human HRP-4C for entertainment use. In 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots
and Systems, pp. 4392–99. New York: IEEE
115. Ottobock. 2011. Michelangelo prosthetic hand. Ottobock. [Link]
upper-limb-prosthetics/solution-overview/michelangelo-prosthetic-hand/
116. Losier Y, Clawson A, Wilson A, Scheme E, Englehart K, et al. 2011. An overview of the UNB hand sys-
tem. In MEC ’11: Raising the Standard: University of New Brunswick’s International Conference on Advanced
Limb Prosthetics, pp. 251–54. Fredericton, Can.: Univ. N.B.
117. Medynski C, Rattray B. 2011. BeBionic prosthetic design. In MEC ’11: Raising the Standard: University of
New Brunswick’s International Conference on Advanced Limb Prosthetics, pp. 279–82. Fredericton, Can.: Univ.
N.B.
118. Chalon M, Wedler A, Baumann A, Bertleff W, Beyer A, et al. 2011. Dexhand: a space qualified multi-
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

fingered robotic hand. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 2204–10.
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

New York: IEEE

119. Altobelli DE, Coulter S, Perry NC. 2011. Design considerations in upper extremity prostheses. In
MEC ’11: Raising the Standard: University of New Brunswick’s International Conference on Advanced Limb
Prosthetics, pp. 255–58. Fredericton, Can.: Univ. N.B.
120. Thayer N, Priya S. 2011. Design and implementation of a dexterous anthropomorphic robotic typing
(DART) hand. Smart Mater. Struct. 20:035010
121. Yamaguchi A, Takemura K, Yokota S, Edamura K. 2011. A robot hand using electro-conjugate fluid.
Sens. Actuators A 170:139–46
122. Tincani V, Catalano MG, Farnioli E, Garabini M, Grioli G, et al. 2012. Velvet Fingers: a dexterous
gripper with active surfaces. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
pp. 1257–63. New York: IEEE
123. ITK. 2011. The “Handroid”. ITK. [Link]
124. Wonik Robot. 2018. History. Wonik Robotics. [Link]
125. Baril M, Laliberté T, Gosselin C, Routhier F. 2013. On the design of a mechanically programmable
underactuated anthropomorphic prosthetic gripper. J. Mech. Des. 135:121008
126. Sandia Natl. Lab. 2012. The Sandia Hand. Handout, Sandia Natl. Lab., Albuquerque, NM.
[Link]
127. Grioli G, Catalano M, Silvestro E, Tono S, Bicchi A. 2012. Adaptive synergies: an approach to the de-
sign of under-actuated robotic hands. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, pp. 1251–56. New York: IEEE
128. Deimel R, Brock O. 2013. A compliant hand based on a novel pneumatic actuator. In 2013 IEEE Inter-
national Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 2047–53. New York: IEEE
129. Ueno S, Takemura K, Yokota S, Edamura K. 2013. Micro flexible robot hand using electro-conjugate
fluid. In Micro/Nano Materials, Devices, and Applications, ed. J Friend, HH Tan, chap. 89234U. Proc. SPIE
Vol. 8923. Bellingham, WA: Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng.
130. Robotiq. 2015. Robotiq product list. Prod. List, Robotiq, Lévis, Can. [Link]
com/sites/default/files/data-sheets/[Link]
131. Melchiorri C, Palli G, Berselli G, Vassura G. 2013. Development of the UB Hand IV: overview of design
solutions and enabling technologies. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 20:72–81
132. Vincent Syst. 2018. VINCENTevolution 3. Vincent Systems. [Link]
vincent-evolution-3
133. Deshpande AD, Xu Z, Weghe MJV, Brown BH, Ko J, et al. 2013. Mechanisms of the anatomically
correct testbed hand. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 18:238–50
134. Tavakoli M, de Almeida AT. 2014. Adaptive under-actuated anthropomorphic hand: ISR-SoftHand. In
2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1629–34. New York: IEEE
135. Odhner LU, Jentoft LP, Claffee MR, Corson N, Tenzer Y, et al. 2014. A compliant, underactuated hand
for robust manipulation. Int. J. Robot. Res. 33:736–52

26 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

136. Sensinger J, Lipsey J, Sharkey T, Thomas A, Miller L, et al. 2014. Initial experiences with the RIC arm.
In MEC ’14: Redefining the Norm: University of New Brunswick’s Myoelectric Controls/Powered Prosthetics
Symposium, pp. 223–25. Fredericton, Can.: Univ. N.B.
137. Stuart H, Wang S, Gardineer B, Christensen DL, Aukes DM, Cutkosky MR. 2014. A compliant un-
deractuated hand with suction flow for underwater mobile manipulation. In 2014 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 6691–97. New York: IEEE
138. Ciocarlie M, Hicks FM, Holmberg R, Hawke J, Schlicht M, et al. 2014. The Velo gripper: a versatile
single-actuator design for enveloping, parallel and fingertip grasps. Int. J. Robot. Res. 33:753–67
139. Hassan T, Manti M, Passetti G, d’Elia N, Cianchetti M, Laschi C. 2015. Design and development of
a bio-inspired, under-actuated soft gripper. In 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE
Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 3619–22. New York: IEEE
140. Della Santina C, Grioli G, Catalano M, Brando A, Bicchi A. 2015. Dexterity augmentation on a syn-
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

ergistic hand: the Pisa/IIT SoftHand+. In 2015 IEEE-RAS 15th International Conference on Humanoid
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

Robots, pp. 497–503. New York: IEEE

141. Chen W, Xiong C, Yue S. 2015. Mechanical implementation of kinematic synergy for continual grasping
generation of anthropomorphic hand. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 20:1249–63
142. Radford NA, Strawser P, Hambuchen K, Mehling JS, Verdeyen WK, et al. 2015. Valkyrie: NASA’s first
bipedal humanoid robot. J. Field Robot. 32:397–419
143. Simone F, York A, Seelecke S. 2015. Design and fabrication of a three-finger prosthetic hand using
SMA muscle wires. In Bioinspiration, Biomimetics, and Bioreplication 2015, ed. A Lakhtakia, M Knez, RJ
Martín-Palma, chap. 94290T. Proc. SPIE Vol. 9429. Bellingham, WA: Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng.
144. Ceccarelli M, Zottola M. 2017. Design and simulation of an underactuated finger mechanism for LARM
hand. Robotica 35:483–97
145. Homberg BS, Katzschmann RK, Dogar MR, Rus D. 2015. Haptic identification of objects using a mod-
ular soft robotic gripper. In 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
pp. 1698–705. New York: IEEE
146. van der Riet D, Stopforth R, Bright G, Diegel O. 2015. The low cost design of a 3D printed multi-
fingered myoelectric prosthetic hand. In Mechatronics: Principles, Technologies and Applications, ed. E Brusa,
pp. 85–117. New York: Nova Sci.
147. Wu FY, Asada HH. 2015. “Hold-and-manipulate” with a single hand being assisted by wearable extra
fingers. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 6205–12. New York: IEEE
148. Niiyama R, Sun X, Sung C, An B, Rus D, Kim S. 2015. Pouch motors: printable soft actuators integrated
with computational design. Soft Robot. 2:59–70
149. Tavakoli M, Lopes P, Lourenço J, Rocha RP, Giliberto L, et al. 2017. Autonomous selection of closing
posture of a robotic hand through embodied soft matter capacitive sensors. IEEE Sens. J. 17:5669–77
150. Hawkes EW, Christensen DL, Han AK, Jiang H, Cutkosky MR. 2015. Grasping without squeezing:
shear adhesion gripper with fibrillar thin film. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au-
tomation, pp. 2305–12. New York: IEEE
151. Franchi G, ten Pas A, Platt R, Panzieri S. 2015. The Baxter Easyhand: a robot hand that costs $150 US
in parts. In 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2917–22. New
York: IEEE
152. Xu Z, Todorov E. 2016. Design of a highly biomimetic anthropomorphic robotic hand towards artificial
limb regeneration. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3485–92. New
York: IEEE
153. Cerruti G, Chablat D, Gouaillier D, Sakka S. 2016. Alpha: a hybrid self-adaptable hand for a social
humanoid robot. In 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 900–6.
New York: IEEE
154. Piazza C, Della Santina C, Catalano M, Grioli G, Garabini M, Bicchi A. 2016. SoftHand Pro-D: match-
ing dynamic content of natural user commands with hand embodiment for enhanced prosthesis control.
In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3516–23. New York: IEEE
155. Backus SB, Dollar AM. 2016. An adaptive three-fingered prismatic gripper with passive rotational joints.
IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 1:668–75

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 27

AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

156. Godfrey SB, Bianchi M, Zhao K, Catalano MG, Breighner R, et al. 2016. The SoftHand Pro: transla-
tion from robotic hand to prosthetic prototype. In Converging Clinical and Engineering Research on Neu-
rorehabilitation II: Biosystems and Biorobotics, ed. J Ibáñez, J Gonzàlez-Vargas, J Azorìn, M Akay, J Pons,
pp. 469–73. Cham, Switz.: Springer
157. Galloway KC, Becker KP, Phillips B, Kirby J, Licht S, et al. 2016. Soft robotic grippers for biological
sampling on deep reefs. Soft Robot. 3:23–33
158. Open Bionics. 2016. ADA V1.1. Data Sheet, Open Bionics, Bristol, UK. [Link]
com/s/Ada_v1_1_Datasheet.pdf
159. Zhao H, O’Brien K, Li S, Shepherd RF. 2016. Optoelectronically innervated soft prosthetic hand via
stretchable optical waveguides. Sci. Robot. 1:eaai7529
160. Kim HI, Han MW, Song SH, Ahn SH. 2016. Soft morphing hand driven by SMA tendon wire. Composites
B 105:138–48
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

161. Atasoy A, Kaya E, Toptas E, Kuchimov S, Kaplanoglu E, Ozkan M. 2016. 24 DOF EMG controlled
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

hybrid actuated prosthetic hand. In 2016 IEEE 38th Annual International Conference of the Engineering in
Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 5059–62. New York: IEEE
162. She Y, Chen J, Shi H, Su HJ. 2016. Modeling and validation of a novel bending actuator for soft robotics
applications. Soft Robot. 3:71–81
163. Shintake J, Rosset S, Schubert B, Floreano D, Shea H. 2016. Versatile soft grippers with intrinsic elec-
troadhesion based on multifunctional polymer actuators. Adv. Mater. 28:231–38
164. Wise M, Ferguson M, King D, Diehr E, Dymesich D. 2016. Fetch and Freight: standard platforms for service
robot applications. Paper presented at the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
New York, July 9–15
165. Wang Z, Torigoe Y, Hirai S. 2017. A prestressed soft gripper: design, modeling, fabrication, and tests
for food handling. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2:1909–16
166. Zhou J, Chen S, Wang Z. 2017. A soft-robotic gripper with enhanced object adaptation and grasping
reliability. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2:2287–93
167. Mottard A, Laliberté T, Gosselin C. 2017. Underactuated tendon-driven robotic/prosthetic hands: de-
sign issues. In Robotics: Science and Systems XIII, ed. N Amato, S Srinivasa, N Ayanian, S Kuindersma,
chap. 19. N.p.: Robot. Sci. Syst. Found.
168. Controzzi M, Clemente F, Barone D, Ghionzoli A, Cipriani C. 2017. The SSSA-MyHand: a dexterous
lightweight myoelectric hand prosthesis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25:459–68
169. Zappatore GA, Reina G, Messina A. 2017. Adam’s hand: an underactuated robotic end-effector. In Ad-
vances in Italian Mechanism Science, ed. G Boschetti, A Gasparetto, pp. 239–46. Cham, Switz.: Springer
170. Amend J, Lipson H. 2017. The JamHand: dexterous manipulation with minimal actuation. Soft Robot.
4:70–80
171. Lee DH, Park JH, Park SW, Baeg MH, Bae JH. 2017. KITECH-Hand: a highly dexterous and modu-
larized robotic hand. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 22:876–87
172. Gopura R, Bandara D, Gunasekera N, Hapuarachchi V, Ariyarathna B. 2017. A prosthetic hand with
self-adaptive fingers. In 2017 3rd International Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics, pp. 269–74.
New York: IEEE
173. Li Y, Chen Y, Yang Y, Wei Y. 2017. Passive particle jamming and its stiffening of soft robotic grippers.
IEEE Trans. Robot. 33:446–55
174. Tian M, Xiao Y, Wang X, Chen J, Zhao W. 2017. Design and experimental research of pneumatic soft
humanoid robot hand. In Robot Intelligence Technology and Applications 4, ed. JH Kim, F Karray, J Jo,
P Sincak, H Myung, pp. 469–78. Cham, Switz.: Springer
175. Mio R, Villegas B, Ccorimanya L, Flores KM, Salazar G, Elías D. 2017. Development and assessment of a
powered 3D-printed prosthetic hand for transmetacarpal amputees. In 2017 3rd International Conference
on Control, Automation and Robotics, pp. 85–90. New York: IEEE
176. Wen L, Li Y, Cong M, Lang H, Du Y. 2017. Design and optimization of a tendon-driven robotic hand.
In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, pp. 767–72. New York: IEEE
177. Wiste T, Goldfarb M. 2017. Design of a simplified compliant anthropomorphic robot hand. In 2017
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3433–38. New York: IEEE

28 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

178. Mishra AK, Del Dottore E, Sadeghi A, Mondini A, Mazzolai B. 2017. SIMBA: tendon-driven modular
continuum arm with soft reconfigurable gripper. Front. Robot. AI 4:4
179. Nishimura T, Mizushima K, Suzuki Y, Tsuji T, Watanabe T. 2017. Variable-grasping-mode underactu-
ated soft gripper with environmental contact-based operation. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2:1164–71
180. Hao Y, Wang T, Ren Z, Gong Z, Wang H, et al. 2017. Modeling and experiments of a soft
robotic gripper in amphibious environments. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 14(4). [Link]
1729881417724191
181. Wu L, de Andrade MJ, Saharan LK, Rome RS, Baughman RH, Tadesse Y. 2017. Compact and low-cost
humanoid hand powered by nylon artificial muscles. Bioinspirat. Biomimet. 12:026004
182. Bircher WG, Dollar AM, Rojas N. 2017. A two-fingered robot gripper with large object reorientation
range. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3453–60. New York: IEEE
183. McCann CM, Dollar AM. 2017. Design of a Stewart platform-inspired dexterous hand for 6-DOF
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

within-hand manipulation. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

pp. 1158–63. New York: IEEE

184. Ren Z, Zhou C, Xin S, Tsagarakis N. 2017. HERI hand: a quasi dexterous and powerful hand with asym-
metrical finger dimensions and under actuation. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent
Robots and Systems, pp. 322–28. New York: IEEE
185. Ho V, Hirai S. 2017. Design and analysis of a soft-fingered hand with contact feedback. IEEE Robot.
Autom. Lett. 2:491–98
186. Jeong SH, Kim KS, Kim S. 2017. Designing anthropomorphic robot hand with active dual-mode twisted
string actuation mechanism and tiny tension sensors. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2:1571–78
187. Ko T, Kaminaga H, Nakamura Y. 2017. Underactuated four-fingered hand with five electro hydrostatic
actuators in cluster. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 620–25. New
York: IEEE
188. Piazza C, Catalano MG, Godfrey SB, Rossi M, Grioli G, et al. 2017. The SoftHand Pro-H: a hybrid
body-controlled, electrically powered hand prosthesis for daily living and working. IEEE Robot. Autom.
Mag. 24:87–101
189. Liu Y, Jiang L, Fan S, Yang D, Zhao J, Liu H. 2017. A novel actuation configuration of robotic hand and
the mechanical implementation via postural synergies. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation, pp. 2215–22. New York: IEEE
190. Choi KY, Akhtar A, Bretl T. 2017. A compliant four-bar linkage mechanism that makes the fingers of a
prosthetic hand more impact resistant. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
pp. 6694–99. New York: IEEE
191. Low JH, Lee WW, Khin PM, Thakor NV, Kukreja SL, et al. 2017. Hybrid tele-manipulation system
using a sensorized 3-D-printed soft robotic gripper and a soft fabric-based haptic glove. IEEE Robot.
Autom. Lett. 2:880–87
192. Hasegawa S, Wada K, Niitani Y, Okada K, Inaba M. 2017. A three-fingered hand with a suction gripping
system for picking various objects in cluttered narrow space. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference
on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1164–71. New York: IEEE
193. Schaler EW, Ruffatto D, Glick P, White V, Parness A. 2017. An electrostatic gripper for flexible objects.
In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1172–79. New York: IEEE
194. Arns M, Laliberté T, Gosselin C. 2017. Design, control and experimental validation of a haptic robotic
hand performing human-robot handshake with human-like agility. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Con-
ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 4626–33. New York: IEEE
195. Low J, Cheng N, Khin P, Thakor N, Kukreja S, et al. 2017. A bidirectional soft pneumatic fabric-based
actuator for grasping applications. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, pp. 1180–86. New York: IEEE
196. Makino S, Kawaharazuka K, Kawamura M, Asano Y, Okada K, Inaba M. 2017. High-power, flexible,
robust hand: development of musculoskeletal hand using machined springs and realization of self-weight
supporting motion with humanoid. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, pp. 1187–92. New York: IEEE

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 29

AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

197. Stavenuiter RA, Birglen L, Herder JL. 2017. A planar underactuated grasper with adjustable compliance.
Mech. Mach. Theory 112:295–306
198. Wang N, Lao K, Zhang X. 2017. Design and myoelectric control of an anthropomorphic prosthetic
hand. J. Bionic Eng. 14:47–59
199. Scharff RB, Doubrovski EL, Poelman WA, Jonker PP, Wang CC, Geraedts JM. 2017. Towards behavior
design of a 3D-printed soft robotic hand. In Soft Robotics: Trends, Applications and Challenges, ed. C Laschi,
J Rossiter, F Iida, M Cianchetti, L Margheri, pp. 23–29. Cham, Switz.: Springer
200. Yang Y, Zhang W, Xu X, Hu H, Hu J. 2017. LIPSA hand: a novel underactuated hand with linearly
parallel and self-adaptive grasp. In Mechanism and Machine Science, ed. X Zhang, N Wang, Y Huang,
pp. 111–19. Singapore: Springer
201. Taska Prosthet. 2018. Taska Prosthetics website. [Link]
202. Terryn S, Brancart J, Lefeber D, Van Assche G, Vanderborght B. 2017. Self-healing soft pneumatic
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

robots. Sci. Robot. 2:eaan4268

Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

203. Ma R, Dollar A. 2017. Yale OpenHand project: optimizing open-source hand designs for ease of fabri-
cation and adoption. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 24:32–40
204. Glick P, Suresh S, Ruffatto D, Cutkosky M, Tolley MT, Parness A. 2018. A soft robotic gripper with
gecko-inspired adhesive. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 3:903–10
205. Faudzi AAM, Ooga J, Goto T, Takeichi M, Suzumori K. 2018. Index finger of a human-like robotic hand
using thin soft muscles. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 3:92–99
206. Jianshu Z, Xiaojiao C, Jing L, Yinan T, Zheng W. 2018. A soft robotic approach to ro-
bust and dexterous grasping. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft),
pp. 412–17. New York: IEEE
207. Hongying Z, Kumar AS, Fuh JYH, Wang MY. 2018. Topology optimized design, fabrication and eval-
uation of a multimaterial soft gripper. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft),
pp. 424–30. New York: IEEE
208. Nassour J, Ghadiya V, Hugel V, Hamker FH. 2018. Design of new sensory soft hand: combining air-
pump actuation with superimposed curvature and pressure sensors. In 2018 IEEE International Conference
on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 164–69. New York: IEEE
209. Yuen MCS, Lear TR, Tonoyan H, Telleria M, Kramer-Bottiglio R. 2018. Toward closed-loop control of
pneumatic grippers during pack-and-deploy operations. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 3:1402–9
210. Rehab Technol. Lab. 2018. Sviluppo dispositivi medici. Rehab Technologies Lab. [Link]
it/sviluppo-dispositivi
211. Pedro P, Ananda C, Rafael PB, Carlos AR, Alexandre BC. 2018. Closed structure soft robotic gripper.
In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 66–70. New York: IEEE
212. Chen F, Xu W, Zhang H, Wang Y, Cao J, et al. 2018. Topology optimized design, fabrication, and
characterization of a soft cable-driven gripper. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 3:2463–70
213. Mizushima K, Oku T, Suzuki Y, Tsuji T, Watanabe T. 2018. Multi-fingered robotic hand based on
hybrid mechanism of tendon-driven and jamming transition. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on
Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 376–81. New York: IEEE
214. Tianjian C, Maximilian HH, Matei C. 2018. Underactuated hand design using mechanically realiz-
able manifolds. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. New York: IEEE.
Forthcoming
215. Morrison D, Tow A, McTaggart M, Smith R, Kelly-Boxall N, et al. 2018. Cartman: the low-cost Carte-
sian manipulator that won the Amazon Robotics Challenge. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation. New York: IEEE. Forthcoming
216. Alspach A, Kim J, Yamane K. 2018. Design and fabrication of a soft robotic hand and arm system. In
2018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), pp. 369–95. New York: IEEE
217. Nagamanikandan G, Sai SVK, Karthik C, Thondiyath A. 2018. GraspMan: a novel robotic platform with
grasping, manipulation, and multimodal locomotion capability. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation. New York: IEEE. Forthcoming

30 Piazza et al.
AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

218. Castellini C, Van Der Smagt P, Sandini G, Hirzinger G. 2008. Surface EMG for force control of me-
chanical hands. In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 725–30. New York:
IEEE
219. Belter JT, Leddy MT, Gemmell KD, Dollar AM. 2016. Comparative clinical evaluation of the Yale
Multigrasp Hand. In 2016 6th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics,
pp. 528–35. New York: IEEE
220. Kargov A, Ivlev O, Pylatiuk C, Asfour T, Schulz S, et al. 2007. Applications of a fluidic artificial hand in
the field of rehabilitation. In Rehabilitation Robotics, ed. SS Kommu, pp. 261–86. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech
221. Vogel J, Haddadin S, Jarosiewicz B, Simeral JD, Bacher D, et al. 2015. An assistive decision-and-control
architecture for force-sensitive hand–arm systems driven by human–machine interfaces. Int. J. Robot. Res.
34:763–80
222. Leidner D, Borst C, Dietrich A, Beetz M, Albu-Schäffer A. 2015. Classifying compliant manipulation
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

tasks for automated planning in robotics. In 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

and Systems, pp. 1769–76. New York: IEEE

223. Romay A, Kohlbrecher S, Conner DC, Stumpf A, von Stryk O. 2014. Template-based manipulation in
unstructured environments for supervised semi-autonomous humanoid robots. In 2014 14th IEEE-RAS
International Conference on Humanoid Robots, pp. 979–86. New York: IEEE
224. Cerulo I, Ficuciello F, Lippiello V, Siciliano B. 2017. Teleoperation of the SCHUNK S5FH under-
actuated anthropomorphic hand using human hand motion tracking. Robot. Auton. Syst. 89:75–84
225. Ambrose RO, Aldridge H, Askew RS, Burridge RR, Bluethmann W, et al. 2000. Robonaut: NASA’s space
humanoid. IEEE Intell. Syst. Their Appl. 15:57–63
226. Knoop E, Bächer M, Wall V, Deimel R, Brock O, Beardsley P. 2017. Handshakiness: benchmarking
for human-robot hand interactions. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, pp. 4982–89. New York: IEEE
227. Asfour T, Regenstein K, Azad P, Schroder J, Bierbaum A, et al. 2006. ARMAR-III: an integrated hu-
manoid platform for sensory-motor control. In 2006 6th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid
Robots, pp. 169–75. New York: IEEE
228. Albu-Schäffer A, Haddadin S, Ott C, Stemmer A, Wimböck T, Hirzinger G. 2007. The DLR lightweight
robot: design and control concepts for robots in human environments. Ind. Robot 34:376–85
229. Johnson M, Shrewsbury B, Bertrand S, Wu T, Duran D, et al. 2015. Team IHMC’s lessons learned from
the DARPA Robotics Challenge Trials. J. Field Robot. 32:192–208
230. Borst C, Fischer M, Haidacher S, Liu H, Hirzinger G. 2003. DLR Hand II: experiments and experience
with an anthropomorphic hand. In 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 1,
pp. 702–7. New York: IEEE
231. Nat. Mach. Motion Init. 2017. Natural Machine Motion Initiative website. [Link]
[Link]
232. Tech. Univ. Berlin. 2016. Soft Hands. Technische Universität Berlin Department of Computer Engineering
and Microelectronics. [Link]
233. e-NABLE. 2018. About us. Enabling the Future. [Link]
234. Liarokapis MV, Zisimatos AG, Mavrogiannis CI, Kyriakopoulos KJ. 2014. OpenBionics: an open-source
initiative for the creation of affordable, modular, light-weight, underactuated robot hands and prosthetic de-
vices. Paper presented at the 2nd Arizona State University Rehabilitation Robotics Workshop, Tempe,
Feb. 28–Mar. 1
235. Shintake J, Cacucciolo V, Floreano D, Shea H. 2018. Soft robotic grippers. Adv. Mater. 30:1707035
236. Hughes J, Culha U, Giardina F, Guenther F, Rosendo A, Iida F. 2016. Soft manipulators and grippers:
a review. Front. Robot. AI 3:69
237. Ulrich N, Kumar V. 1988. Grasping using fingers with coupled joints. In Trends and Developments in
Mechanisms, Machines and Robotics, ed. A Midha, pp. 201–8. New York: Am. Soc. Mech. Eng.
238. Lee S. 1990. Artificial dexterous hand. US Patent 4,955,918
239. Birglen L, Laliberté T, Gosselin CM. 2007. Underactuated Robotic Hands. Berlin: Springer

[Link] • A Century of Robotic Hands 31

AS02CH01_Bicchi [Link] March 22, 2019 18:35

240. Easton TA. 1972. On the normal use of reflexes: The hypothesis that reflexes form the basic language
of the motor program permits simple, flexible specifications of voluntary movements and allows fruitful
speculation. Am. Sci. 60:591–99
241. Prattichizzo D, Malvezzi M, Bicchi A. 2010. On motion and force control of grasping hands with postural
synergies. In Robotics: Science and Systems VI, ed. Y Matsuoka, H Durrant-Whyte, J Neira, pp. 49–56.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
242. Ciocarlie M, Goldfeder C, Allen P. 2007. Dexterous grasping via eigengrasps: a low-dimensional approach to a
high-complexity problem. Paper presented at the 3rd Robotics: Science and Systems Conference, Atlanta,
June 27–30
243. Bonilla M, Farnioli E, Piazza C, Catalano M, Grioli G, et al. 2014. Grasping with soft hands. In 2014
14th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, pp. 581–87. New York: IEEE
244. Eppner C, Deimel R, Álvarez-Ruiz J, Maertens M, Brock O. 2015. Exploitation of environmental con-
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.

straints in human and robotic grasping. Int. J. Robot. Res. 34:1021–38

Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

245. Cannata G, Maggiali M, Metta G, Sandini G. 2008. An embedded artificial skin for humanoid robots. In
2008 IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems, pp. 434–38.
New York: IEEE
246. Wall V, Zöller G, Brock O. 2017. A method for sensorizing soft actuators and its application to the RBO
Hand 2. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 4965–70. New York: IEEE
247. Lessing JA, Whitesides GM, Martinez RV, Yang D, Mosadegh B, et al. 2017. Sensors for soft robots and
soft actuators. US Patent Appl. 15/503549
248. Falco J, Van Wyk K, Liu S, Carpin S. 2015. Grasping the performance: facilitating replicable perfor-
mance measures via benchmarking and standardized methodologies. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 22:125–
36
249. Grebenstein M, Albu-Schäffer A, Bahls T, Chalon M, Eiberger O, et al. 2011. The DLR hand arm
system. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3175–82. New York: IEEE
250. Zisimatos AG, Liarokapis MV, Mavrogiannis CI, Kyriakopoulos KJ. 2014. Open-source, affordable,
modular, light-weight, underactuated robot hands. In 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelli-
gent Robots and Systems, pp. 3207–12. New York: IEEE
251. Bierbaum A, Rambow M, Asfour T, Dillmann R. 2009. Grasp affordances from multi-fingered tactile
exploration using dynamic potential fields. In 9th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots,
pp. 168–74. New York: IEEE
252. Herzog A, Pastor P, Kalakrishnan M, Righetti L, Bohg J, et al. 2014. Learning of grasp selection based
on shape-templates. Auton. Robots 36:51–65

32 Piazza et al.
 AS02_TOC ARI 23 January 2019 9:8

Annual Review of
Control, Robotics,
and Autonomous

Contents Systems

Volume 2, 2019
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

A Century of Robotic Hands

C. Piazza, G. Grioli, M.G. Catalano, and A. Bicchi p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Escaping Oz: Autonomy in Socially Assistive Robotics
Caitlyn Clabaugh and Maja Matarić p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p33
Modular Reconfigurable Robotics
Jungwon Seo, Jamie Paik, and Mark Yim p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p63
Control Across Scales by Positive and Negative Feedback
R. Sepulchre, G. Drion, and A. Franci p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p89
Formal Methods for Control Synthesis: An Optimization Perspective
Calin Belta and Sadra Sadraddini p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 115
Discrete Event Systems: Modeling, Observation, and Control
Stéphane Lafortune p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 141
From Visual Understanding to Complex Object Manipulation
Judith Bütepage, Silvia Cruciani, Mia Kokic, Michael Welle,
and Danica Kragic p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 161
Robotic Micromanipulation: Fundamentals and Applications
Zhuoran Zhang, Xian Wang, Jun Liu, Changsheng Dai, and Yu Sun p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 181
Microrobotics and Microorganisms: Biohybrid Autonomous
Cellular Robots
Yunus Alapan, Oncay Yasa, Berk Yigit, I. Ceren Yasa, Pelin Erkoc,
and Metin Sitti p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 205
Toward Autonomy in Sub-Gram Terrestrial Robots
Ryan St. Pierre and Sarah Bergbreiter p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 231
A Tour of Reinforcement Learning: The View from
Continuous Control
Benjamin Recht p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 253
System Identification: A Machine Learning Perspective
A. Chiuso and G. Pillonetto p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 281
 AS02_TOC ARI 23 January 2019 9:8

A Perspective on Incentive Design: Challenges and Opportunities

Lillian J. Ratliff, Roy Dong, Shreyas Sekar, and Tanner Fiez p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 305
Internal Models in Biological Control
Daniel McNamee and Daniel M. Wolpert p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 339
Agricultural Robotics
Stavros G. Vougioukas p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 365
Modeling and Estimation for Advanced Battery Management
Xinfan Lin, Youngki Kim, Shankar Mohan, Jason B. Siegel,
and Anna G. Stefanopoulou p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 393
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos on 10/08/19. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019.2:1-32. Downloaded from [Link]

Cyber-Physical Manufacturing Systems

Dawn M. Tilbury p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427
The Engineering of Climate Engineering
Douglas G. MacMartin and Ben Kravitz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 445

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous

Systems articles may be found at [Link]