Machine Learning Based Shape Classification Using Tactile Sensor Array

  • Dennis Babu
  • Sourodeep Bhattacharjee
  • Irin Bandyopadhyaya
  • Joydeb Roychowdhury
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 27)


Contact shape recognition is an important functionality of any tactile sensory system as it can be used to classify the object in contact with the tactile sensor. In this work we propose and implement an affine transformation invariant 2D contact shape classification system. A tactile sensor array gives the contact pressure data which is fed to an image enhancement system which sends the binary contact image to the global, region and contour based feature selection block. The five element feature vectors is used as input to a voting based classifier which implements a C4.5 algorithm and a naïve Bayes classifier and combine the results to get an improved classifier. The system is designed and tested offline in a Pressure Profile system based tactile array using both cross validation and separate dataset. Results indicate that combining simple classifiers increases the accuracy of the system while being computationally efficient.


Tactile Machine learning contact-shape classification voting classifier 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Tiwana, M., Redmond, S., Lovell, N.: A review of tactile sensing technologies with applications in biomedical engineering. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 179, 17–31 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu, H., Song, X., Nanayakkara, T., Seneviratne, L., Althoefer, K.: A computationally fast algorithm for local contact shape and pose classification using a tactile array sensor. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1410–1415 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu, H., Greco, J., Song, X., Bimbo, J., Seneviratne, L., Althoefer, K.: Tactile image based contact shape recognition using neural network. In: Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems (MFI), pp. 138–143 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhattacharjee, T., Rehg, J., Kemp, C.: Haptic classification and recognition of objects using a tactile sensing forearm. In: Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 4090–4097 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pezzementi, Z., Plaku, E., Reyda, C., Hager, G.: Tactile-object recognition from appearance information. Robotics 27, 473–487 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibrayev, R., Jia, Y.: Tactile recognition of algebraic shapes using differential invariants. Robotics and Automation 2, 1548–1553 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aoyagi, S., Tanaka, T., Minami, M.: Recognition of Contact State of Four Layers Arrayed Type Tactile Sensor by using Neural Network. In: Information Acquisition, pp. 393–397 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dahiya, R., Metta, G., Valle, M., Sandini, G.: Tactile sensing—from humans to humanoids. Robotics 26, 1–20 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kauppinen, H., Seppanen, T., Pietikainen, M.: An experimental comparison of autoregressive and Fourier-based descriptors in 2D shape classification. IEEE Transactions in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 17, 201–207 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang, D., Lu, G.: Review of shape representation and description techniques. Pattern Recognition 37, 1–19 (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gonzalez, R., Woods, R., Eddins, S.: Digital image processing using MATLAB, 2nd edn. Gatesmark Publishing, Knoxville (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peura, M., Iivarinen, J.: Efficiency of simple shape descriptors. In: Aspects of Visual Form, pp. 443–451 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lu, G., Sajjanhar, A.: Region-based shape representation and similarity measure suitable for content-based image retrieval. Multimedia Systems 7, 165–174 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quinlan, J.: C4. 5: Programs for Machine Learning 1 (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Good, I.: Probability and the Weighing of Evidence, London (1950)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lim, T., Loh, W., Shih, Y.: A comparison of prediction accuracy, complexity, and training time of thirty-three old and new classification algorithms. Machine Learning 40, 203–228 (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.: The WEKA Data Mining Software: An Update. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 11, 10–18 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis Babu
    • 1
  • Sourodeep Bhattacharjee
    • 1
  • Irin Bandyopadhyaya
    • 1
  • Joydeb Roychowdhury
    • 1
  1. 1.CSIR-CMERIDurgapurIndia

Personalised recommendations