micromachines

Review
Bioinspiration and Biomimetic Art in Robotic Grippers
Van Pho Nguyen 1,2 , Sunil Bohra Dhyan 1,2 , Vu Mai 3 , Boon Siew Han 2 and Wai Tuck Chow 1, *

1 School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University,

Singapore 639798, Singapore; [email protected] or [email protected] (V.P.N.);
[email protected] (S.B.D.)
2 Schaeffler Hub for Advanced Research at NTU, Singapore 637460, Singapore; [email protected]
3 Faculty of Engineering, Dong Nai Technology University, Bien Hoa City 76000, Vietnam;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The autonomous manipulation of objects by robotic grippers has made significant strides
in enhancing both human daily life and various industries. Within a brief span, a multitude of re-
search endeavours and gripper designs have emerged, drawing inspiration primarily from biological
mechanisms. It is within this context that our study takes centre stage, with the aim of conducting
a meticulous review of bioinspired grippers. This exploration involved a nuanced classification
framework encompassing a range of parameters, including operating principles, material composi-
tions, actuation methods, design intricacies, fabrication techniques, and the multifaceted applications
into which these grippers seamlessly integrate. Our comprehensive investigation unveiled gripper
designs that brim with a depth of intricacy, rendering them indispensable across a spectrum of
real-world scenarios. These bioinspired grippers with a predominant emphasis on animal-inspired
solutions have become pivotal tools that not only mirror nature’s genius but also significantly enrich
various domains through their versatility.

Keywords: robotic gripper; soft gripper; conventional gripper; bioinspired gripper; biomimetic
gripper; hybrid gripper

Citation: Nguyen, V.P.; Dhyan, S.B.;

Mai, V.; Han, B.S.; Chow, W.T. 1. Introduction
Bioinspiration and Biomimetic Art in
Robotics has gained substantial popularity and holds the potential to facilitate a myr-
Robotic Grippers. Micromachines
iad of remarkable tasks [1–3]. Manipulation, which plays a pivotal role in the realm of
2023, 14, 1772. https://doi.org/
10.3390/mi14091772
robotics [4], constitutes an emerging and intricate field. In contemporary times, several ma-
terials, actuators, and fabrication techniques have been employed to develop grippers [5–7].
Academic Editors: Bo Li, Xing Gao Within the landscape of prior research, robotic grippers can be broadly categorized into
and Chongjing Cao two principal groups: the traditional/conventional variety and soft grippers, both of which
Received: 30 June 2023 draw inspiration from natural mechanisms. Indeed, nature presents a compelling array of
Revised: 7 September 2023 attributes that render it a rich source of emulation for the creation of continuously actuated
Accepted: 9 September 2023 structures. These qualities include optimized design, evolutionarily honed uniqueness
Published: 15 September 2023 tailored to specific tasks, and energy-efficient kinetics and dynamics to ensure survival [8].
This paper is dedicated to a comprehensive review and categorization of gripper
designs derived from preceding works, wherein the design and actuation principles were
inspired by natural mechanisms. The intent of this paper is to provide a contemporary
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. overview of existing developments in the field of gripper technology, thereby offering
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. valuable insights for fellow researchers. The paper encompasses three overarching themes:
This article is an open access article
human-inspired, animal-inspired, and plant-inspired gripper concepts.
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons 1.1. Grasping Taxonomy
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
Grasping, an intricate procedure involving the application of force from the fingers,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
palm, arm, and body to establish contact and secure a substrate, is often used to refer
4.0/).

Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi14091772 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/micromachines

Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 2 of 34

to the function of grippers. Depending on the physical and chemical properties of the
substrates and the features of the grippers, there are many types of grasping. The human
hand, distinguished by the multifarious DoF in each finger, and certain animal appendages
demonstrate remarkable adaptability in accomplishing object manipulation. For instance,
the authors of [9–11] summed up and categorized human grasping types into 32 types,
as illustrated in Figure 1. According to this categorization, the human hand uses one or
multiple fingers, fingertips, phalanges, and occasionally the palm, each tailored to specific
cases. Presently, R-Hs equipped with five fingers, directly inspired by the human hand’s
architecture, have made significant strides in emulating the aforementioned grasp types.
These R-Hs exhibit designs rooted in traditional or hybrid structures, effectively mirroring
the diverse spectrum of grasping methodologies elucidated earlier.

Figure 1. Grasping taxonomy of human hand based on the poses of the thumb, hand, and fingers [9]
(© 2018, Scientific Data 5).

While human-inspired grippers are renowned for their widespread use across daily
life and industries, offering impressive stability and agility, certain challenges persist due
to limitations in their DoF. In contrast, the natural world presents a diverse array of mecha-
nisms through which animals and plants seize or grasp objects in their surroundings. These
mechanisms serve as blueprints for gripper designs. In addition to the common principles
shared with human-inspired designs, animal- and plant-inspired grippers augment their
grasp capabilities through microstructures present in their bodies, such as suction, wet
adhesion, dry adhesion, and interlocking. Furthermore, when compared to their human-
inspired counterparts, these grippers exhibit greater flexibility and reduced stability, owing
to the vast and unrestricted DOF stemming from their anatomical structures.

1.2. Number of Objects

Grippers can be categorized into single-object grasping and multiple-object grasping
based on how many objects they can handle in a single attempt. Single-object grasping [12]
is a prevalent approach in manipulation, where the gripper focuses on manipulating one ob-
ject during each cycle. Previous research on grippers and manipulation has predominantly
concentrated on this single-object grasping concept, delving into aspects like mechanism de-
sign, grasp analysis, perception, and sensing. On the other hand, multiple-object grasping
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 3 of 34

represents an innovative avenue in manipulation. This concept was first introduced in a the-
oretical model by the Harada team in 2000 [13]. Recently, in [14,15], researchers proposed
a hybrid gripper equipped with two symmetrical arrays of fingers, each covered by soft
pads, enabling it to handle multiple elongated objects. This hybrid gripper’s capabilities
were further expanded to manipulate objects of varying shapes through the incorporation
of cord supports within rigid skeletons [16,17]. In another effort, a group [18,19] com-
menced training the Robotiq gripper to detect and manage clusters of objects in a single
trial. Sun [20] not only categorized the various types of multiple-object grasping but also
developed perceptual enhancements for his gripper.

2. Human-Hand-like Grippers
The human hand consists of a combination of rigid bone phalanges and flexible
ligamentous joints that make it the most advanced manipulator among all animals. The
hybrid nature of the human hand contributed to the strength as well as dexterity of
human fingers [21], which enabled them to handle intricate objects and construct complex
structures. Due to differences in the shapes, sizes, and surface properties of the objects to be
grasped, each case requires a specific grasping configuration. Schlesinger [22] categorized
hand-grasping postures into six functional types based on the shape characteristics of both
the hand and the grasped objects. These categories included fingertip pinch, side pinch,
clamp pinch, hook, spherical grab, and cylindrical grab. Building upon this, Napier [23]
highlighted the influence of the surface characteristics, size, and shape of the target object
on grasping movements, leading to a distinction between precision grip and power grip.
Traditional robotic grippers are constructed with rigid joints and links, making them
a prevalent choice for industrial robotic applications. These grippers operate using con-
ventional transmission systems like gear-link transmission or tendon-driven mechanisms.
They excel in structural stiffness and load-bearing capabilities, delivering substantial force
for meticulous control and operation. As outlined in [24], these traditional grippers encom-
pass a spectrum ranging from robot grippers with two or three fingers to multi-finger and
adaptive grippers, depending on the finger count and adaptability techniques.
While traditional grippers offer agility in manipulating objects, they pose challenges due
to mechanical and control intricacies. Particularly, they struggle with handling soft, deformable
objects [4]. Moreover, their high structural stiffness renders human interaction unsafe [25]. To
surmount these drawbacks, researchers have turned to soft robotic technologies, prioritizing
end-effector compliance and adaptability for various objects [26,27]. The biological realm
underscores the value of softness and compliance in simplifying interactions with the envi-
ronment [28]. Soft grippers predominantly utilize SMPs, SMAs, and low-melting-point alloys
(LMPAs) responsive to temperature changes. Additionally, stimuli like pH, light, electricity,
and magnetism have been explored for advancing soft-compliant gripper development.
Despite substantial advancements in manipulator gripping research, attaining an
equivalent degree of robustness and adaptability to that found in the human hand remains
a challenging endeavour [29]. Existing R-Hs vary from simple single-DOF parallel grippers
to high-DOF anthropomorphic hands. Some R-Hs utilize one or a few actuators with limited
DOF, while others integrate fully actuated, passive joints and multiple DOF [30–36].

2.1. Traditional Rigid-Link Grippers

In this section, we conduct a comprehensive examination of traditional rigid-link
grippers, encompassing a spectrum from simple two-fingered configurations to complex
anthropomorphic hands featuring articulated fingers and joints. These grippers are acti-
vated through either external or integrated motors, utilizing contact-driven direct actuation
or tendon-driven actuated structures.

2.1.1. Two-Finger Grippers

Two-finger robot grippers, also known as parallel claw grippers, represent a prevalent
category of industrial grippers due to their straightforward usability, manufacturability,
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 4 of 34

and cost-effectiveness. These grippers find extensive application in pick-and-place oper-

ations, palletizing, assembly tasks, and other uncomplicated manipulations. Prominent
manufacturers in this domain include Robotiq [37] and Festo [38], known for producing
well-regarded industrial grippers as shown in Figure 2.
Researchers have dedicated significant efforts to advancing two-finger grippers in
order to enhance object manipulation, taking inspiration from the way humans predomi-
nantly utilize two fingers—the index finger and thumb—for in-hand manipulation [39–41].
To extend the capabilities of two-finger robots, several authors, including those in [42–44],
introduced additional DOF by implementing actuated moving surfaces on the fingertips.
These solutions, however, generally confine gripper motion to a single plane and limit
in-hand manipulation to rolling motions without the ability to twist.
Maxwell [45] pioneered a multi-DOF two-finger robot gripper designed to handle
larger objects and execute in-hand rolling and twisting (refer to Figure 2). Employing a
tendon-driven mechanism to operate the linkages, this gripper also incorporates a folding
mechanism, enabling it to function effectively in tight spaces. This particular gripper has
proven valuable for conducting minimally invasive surgeries in humans.
Zhiguo [46] developed a two-finger dexterous bionic hand featuring three distinct
grasping patterns: power grasping, precision pinch, and lateral pinch. This bionic hand
boasts six DOF, with the thumb and index finger each composed of three rigid phalanx
links and three rotational joints.
In another advancement, researchers in [47] introduced a versatile gripper that seam-
lessly blends two of the most prominent gripping technologies: two-finger and suction-cup
grippers (refer to Figure 2). This innovative design involves a retractable rod-mounted
suction cup located within the R-H’s palm, carefully positioned to avoid interference from
the two fingers. By utilizing a single actuator to drive both finger motion and the sliding
rod, this gripper minimizes complexity while achieving versatile functionality.

Figure 2. Some two-finger rigid-link grippers (from left to right): Robotiq two-finger gripper [37]
(© Robotiq Inc.); Festo parallel gripper [38] (© The Festo Group); Two-finger gripper with roll and
twist [45] (© 2022 Maxwell Samuels, Lu Lu, Cong Wang, reproduced with permission); Versatile two-finger
and retractable suction cup gripper [47] (© 2023 Frontiers).

2.1.2. Three-Finger Grippers

Three-finger grippers, as the name suggests, are composed of three fingers utilized
for grasping objects. While these grippers are more intricate compared to their two-finger
counterparts, they find application in scenarios demanding heightened precision and
accuracy for handling delicate items.
The BarrettHand™ BH8-282 [48], developed by the University of Pennsylvania, is a
notable example of a three-finger gripper. It features three articulated fingers and a palm,
enabling object grasping. With a high degree of flexibility through its eight axes, this gripper,
controlled by four brushless DC servomotors, can adapt in real time to securely encompass
diverse objects. Each finger is independently controlled by servomotors, operating two joint
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 5 of 34

axes. The Torque Switch™ facilitates torque transmission through joints, aiding in the
grasping process. While the inner and outer fingers follow an anthropomorphic design, the
opposing thumb’s motion replicates non-anthropomorphic primates’ spreading motion.
Precise control over position, velocity, acceleration, and torque is achievable for each finger
across 200,000 encoder positions. Additionally, integrating tactile and strain-gauge sensors
enhances BarrettHand’s grasp intelligence.
In the realm of three-finger grippers, the success of grasping is reliant on the interaction
between object and hand strategies. In the context of underactuated hands, Model S [49]
introduced a novel approach. Consisting of three coupled prismatic joints and single-joint
fingers, this 3D-printed ABS hand adapts passively to an object’s principal axis. By curling
all three fingers around an object until they tangentially make contact with its curvature,
this grasp maximizes contact and minimizes dropping risks [50]. Similarly, Schunk’s
three-finger R-H uses a single common actuator to drive three prismatic joints. The works
of Hanafusa and Asada [51] present a radially symmetric three-finger hand featuring
rollers at the fingertip to reduce tangential friction during grasping. The MLab hand [52]
incorporates elastic elements into its radially symmetric fingers, enhancing conformance
to grasped objects. Vignesh [53] introduced an underactuated gripper with three fingers
driven by linkage and six DOF, leveraging unconventional anthropomorphic designs and
3D-printed PLA plastic fabrication. Incorporating a spring mechanism for compliance, a
single motor powered the fingers through a gear train mechanism, providing differential
motion. This design process drew on online human grasp data for parameterization and
validation through 3D-printed models.

2.1.3. Multi-Finger Grippers

Multi-finger and adaptive grippers bring the ability for robots to adeptly conform to
objects of varying shapes and sizes, enhancing grip strength and overall reliability. One of
the early instances of such a gripper was the UTAH/MIT Dexterous Hand [54], a robotic end-
effector jointly developed by the University of Utah and the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology. Created as a research tool for comprehending machine dexterity, the Dexterous Hand
(DH) emulated anthropomorphic design principles, inspired by the versatile capabilities of
the human hand in performing intricate manipulation tasks. With over twenty-five DOF,
including its wrist, the DH prioritized speed and strength to interact with materials spanning
from soft foams to rigid metals. To enable this, the actuation system was positioned external
to the hand for enhanced flexibility, and flexible tensile tendons were employed to transmit
energy from actuators to the hand. The configuration of thirty-two individual actuators
controlled the tendons, which boasted a lifespan of six million cycles [55,56].
The Stanford-JPL hand [57] introduced a distinct approach by siting motors on the
forearm, with flexible conduits housing Teflon-coated tension cables that looped around the
wrist joints. This strategic arrangement reduced the impact of gravity and inertia from hand
actuators on the entire system. In doing so, the design minimized the hand’s dimensions
and improved its durability by eliminating the need for actuators within the fingers.
The realm of multi-fingered R-Hs also encompasses the JPL four-fingered hand [58] and
the Anth R-H [59]. The latter, Anthrobot, stands out with its focus on achieving anatomical
similarity to the human hand, encompassing not only the finger count but also aspects such
as thumb positioning, movement, link lengths, and palm shape. While the hand consists of
a total of 20 joints (four per finger and four for the thumb), it leverages 16 motors for control.
The robot hands previously mentioned are governed by remote actuation systems,
utilizing flexible tendon cables. However, these cables introduce inaccuracies in joint angle
control, and the intricate mechanical design can complicate maintenance. In response,
researchers directed their efforts toward crafting robot hands featuring integrated actuation
systems within the finger bodies and palms.
Examples of such internally actuated hands include the Belgrade/USC hand [60],
the Omni hand [61], the NTU hand [62], and DLR’s hand [63]. A notable instance is
the DLR/HIT Hand I, developed by Liu [64], comprising four fingers with a total of
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 6 of 34

thirteen DOF. The subsequent iteration, DLR/HIT Hand II [65], a five-fingered hand with
fifteen DOF, was designed to resemble the human hand more closely while integrating the
actuation and communication systems within the fingers’ bases. Each finger is composed
of a finger body housing super-flat BLDC motors and a finger base accommodating a
bevel gear transmission, facilitating curling and extension motions. However, the last
two joints of the fingers are mechanically coupled and controlled by steel wires, preventing
the individual control of the middle and distal phalanges. The thumb, not utilized in the
DLR/HIT Hand I, was fixed appropriately in the DLR/HIT Hand II design, allowing all
five fingers to be conveniently positioned on the palm using spring probes [64].
Another noteworthy development is the Gifu Hand II [66], an anthropomorphic robot
hand featuring a thumb and four fingers. The thumb comprises four joints with four DOF,
while each finger boasts three DOF across four joints. Similar to the DLR/HIT Hand II, built-
in servo motors are integrated into all finger joints for easy palm adaptor mounting. Notably,
the Gifu Hand II employs a distributed tactile sensing system with 624 sensing points,
coupled with a six-axis force sensor in each finger. This configuration enables compliant
pinching and squeezing. The incorporation of high-stiffness gears, such as satellite gears,
instead of tendon-driven harmonic drive gears contributes to a high-stiffness hand.

2.2. Soft Grippers

In this section, we undertake an extensive exploration of soft grippers, spanning from
pliable two-fingered grippers to intricate, heavily compliant anthropomorphic hands with
articulated fingers and joints [67–69]. These grippers exhibit various activation methods
for grasping objects, including gripping by actuation, gripping by controlled stiffness, and
gripping by controlled adhesion.

2.2.1. Soft Grippers with Gripping by Actuation

Grippers employing external actuation utilize servo-motors positioned outside the
gripper body to drive the mechanism and achieve object conformation. In this category,
numerous soft-compliant grippers have emerged, characterized by a grasping action ac-
complished through a singular actuator at the gripper’s base, facilitating the bending and
buckling of the structure [70–73].
Petkovic devised a two-finger underactuated compliant gripper exhibiting concave
and convex grasping shapes. Distributed compliance defined its operation, and the entire
gripper was 3D-printed as a single unit, thus ensuring cost-effectiveness and adaptability to
diverse objects [71]. In a similar vein, Bruno [72] integrated proprioceptive haptic feedback
into a two-finger self-adaptive gripper. A novel sea-saw mechanism enabled object grasping
without external vision systems. The gripper’s stiffness determined the point of contact
with the object. Further advancing this field, Liu [73] conceived a two-finger adaptive
compliant gripper (ACG) synthesized through a soft-add topology optimization algorithm.
This involved a holistic size optimization approach, amalgamating the augmented Lagrange
multiplier (ALM) method, simplex method, and nonlinear finite element analysis. In the
study, three distinct silicon rubber prototypes were fabricated. The ACG tool showcased
proficiency in manipulating items like clips, coins, batteries, forks, and USB drives.
Furthermore, researchers have also ventured into the development of tendon-driven
underactuated grippers, drawing inspiration from the human hand’s mechanics. These
grippers employ a single tendon to drive multiple DOF, mirroring the dexterity of the
human hand. Generally, such grippers utilizing tendon-driven actuation are composed
of rigid links and joints [36,74]. Here, our focus is on compliant soft grippers driven by
tendons. Raymond [75] spearheaded the Yale OpenHand Project, dedicated to creating com-
mercially viable underactuated hands. The T42 model featured two autonomously driven,
opposing underactuated fingers, constructed via 3D printing. This innovation enabled
the gripper to handle objects ranging from delicate glass cups to staplers, showcasing its
versatility. Ali [76] introduced a B-I-compliant 3D-printed soft gripper boasting sensorless
compliance. This design proved adept at manipulating fragile items like strawberries and
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 7 of 34

even intricately detailed 3D-printed artificial ears. Such advancements in tendon-driven

underactuated soft grippers offer promising avenues for enhanced object manipulation
across a wide spectrum of tasks and objects.
Manti [77] introduced a B-I three-finger soft-robotic gripper designed for adaptable and
effective object grasping. This gripper employed a single actuator within an underactuated
C-D mechanism. Similar to the human hand, each finger was comprised of three phalanges.
The flexion and extension of these fingers were accomplished through cables that traversed
a U-tube channel within each finger. These cables were anchored to spools and connected
to the motor shaft at the gripper’s base. The gripper’s variable stiffness enhanced its ability
to grasp various objects, including cylinders, spheres, plastic boxes, eggs, fresh tomatoes,
and compact discs. Luke [78] proposed a caging-inspired gripper employing three hooked
flexible fingers and a mobile palm configuration, forming a cage-like structure around
the object while gripping. The flexible fingers, behaving like pre-loaded springs, offered
both conformity to object shapes and increased friction for objects not suited for caging.
This gripper demonstrated efficient grasping for cuboid and cylindrical objects, making it
suitable for supermarket applications, particularly in handling fruits and vegetables.
Additionally, researchers in [79] presented a lightweight tendon-driven robotic gripper
with three fingers and a telescopic palm, actuated pneumatically. These fingers exhibited
swift pre-contact movements and could grasp and release objects—such as Starbucks cups,
plastic bottles, and baseballs—at high speeds. Ahmed [80] developed a pneumatically
actuated gripper incorporating rubber hose fingers with a nonuniform wall thickness. This
design was tailored for handling small, lightweight, and delicate objects like electronic
chips and light bulbs. Each finger was activated by controlled air pressure, enabling the
precise gripping and manipulation of objects with the utmost care.
The SDM Hand [81] stands out as a robust four-fingered compliant gripper designed
for unstructured environments. Fabricated using polymer-based shape deposition manufac-
turing, this hand integrates actuators and sensors into rigid polymers. The gripper operates
using a single actuator to drive all four fingers, simplifying the mechanism and reducing its
weight. Notably, each link’s concave side features a soft finger pad to optimize the friction
and contact area, thereby enhancing the gripper’s ability to grasp [82,83]. The SDM Hand
has exhibited its capabilities by manipulating objects such as a volleyball, wooden block,
wine glass, wine bottle, and box of matches. Xu and Todorov [84] took a similar approach,
developing an anthropomorphic hand capable of mimicking human hand behaviours and
performing various tasks. Likewise, the PISA/IIT SoftHand [27] represents an innovative
robot hand with 19 joints, leveraging a single actuator to activate adaptive soft synergies.
The key innovation of this hand lay in its use of inventive articulation and elastic ligaments,
replacing the conventional rigid links and joints typically found in R-Hs. This design choice
significantly enhanced the hand’s dexterity and adaptability.

2.2.2. Soft Grippers with Gripping by Controlled Stiffness

Soft grippers that utilize shape-memory alloys or polymers react to thermal stim-
uli, causing them to change their shape and conform to objects of varying sizes and
shapes [85,86]. Lan [87] introduced a self-sensing two-finger microgripper made of an
SMA, capable of handling objects like strings, screws, and even a fly. Each finger incorpo-
rated resistance for the self-sensing of the finger’s position.
Control-stiffness-based grippers operate on a principle distinct from that of the
actuation-based grippers mentioned earlier. These grippers initially reconfigure their
structural composition to become soft and then envelop the object to be grasped without
causing harm. Researchers have explored several variable-stiffness technologies, including
granular jamming, low-melting-point alloys, and shape-memory materials [77,88]. Granu-
lar jamming grippers function by manipulating loose particles within a bag, depressurizing
them to create a solid object or introducing air to make the gripper soft. While ground
coffee is a common choice for jamming particles, glass, plastic, and metallic beads have
also been used [46]. Lipson and Amend proposed a two-finger R-H with granular jamming
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 8 of 34

fingers, demonstrating high dexterity in manipulating small objects such as chopsticks [89].
Similarly, Osamah [90] developed a two-finger R-H that utilized vacuum pressure to control
stiffness and the finger structure to prevent slippage during grasping as seen in Figure 3
(top). Chow introduced a two-finger granular tendon gripper as shown in Figure 3 (bottom),
with a hybrid structure composed of a rigid finger-like skeleton and attached granular
pouches [91]. This gripper could lift various objects, including cylinders, brackets, sachets,
pulley gears, and bolts.

Figure 3. Soft grippers with controlled stiffness: (top) two-finger R-H granular jamming
gripper [90] (© MDPI Electronics Volume 12 Issue 8); (bottom) two-finger granular tendon R-
H [91] (© MDPI Micromachines Volume 14 Issue 7).
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 9 of 34

Low-melting-point alloys (LMPAs) are materials that undergo a phase transition from
solid to liquid when exposed to heat. This property is harnessed to achieve variable stiffness
structures in the fingers of grippers [92]. Shintake [93] developed a two-finger soft gripper
that integrated an LMPA track and pre-stretched dielectric elastomer actuator (DEA). The
LMPA track within the finger responded to thermal energy. In its liquid state, the gripper
exhibited a soft structure, and electrostatic actuation from the DEAs flattened the finger. To
achieve rigid finger shapes, heat was removed from the LMPA while keeping the DEAs
actuated. Despite weighing only 2 g, the gripper was able to lift a plastic dish containing
11 grams of metal washers, which was 5.5 times its own weight. SMPs and SMAs have
also been employed to adjust the stiffness of grippers through phase transitions. Given
that SMPs exhibit greater relative stiffness changes and lower moduli in both rigid and soft
states compared to SMAs, our focus is primarily on using SMPs coupled with soft actuators
as variable-stiffness components [94–96].
Researchers Patel [97] and Thrasher [98] developed three-fingered grippers made
from UV-curable elastomers. These grippers offered a modular approach to manipulation
tasks. Grippers based on SMPs and SMAs have also been explored for their ability to
provide variable stiffness. Wang and Anh [99] introduced an SMP-based soft gripper
with three identical fingers, each featuring a soft-composite actuator with a changeable-
stiffness material. The fingers incorporated embedded Ni-chrome wires for heating the
SMP structure, transitioning it from a glossy state to a rubbery state. The gripper could
successfully grasp various objects, such as an egg, a capsicum, a hollow cylinder, and
pyramid-shaped objects.
Origami-based tendon-driven three-fingered grippers (often referred to as robogami)
were proposed by Firouzeh and Paik [100–102]. These grippers were manufactured using
layer-by-layer techniques and integrated SMPs to control joint stiffness. The grippers
adapted themselves to different objects using quasi-2D fabrication methods. Experimental
tests included power and precision grasps, involving the manipulation of an egg with a
power grasp and a coin with a precision grasp.
Mingfang [103] presented another shape-memory-alloy-based soft gripper with vari-
able stiffness, featuring an 18-fold stiffness enhancement for each finger. This gripper’s
core design included a self-activated actuator with flexible bending deformation and shape-
retaining abilities, incorporating two changeable-stiffness joints. The gripper’s construction
involved five types of materials: SMA wire, paraffin, Ni-Cr wire, silicone rubber, and PLA
plastic. The gripper’s variable stiffness allowed it to pick up objects such as a square box
using actuated joint 2 and a plastic cup or an orange using actuated joint 1.
Since SMAs and SMPs exhibit changes in stiffness through phase transitions, they
have been utilized by researchers to develop multi-finger grippers. Behl [104] presented
a four-finger gripper with a bi-directional SMP that was able to pick up and place a coin.
Moreover, She [105] developed an R-H where each finger was comprised of SMA material
strips. The integration of SMA materials into grippers allows for greater flexibility in object
manipulation. In addition, Shahinpoor [106] developed a four-finger gripper using ionic
polymer metal composites (IPMCs).

2.2.3. Soft Grippers with Gripping by Controlled Adhesion

The fluidic elastomer actuator (FEA) is one of the oldest actuation technologies in
soft robotics and was used by Suzumori [107] to develop a four-fingered gripper. The
gripper consisted of three pneumatic chambers that allowed for the dexterous grasping
of objects like a beaker containing liquid and a metallic wrench, as well as the ability to
tighten a bolt without the need for external tools. Several other researchers have devel-
oped multi-finger grippers or R-Hs using FEAs, including a six-fingered gripper [108]
that could bend upwards and downwards and pick up a raw egg, a five-fingered R-H
presented by Yamaguchi [109] that was able to pick up a cup and tape roll, and an R-H
introduced by Niiyama [110] with pneumatic pouch actuators and structures that could be
printed in 15 min.
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 10 of 34

3. Animal-Inspired Grippers
In this section, we delve into the art of animal-inspired grippers, exploring their diverse
forms through the lens of eight major taxonomic categories: clamp, suction, wrapping,
dry adhesion, wet adhesion, swallow, lock, and hook. Each of these taxonomic groups
encompasses a spectrum of gripping mechanisms, often with additional subdivisions
capturing even finer nuances. Certain grippers blend elements from multiple taxonomic
groups, resulting in hybrid designs that draw inspiration from various aspects of the
animal kingdom.

3.1. Clamp Grasp

Gripping objects through the application of squeezing forces, generated by anatomical
features such as fingers and legs, represents one of the most prevalent methods in the
animal kingdom. This mechanism has also found popularity in the field of robotic gripper
fabrication, where it has been widely imitated. An example of this is the CCRobot-II,
a gripper inspired by monkeys, as described by Zhenliang et al. [111]. This gripper is
equipped with a palm-based cable system that enables it to traverse bridges. Featuring
dual palms—one on each side—it generates the required squeezing force through passive
springs and gear transmission to maintain its grip on the bridge structure. Predatory
birds possess the remarkable ability to swiftly capture prey with high success rates across
diverse conditions. Justin et al. [112] proposed a gripper inspired by avian digits, integrated
onto a quadrotor UAV to achieve rapid object grasping (refer to Figure 4a). Comprising
two opposing fingers, this gripper employs a DC servo motor for gripping and releasing
actions. Other similar gripper mechanisms have been developed, often incorporating
enhancements for more gentle interactions.
As an illustration, the work presented in [113] showcased the design of a soft-clamp
gripper featuring two opposing Pneunet fingers actuated by pneumatic pressure. These
fingers were constructed from a series of chambers made from silicon rubber, featuring
a cross-sectional area that gradually decreased from the palm to the tip. This specific
morphological configuration empowered the gripper to adeptly manipulate objects with
shapes such as spheres, cylinders, blocks, and discs. A separate instance is represented
by the jamming fingers introduced in [90], which incorporated two latex membranes
containing volumes of small particles. The gripper’s motion and stiffness were regulated
by controlling the air pressure through a tube system that connected the fingers to a pump.
Moreover, a three-linkage gripper, outlined in [114], emerged from the collaboration of
two rigid fingers, each equipped with three phalanges and operating with a single DoF.
Drawing inspiration from the eel jaw, the gripper presented in [115] comprised two rigid
fingers, each possessing three linkages. This configuration ensured that the fingertips
maintained parallel movement in relation to each other, enhancing their grasping capability.
Additionally, the studies conducted in [116–118] further contributed to the field of B-I
grippers, particularly focusing on designs inspired by bird perching mechanisms.
Crabs have evolved a unique gripping mechanism involving multiple-linkage fingers
organized into two claws, which has inspired advancements in gripper design. An exam-
ple of this concept can be found in the work of Wenzhong et al. [119], who introduced
an origami-based structure featuring two symmetrical fingers equipped with multiple
wedges. These fingers exhibited the ability to open and fold through origami joints, with
the wedges establishing contact between the fingers and the objects being manipulated
(refer to Figure 4b). Further contributions to this area include the design and optimization
of a crab-like gripper presented in the study by Linh et al. [120]. This gripper encompassed
multiple rigid links in a compact form, offering both a miniaturized scale and compliant per-
formance. Building upon these concepts, recent efforts described in our prior works [14,17]
have introduced novel grippers characterized by two symmetrical claws attached to a
central palm. Each of these claws incorporates an array of multiple fingers operating in
synchronization via connecting shafts. Additionally, the hybrid structure of each finger
integrates a cord stretched by a rigid skeleton. Demonstrating remarkable efficacy, these
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 11 of 34

grippers have exhibited commendable performance in grasping various objects during

trials (see Figure 4d). Figure 4c depicts a spider-like gripper with three fingers, actuated
by electrohydraulic actuators, designed for swift manipulation [121]. This configuration
involves one finger featuring three rigid phalanges capable of rotational movement around
each other via a rotational joint actuated by the electrohydraulic mechanism.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 4. B-I grippers based on clamping mechanism mimicking different animals: (a) bird (avian) [112];
(b) origami [119]; (c) spider [121]; and (d) crab [17] (© IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters).

The principle of a fin ray, integral for fish swimming and underwater balance, has
also inspired the development of certain grippers. Notable examples of such grippers,
borrowing from the fin ray effect, can be found in works like [122–125]. These studies
introduced grippers incorporating finger structures and mechanisms resembling the fin
ray’s operation. In these cases, the fin-ray-inspired fingers shared analogous structures
and designs, characterized by a soft skin supported by multiple cross-beams mounted in
parallel. This arrangement empowered the grippers to readily adapt to the contours of
objects, particularly those with spherical shapes.

3.2. Sucking Grasp

The octopus, a remarkable eight-armed mollusk, showcases a distinctive array of arms,
each adorned with numerous suckers on its mouth’s surface [126–129]. The cross-sectional
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 12 of 34

profile of each arm is broader at its proximal base and gently tapers towards its distal tip.
These arms, in conjunction with the suction cups, offer multi-functionality, serving roles
in manipulation, locomotion, and chemotaxis perception. The octopus employs its arms
for various behaviors, including crawling, walking, signaling, destructive camouflage, and
prey extraction. This versatility has motivated the integration of octopus-arm-inspired
concepts in manipulation research.
During the initial stages, an octopus-like arm was designed, composed of three seg-
ments equipped with two pneumatic muscles [130–132], controllable through air pressure.
All muscles were stabilized using a twisted nylon wire. A similar approach was adopted
in [133], featuring an arm with four segments, each comprising three pneumatic muscles.
In [134–136], two octopus-inspired arms were manufactured, measuring 210 mm in length,
16 mm in diameter at the tip, and 21 mm in diameter at the body. These arms, made of
silicon rubber, employed cable or SMA actuation, showcasing the ability to adapt to and
lift substantial loads. Another soft octopus arm, featuring eight tentacles, utilized fluidic
bending actuators to drive arm motion [137]. Jie [138] devised a flexible octopus gripper
comprising two soft Pneunet fingers for gripping objects like apples.
Recent developments have focused on enhancing suction cup functionality in octopus
arms. For instance, the Barbara group [139] devised suckers with varying morphologies,
enabling inner membrane movement via pneumatic means. Additionally, the suction
force was improved through alterations in the taper angle and bending curvature of the
suction cup [140]. Microscale suckers with PDMS structures were fabricated to enhance
wet adhesion [141]. For improved self-adaptation underwater, Mingxin [142] introduced
fins between adjacent arms and embedded light within each suction cup (see Figure 5a).

(a) (b)
Figure 5. B-I grippers based on sucking mechanism mimicking different animals: (a) octopus [142]
(© Advanced Science, vol 9) and (b) lamprey [143] (© Actuators, vol 11).

Another intriguing example is the lamprey-mouth-inspired gripper with concentrically

mounted suction cups of varying sizes [143] (see Figure 5b). This innovative gripper
exploited the suction force to pick up large objects exclusively. In contrast, the lamprey-
mouth-like gripper in [144] employed a single suction cup, gripping objects using passive
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 13 of 34

pressure within the cup chamber without external pneumatic assistance. An origami-based
suction cup mechanism, inspired by birds, was introduced in [145].

3.3. Wrapping Grasp

Grippers equipped with multiple-link fingers embody a conventional design fre-
quently found in industrial applications and production lines. While achieving gross
movements with fine motor control might be straightforward [146], the presence of rigid
links inherently limits the number of DoF available for the gripper. This limitation becomes
pronounced when handling intricate or pliable tasks. In response, the concept of contin-
uum robot grippers has emerged as a promising avenue, offering versatility across various
industries [147–150]. These grippers excel in scenarios involving slender objects [151] and
medical applications [152,153].
Continuum robots draw inspiration from living structures observed in the animal
kingdom, exemplified by five primary mechanisms: the elephant trunk, serpentine motion,
tentacle movement, octopus arm dynamics, and the flexible spines of mammals. This
B-I foundation fuels their innovation, enabling the development of grippers capable of
complex and adaptable operations.

3.3.1. Elephant Trunk

The elephant trunk, often referred to as the proboscis, stands out as an extraordinary
organ characterized by an exceptional range of movement, effectively functioning as a
muscular hydrostat. This remarkable anatomical feature serves to not only manipulate
objects of varying weights but also carry out a multitude of social and sensory tasks [154].
The absence of a rigid, articulated skeleton is compensated for by the coordinated con-
tractions of antagonistic muscles, resulting in bending, twisting, elongation, shortening,
and stiffness adjustments. The elephant trunk showcases remarkable versatility in its
capabilities, allowing it to transport substantial loads of up to 270 kg while also engaging
in intricate tasks such as delicately handling a single blade of grass. Beyond its physical
strength, the proboscis serves as a multi-functional tool in an elephant’s daily life. These
functions encompass not only breathing but also olfaction, mechanosensation, activities like
siphoning or spraying water, vocalization, posture-based communication, tool utilization,
and even sprinkling dust for various purposes [155–158].
Wilson and his colleagues [159] can be recognized as pioneers in establishing the
groundwork for the development of a robot inspired by the mechanics of an elephant trunk.
In their innovative design, the soft robot was composed of a complete arm, culminating in a
gripper affixed to its end-effector. Spanning a total length of 614 mm, this robot was created
using various sections constructed from orthotropic and polyurethane tubes, employing a
structural arrangement akin to the Pneunet concept. As a result of this arrangement, the
gripper and arm exhibited bending or releasing motions in synchronization, mirroring the
behaviors exhibited by an actual elephant trunk, whether under pressurized or nonpressur-
ized conditions. A gripper inspired by the elephant trunk is also shown in Figure 6, where
a SMA [160] was used to replace the C-D system in previous elephant trunk-like grippers
to boost the flexibility of the gripper. Although the SMA made the gripper more compact
in controlling multiple sections, a big challenge to achieving high accuracy was still present
due to the heating and cooling-down process.
In a different approach, the authors of [161] developed a soft R-H that closely emulated
the functionality of an elephant trunk, utilizing a C-D system. This hand was constructed
with five interconnected segments, forming a chain-like structure. The external surface of
each segment was composed of a soft tube made from a latex membrane sealed by two end
caps. To enhance the segment’s stability, an inner space containing a spring and various
sizes of jamming granular material was incorporated. Further refinements were introduced
in subsequent designs [162,163], where a central backbone composed of a chain of shorter
links interconnected by universal (cardan) joints was added to each segment. Moreover,
a spring system was integrated to connect neighboring links and restrict their lateral
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 14 of 34

motion. Advancements in this direction were made by Huang [164] and Zhang [165], who
transformed the concepts from [162,163] into parallel-segment structures driven by cable
systems. They subsequently developed mathematical models to systematically investigate,
analyze, and assess the performance of these grippers in manipulation tasks.

Figure 6. B-I grippers based on sucking mechanism mimicking the elephant trunk [160] (© MDPI
Polymers Volume 15 Issue 5).

3.3.2. Tentacle-Inspired Grippers

Tentacles, observed in certain animal species like squids and snails, are remarkable
appendages characterized by their mobility, flexibility, and elongation. Often found in
invertebrates, these tentacles can occur in one or multiple pairs within an animal’s anatomy.
Anatomically, tentacles typically function similarly to muscle hydrostats. These versatile
structures serve a variety of purposes, primarily centered around feeding and grasping
activities. Additionally, many tentacles function as sensory organs, exhibiting varying
levels of sensitivity to touch, visual stimuli, and olfactory or gustatory cues, aiding in
detecting specific food sources or potential threats. The diverse functionalities of these
tentacles have inspired the development of robotic gripper designs that seek to emulate
their unique capabilities.
In a squid-inspired design presented by Wilson et al. [159], a flexible gripper resem-
bling a squid grasping a shrimp was proposed. This gripper featured two symmetrical
Pneunet fingers controlled by air pressure on both sides. Grasping and releasing actions
were achieved by adjusting the air pressure to intake or exhaust states, respectively. Each
finger demonstrated side load and gripping force capacities of 1.42 N and 10 N, respectively.
Harvard researchers introduced a tentacle-inspired gripper in [166]. This gripper consisted
of spaghetti-filament-shaped fingers, each actuated by pneumatic pressure. The R-H in-
corporated 12 filaments arranged in concentric circles with 25 mm and 50 mm diameters.
(a)
External fluidic control was facilitated by a pneumatic manifold connected to the filaments,
enabling the gripper to adapt to and grasp various objects like balls, plants, and frames.
Martinez’s group [167] developed a tentacle-like gripper using a composite elastomer
system. This system utilized micropneumatic networks distributed across the different
interfaces of two distinct elastomers, enabling intricate 3D motions. Other tentacle-like grip-
per designs were explored using origami-based [168] or C-D mechanisms [169]. Biomimetic
suckers inspired by a squid’s adhesive capabilities, following the discovery that suckers
removed from deceased squid could securely adhere to smooth surfaces [170], also influ-
enced the design of squid-inspired grippers. Hou’s work [171] enhanced the gripping force
of suckers in a squid-inspired gripper by incorporating silicon tubes. Mimicking jellyfish
tentacles [172–176] and sea anemone [124] also inspired the development of soft grippers

(b)
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 15 of 34

that can function underwater. The motions and grasping postures of tentacle-like grippers
in object manipulation have been modeled and analyzed in various studies [177–185].

3.3.3. Serpentes-Inspired and Mammal-Inspired (Spine-like) Grippers

The suborder Serpentes, commonly known as snakes, represents a group of reptiles
characterized by their elongated limbless bodies, as discussed in [186–188]. Snakes achieve
locomotion through the propagation of wave-like motions along their bodies. This unique
locomotion mechanism allows them to move swiftly even in confined spaces, inspiring the
design of robotic grippers [189–194]. A robot tongue design in [195] featured a metal-tape
backbone enclosed in a PET tube, actuated by pneumatic pressure. A snake-like robot
was introduced in [196] for exploration and rescue missions in narrow spaces. This robot
gripper comprised three fingers, each with two phalanges, offering a total of 8 DOF. The
gripper’s movement was facilitated by a gear transmission system. Additionally, the robot’s
body could navigate through confined areas due to interconnected rigid segments with
universal joints. Equipped with micro-cameras on its fingertips, this R-H could observe
its surroundings without requiring the snake’s body to move (see Figure 7a). A fiber-tip
microgripper, detailed in [197], employed a three-hinge mechanism and a spring system
for passive actuation by squeezing. This microgripper was mounted on the head of a
snake-like robot body for picking up thin paper. Other snake-inspired robots described
by Kumar [198,199] incorporated multiple interconnected links driven by separate DC
motors. These robots featured grippers with two fingers, directly actuated by a motor (see
Figure 7b). The authors of [200] developed a helical-fabric robot hand with variable stiffness
and contact-sensing capabilities. This gripper could alter its morphology by twisting and
adapting to an object’s surface using hydraulic actuation.

(a)

(b)
Figure 7. B-I grippers mimicking snakes: (a) [196] and (b) [199]. In such scenarios, the gripper
modules are attached to the snake bodies.

Drawing inspiration from the human spine, a continuum actuator was employed for
flexible manipulation, as demonstrated in [201]. This approach utilized dorsal vertebrae
connected by SMA wires to form an arm. In a similar vein, the giraffe’s long and flexible
neck, allowing it to manipulate objects at a distance, inspired the design of a continuum
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 16 of 34

gripper presented in [202]. This gripper featured interconnected dorsal vertebrae stabilized
by ligament systems, driven by pneumatic muscles. Experimental results showcased its
ability to handle sizeable objects, such as a cup with a 250 mm diameter. Taking cues
from monkeys that use their tails to hold onto branches, a hybrid soft robot gripper with
three fingers actuated by pneumatic muscles was developed, as described in [203]. In a
different approach, a spiral robot arm proposed in [204] employed a chain of multiple
elements interconnected by an elastic backbone and actuated using a mutual-cable sys-
tem. This arm demonstrated effective wrapping around objects like pens and rocks in
three different versions, featuring one, two, or three driven cables.

3.4. Dry Adhesion Grasping

Due to differences in evolutionary histories, the dermatoglyphics of animal toes or
fingers are very diverse [205]. For instance, gecko feet feature apical ridges on their volar
surfaces, which enable them to achieve dry adhesion to various surfaces in their environ-
ment through Van der Waals interactions among molecules or even single atoms [206,207].
The anatomical characteristics of these features facilitate efficient attachment between an an-
imal’s toes and its surroundings. Consequently, researchers have extensively explored and
leveraged this mechanism, as evident in both scientific investigations [208] and applications
in robotics [209,210], particularly within gripper designs (refer to Figure 8).

(a)
Figure 8. B-I grippers mimicking the toe sole structure of the gecko microstructure of a gecko toe
sole [210] (© MDPI Robotics Volume 11 Issue 6), and gripper application [211] (© Science Robotics
Volume 6 Issue 61) .

As an illustration, a group of researchers in [212] developed a gripping mechanism

utilizing thin silicon films covered with microscale wedges, serving as the surface of contact
between the gripper and the objects. These films were affixed to Pneunet fingers, and
when the air pressure within the finger chambers increased, the fingers bent towards
each other, enabling a grasping motion. This approach combined dry adhesion from
the wedges with the gripping force exerted by the fingers. Similar methodologies were
explored in [211,213–216], where C-D two-finger robot hands were devised. In these
studies, adhesive pads were divided into smaller scales and affixed to the phalanges of
the fingers. The shear force, enhanced through electrostatic stimulation, played a pivotal
role in securely grasping objects. Another noteworthy example is the robot hand presented
in [217], featuring gecko-like adhesive pads on its fingertips for handling flat-surfaced
objects. Each pad was actuated by a linear wire made from an SMA. Using 3D printing
techniques, researchers in [218,219] fabricated a novel gripper with adhesive pads on its
fingertips, designed to grasp flexible circuits or balloons. In another approach, an adhesive
pad consisting of a three-layer thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) material was developed
in [220], demonstrating switchable adhesion on rough surfaces. This TPU adhesive pad
exhibited successful performance in picking up circular or cylindrical objects, such as eggs
and cans, by adjusting the supplied voltage.

(b)
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 17 of 34

In a recent development, a gecko-inspired gripper with switchable adhesive properties,

driven by a magnetic field, was presented in [221]. This gripper featured a gecko-like surface
composed of setal arrays and lamellar structures. The lamellar structures were designed to
control dry adhesion through deformation induced by the magnetic field. Simultaneously,
the setal array enhanced dry adhesion and contributed to self-cleanability at the contact
interface. Another approach to modulating dry adhesion was demonstrated by Tian [222],
who achieved this by altering the air pressure within the finger chamber system of the
gripper. In the pursuit of optimizing gripping without exerting excessive force on objects,
gecko-inspired grippers have been developed to address this concern. For instance, the
gripper devised by Hawkes [223] featured two soft bands with gecko-like wedges covering
the grasping interface. Experimental evaluations showcased the gripper’s ability to pick
up and lift various objects with minimal applied force. This achievement was primarily
attributed to the dry adhesive force generated by the gecko-like surface. Furthermore, the
design of the finger skeletons aimed at generating minimal squeezing force, enabling the
soft bands to effectively adhere to object surfaces.

3.5. Wet Adhesion Grasping

Similar to grasshoppers, tree frogs employ a remarkable mechanism to achieve adhe-
sion, utilizing the principles of surface tension and capillary bridges [224,225]. Tree frogs
excrete a liquid film into the gap between their toe pad sole and the substrate to stabilize
their attachment. The sole surface of the toe pad is comprised of a multitude of hexagonal
cells arranged in an array. Each cell also referred to as a block, has an approximately 10 µm
diameter inscribed circle and is separated from neighboring cells by channels (grooves)
with a depth of around 10 µm (refer to Figure 9). Before making contact with the substrate,
most of the fluid remains within these channels to prevent rapid evaporation. Upon contact
with the substrate, the liquid is rapidly expelled from the grooves, filling the gaps between
the toe pad and the substrate. This mechanism generates the wet adhesion force that
enables the toe sole to stick to the substrate. Consequently, tree frogs can adeptly interact
with their surroundings under both wet and dry conditions. The grooves in the toe pad
serve as reservoirs for generating and releasing the wet adhesion force between the toe pad
and the substrate.

Figure 9. Tree-frog inspired gripper for handling soft and fragile objects under wet environments,
such as contact lenses and food ([241] © Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, vol 14). In this scenario, the soft
pads include a large number of blocks spaced by a network channel for boosting the wet adhesion
force between the fingers and the object.

Utilizing wet adhesion by emulating the adhesion mechanism of tree frog toe pads
offers a suitable approach for designing a soft R-H capable of autonomously grasping
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 18 of 34

wet and deformable objects with minimal applied force. Previous researchers have ex-
tensively explored the wet adhesion principle by simulating how tree frog toes attach to
substrates [226–229]. The investigation of hybrid surface patterns involving hexagonal
micro-pillars constructed from various materials has been a focus of study [230–233]. These
studies involve direct experimental comparisons to assess the effectiveness of different
surface designs. The potential of tree frog-inspired grippers has been demonstrated in
various works [234–237]. Additionally, investigations have been conducted into the role of
patterned surfaces in enhancing contact forces between the tips of soft fingers, contributing
to the understanding of effective design strategies [238,239]. This body of research collec-
tively indicates that the emulation of tree frog-inspired wet adhesion has the potential to
enhance the performance of soft robotic grippers, enabling them to adeptly handle wet and
deformable objects while minimizing the force required for gripping.
In our prior research [240–242], we initiated a preliminary assessment of the wet con-
tact between two surfaces: a micropatterned pad and a substrate (as depicted in Figure 9).
Building upon this model, we subsequently applied it to grasp a delicate thin shell within
a moist setting [243–245] with camera systems for detecting the contact, as well as a tofu
block under dry conditions [246]. The evolution of tree-frog-inspired grippers has rendered
them particularly suitable for manipulating fragile and soft objects within damp environ-
ments, all the while minimizing the necessity for exerting substantial squeezing forces prior
to grasping.

3.6. Lock and Hook Grasping

The remora, also known as the suckerfish, belongs to the Echeneidae family [247].
Renowned for its distinctive ability to attach itself to a variety of marine creatures, the
remora achieves this feat using an adhesive disc formed by its flexible and adjustable dorsal
fin. This specialized mechanism enables the suckerfish to hitch rides on other aquatic
organisms, irrespective of the fluid shear during high-speed swimming. In a study by
Yueping et al. [248], a biologically inspired prototype was developed based on the mor-
phology of the remora disc. The fabricated disc, measuring 127 mm in length and 72 mm
in width and weighing 129 g, featured a soft lip encompassing eleven aligned rows of
overlapping lamellae. Each row comprised numerous rigid carbon-fiber spinules, each
measuring 270 µm, tapering to a sharp tip and arranged in a linear fashion. Experimental
testing involving attachment to shark skin demonstrated that the fabricated disc generated
frictional forces 34 times greater than the calculated drag force of 0.16 N in natural circum-
stances. This estimation was derived from a 35 cm suckerfish adhering to the rough skin
of a shortfin mako shark, which was moving at an average swimming velocity of 1.5 m/s.
Given the remarkable adhesive strength achieved by the disc, this research outcome holds
significant potential for application in gripping objects within wet environments.
Furthermore, the concepts of lock and hook mechanisms have been applied to de-
sign grippers with characteristics similar to bees [249], beetles [250] (see Figure 10a), and
ants [251–253]. These grippers feature fingers equipped with small hooks, allowing them
to attach to surfaces. In another instance, a lobster-inspired gripper was introduced in [254],
where the contact interface of each finger incorporated multiple sharp pins, enabling an
interlocking mechanism when handling hefty objects (see Figure 10b).

3.7. Swallowing Grasp

Swallowing, scientifically termed deglutition, holds a crucial role in the consumption
of food and liquids. It represents a physiological process in the lives of animals, during
which sustenance or fluids traverse from the mouth down the pharynx and oesophagus
while the epiglottis closes to prevent the entry of substances into the airway. More recently,
the intricate process of swallowing has been investigated and emulated in the realm of
robotic applications. For example, Dongbao and colleagues [255] undertook an analysis
of the feeding mechanism employed by blood worms and subsequently developed an
R-H that drew inspiration from this process for versatile gripping. This gripper design
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 19 of 34

encompassed the ability to envelop the entirety of an object and furthermore achieved
self-adaptive grasping with objects of varying sizes through the integration of detachable
modules. Hong Bin in [256] proposed a bionic gripper inspired by the eating activity of an
anemone, which had a similar principle to that in [255]. In addition to its rolling motion for
manipulation, the elephant trunk possesses the capability to grip and pinch objects using
its nasal appendage and digits. A couple of studies, namely [257,258], introduced a gripper
design that emulated both the nose and fingers of the elephant trunk (refer to Figure 11).
This gripper took the form of a suction cup, wherein the structure incorporated two sym-
metrical Pneunet fingers situated within a jamming membrane. Positioned at the center of
the gripper was a hole that imitated the elephant trunk’s nasal portion. Consequently, the
manipulation of air pressure within this gripper engendered three distinct mechanisms: the
activation of the fingers, the jamming membrane, and the suction cup. Each of these mech-
anisms served a specific purpose—gripping, pinching, and suction—enabling a versatile
approach to object manipulation.
(a)

(a) (b)
(b) (c)
Figure 10. B-I grippers based on hooking and locking mechanism mimicking different animals:
(a) beetle-leg-inspired gripper [250] (© MDPI Biomimetics Volume 8 Issue 1), and (b) lobster-jaw-
inspired gripper [254] (© 2021 Frontiers).

The chameleon’s unique ability to swiftly extend its tongue, grab prey from varying
directions, and elongate with remarkable flexibility has inspired researchers to develop
novel soft grippers with similar functionalities. In [259], a gripper design was introduced
that emulated the chameleon’s tongue mechanism, enabling the gripper to grasp objects at
its tip. This gripper incorporated a tubular actuator, enclosed by a soft tongue skeleton func-
tioning as its inner core and featuring a hole at the tip to mimic the chameleon’s tongue tip.
Upon applying positive air pressure, the gripper’s tongue tip closed, thereby capturing the
object. Another chameleon-inspired gripper concept was presented by Dong Jun in [260].
This design employed a rigid tongue structure, capable of rapidly shooting out and retract-
ing for manipulation tasks. The gripper’s tongue achieved swift linear motion through the
utilization of a wind-up spring and gear transmission, thus replicating the chameleon’s
dynamic tongue movements.
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 20 of 34

(a)

(b)
Figure 11. Swallowing-inspired grippers based on animal features such as an elephant’s
nose [257] (© MDPI Biomimetics Volume 8 Issue 4).

4. Plant-Inspired Grippers
Yongrok’s team in [261] developed soft grippers featuring shape-morphing films
(SMFs) actuated through electro-heating (as depicted in Figure 12a). This research show-
cased the gripper’s versatility through three distinct grasping modes inspired by flower
mechanisms, specifically Bauhinia variegata and Drosera Capensis, which utilize hierar-
chical morphology for insect trapping, as well as the inchworm locomotion pattern. The
Venus flytrap’s ability to rapidly capture prey, especially insects, due to its responsive
terminal lobes served as inspiration for another gripper design in [262] (see Figure 12b).
This gripper was designed to excel in high-speed dynamic picking tasks. The gripper’s
design incorporated two fundamental principles: snap-through instability that facilitated
quick responses and a pneumatic control system influenced by spider mechanisms. As a
result, this gripper was capable of successfully executing dynamic tasks such as capturing
a swiftly moving baseball.
In [263], a soft spiral gripper was developed to imitate the twining mechanism
observed in plants. This gripper utilized a single pneumatic control mechanism to
secure the target object. Notably, it featured a fiber-optic sensor capable of provid-
ing information about the touch status and twining angles (as shown in Figure 13a).
Experimental results indicated its effectiveness in handling objects with a maximum
twining angle of 540 degrees, as well as its ability to firmly grasp even small objects
with diameters of around 1 mm.
The vine-inspired gripper described in [264,265] was conceptualized based on a con-
centric spring-tube backbone that was operated using a cable system. This design in-
corporated a core composed of three sections, with each section containing a concentric
carbon-fiber tube (as shown in Figure 13b). The tip and middle sections were equipped
with a loaded-spring mechanism, allowing for the local extension and contraction of the
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 21 of 34

gripper. To control the bending motions of the tubes, three cables were affixed to each
tip section, enabling the gripper to achieve two DOF in bending each tube. Additionally,
the gripper was fitted with a camera at its tip, which served to capture data during tasks
involving remote inspection or object manipulation.

(a) (b)
Figure 12. Mechanism of the shape morphing module based on the variation of the elastic
modulus (E) and coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) for different materials and the bioinspired
showcases: the movements of the inchworm and Drosera Capensis (a) [261] (© Advanced Intelligent
Systems Volume 5 Issue 3); a high-speed gripper imitating the fast predation process of the Venus
flytrap, with the B-I design of the gripper including the repeatable trigger mechanism originating
from the spider’s joint structure (b) [262] (© Advanced Science Volume 8 Issue 21).

The unique hierarchical vein patterns found in cabbage leaves, which lead to their
curling formation, served as inspiration for a bionic gripper design in [266]. This gripper
featured two leaf-like structures, each of which was fabricated using 3D printing technology
with a polylactic acid (PLA) polymer. These printed structures mimicked leaf veins and
provided support to the lightweight leaf bodies, which were constructed using paper
substrates. The gripper’s mechanism for grasping objects was based on controlling the heat
generated by a PI electric sheet that was attached to the back of each leaf. By manipulating
the temperature, the gripper could induce the curling behavior, effectively allowing it
to grasp and hold objects. Another example of plant-inspired gripper technology is the
osmotic pressure generator [267], which drew inspiration from plant mechanisms. This
generator was integrated into a five-finger Pneunet gripper design. The operation of the
generator was based on the concept of hydrated dialysis cassettes, utilizing water and a
diluted liquid solution. By controlling the movement of the liquid solution in and out of the
finger chambers through a pipe system and pressure transducer, the gripper could generate
pressures of up to 5 kPa, enabling the effective grasping and manipulation of objects (as
depicted in Figure 13b).

(a) (b)
 (a) (b)

Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 22 of 34

(a) (b)
Figure 13. The twining mechanism of a twining plant on its substrate was imitated by the de-
sign of a soft gripper for handling a flower (a) [263] (© Optics Express Volume 28 Issue 23). A
robotic gripper was actuated by an osmotic pressure generator inspired by the plant mechanism
(b) [267] (© PLoS ONE 2014).

5. Summary
The B-I grippers discussed in the previous section showcase a diverse range of designs
involving mechanisms, actuators, materials, and applications, all realized through various
fabrication methods. This section aims to summarize the common features of these B-I
grippers and generalize their key concepts.

5.1. Actuators
In almost all grippers, actuators were used to generate the motions for the fingers,
and in a few cases to drive the palm. These actuators varied widely and were either used
individually or in combination within each gripper design. From a technical perspective,
these actuators can be categorized into the following major groups.
Direct-drive: In this configuration, a single motor is directly attached to an individual
finger’s joint, enabling the rotation of a finger phalanx. While this structure ensures
the highest level of accuracy in grasp and release motions, it often results in a gripper
that is heavy and bulky. To address these limitations, many gripper designs incorporate
transmission links to drive the finger joints.
Pneumatic and hydraulic: These types of actuators are extensively used in both
conventional and soft grippers. In such cases, air pressure or liquid pressure is employed
to create motions in the gripper for the purpose of grasping or releasing objects. This
approach is commonly employed in cylinders, Pneunet mechanisms, jamming-based
systems, vacuum actuators, and more. Fluid actuators offer advantages such as rapid
actuation, hygienic operation, and compactness. However, achieving precise control and
minimizing noise in gripper movements can be challenging with fluid-based actuators.
C-D: This type of actuation is commonly used to control the fingers with rigid pha-
langes. In this mechanism, two ends of a cable are anchored to the fingertips, while the
middle section is affixed to a pulley connected to a motor shaft. When the motor rotates, it
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 23 of 34

pulls one branch of the cable while releasing the other, resulting in the movement of the
joint or finger in a specific direction. Actuators offer benefits such as reducing the grip-
per’s inertia during operation by placing the motor away from the fingers. Additionally,
the tension along the cable remains constant throughout its length, ensuring a consistent
grasping force.
SMAs: Actuators are used in robotic grippers to control the joints of the fingers. They
offer advantages such as a low weight-to-force ratio, minimal noise, and a compact size.
The design of SMAs allows for a seamless transition between grasping and releasing states
through thermal heating [268]. This mechanism enables the passive holding of objects even
when the power to the gripper is cut off.
Electro-adhesive: Electro-adhesive actuators operate by applying power to electrodes
embedded in a dielectric substrate. The presence of opposite charges between the electro-
sticky pads and the substrate creates adhesive forces that enable the gripper to achieve a
secure grip on objects.
Other types of actuators: Various other types of actuators have also been employed
in gripper designs, expanding beyond the methods mentioned earlier. Examples include
shape-adaptive magnetorheological elastomers and electroactive polymer actuation. These
alternative actuators provide additional options for creating innovative and effective grip-
per mechanisms.

5.2. Applications
B-I soft and rigid grippers have found a multitude of applications across various
industries and domains, owing to their ability to mimic natural mechanisms and adapt to
different objects and environments. These grippers combine the advantages of biological
systems with advanced robotic technology, enabling them to excel in tasks that were once
challenging for traditional grippers.

5.2.1. Applications of B-I Soft Grippers

Soft grippers have shown promise in medical applications such as minimally invasive
surgeries (the Da Vinci Surgical System), endoscopic procedures, and drug delivery. Their
compliant nature allows them to interact with delicate tissues and perform intricate tasks
without causing damage. In research laboratories, these grippers are used for handling
delicate samples, pipetting, and micromanipulation. Their softness and flexibility enable
the accurate and controlled handling of sensitive materials. Soft grippers are ideal for
handling fragile and irregularly shaped objects like fruits, vegetables, and baked goods.
Their adaptability ensures gentle handling, reducing product damage and waste during
harvesting, sorting, and packaging processes. In addition, these grippers equipped with
tactile sensors assist people with disabilities in daily activities like grabbing objects or
turning knobs. Soft robotic grippers have found significant applications in warehouse
automation to enhance efficiency in picking and sorting tasks. Suction-based soft robotics
grippers are used for box handling and parcel sorting in distribution centers. On the other
hand, jamming-based soft robotic grippers are used in bin picking and for handling delicate
items like electronics or glassware.

5.2.2. Applications of B-I Rigid Grippers

Rigid grippers with anthropomorphic designs are employed in industrial manufactur-
ing and assembly lines for tasks such as picking, placing, and manipulating components
in precise positions [269]. These grippers are also used in construction and maintenance
tasks that require heavy lifting, such as moving construction materials or repairing large
structures. Moreover, rigid grippers on rovers like the Mars Curiosity Rover manipulate
tools and collect samples from the Martian surface. Finally, the grippers are also used in
scientific research and exploration, such as underwater studies, archaeological excavations,
and studying inaccessible environments.
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 24 of 34

Both soft and rigid B-I grippers continue to evolve, opening doors to new applications
and use cases across industries. Their ability to adapt, conform, and interact with objects in
ways similar to natural organisms makes them powerful tools for advancing automation,
efficiency, and safety in various fields.

6. Conclusions
The field of gripper technology has witnessed remarkable advancements through
the integration of B-I designs, encompassing both rigid and soft gripper systems. The
influence of natural mechanisms and structures from animals and plants has driven inno-
vation in gripper development, leading to the creation of highly efficient and adaptable
robotic manipulators.
Rigid grippers, drawing inspiration from the bio-mechanics of human and animal
limbs, have paved the way for highly capable and versatile robotic systems. These grippers,
with their anthropomorphic configurations and intricate joint arrangements, have found
applications in industrial automation, manufacturing, and precise manipulation tasks. By
mimicking the dexterity and precision of human hands, these grippers have transformed
industries by enhancing productivity and automation capabilities.
On the other hand, soft grippers, inspired by the compliant nature of biological
organisms, have introduced a paradigm shift in manipulation tasks. The utilization of
flexible materials and mechanisms has enabled these grippers to adapt to a wide range of
object shapes and sizes, making them ideal for delicate and complex tasks. The integration
of SMPs, low-melting-point alloys, and other novel materials has led to the development of
grippers with variable stiffness, further enhancing their ability to interact with different
objects and environments.
The synergy between B-I concepts and robotics has not only expanded the horizons of
gripper technology but has also bridged the gap between the artificial and natural worlds.
The diverse applications of these grippers, ranging from industrial automation to healthcare
and beyond, underscore their transformative potential across various domains. The contin-
uous exploration of B-I principles holds the promise of unlocking even more sophisticated
and efficient gripper systems, shaping the future of robotics and manipulation.
In conclusion, the convergence of biology and robotics in gripper design has yielded
systems that emulate the capabilities of living organisms, while also driving technological
progress. This research paper explored the rich landscape of rigid and soft B-I grippers,
highlighting their design principles, mechanisms, and applications. As research in this
field continues to evolve, it is anticipated that these B-I grippers will play an increasingly
significant role in revolutionizing the way we interact with and manipulate the world
around us.

Author Contributions: V.P.N. and S.B.D.: concept, literature review, and writing. W.T.C. and V.P.N.:
review. S.B.D.: proofreading. V.M.: providing support to V.P.N. in editing Sections 3 and 4. B.S.H.
and W.T.C.: funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR)
under its IAF-ICP Programme I2001E0067 and the Schaeffler Hub for Advanced Research at NTU.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 25 of 34

References
1. Lee, C.; Kim, S. Soft robot review. Int. J. Control Autom. Syst. 2017, 15, 3–15.
2. Rusu, D.M.; Mândru, S.D.; Biris, , C.M.; Petras, cu, O.L.; Morariu, F.; Ianosi-Andreeva-Dimitrova, A. Soft Robotics: A Systematic
Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Micromachines 2023, 14, 359.
3. Ahmed, F.; Waqas, M.; Jawed, B.; Soomro, A.M.; Kumar, S.; Hina, A.; Khan, U.; Kim, K.H.; Choi, K.H. Decade of bio-inspired soft
robots: A review. Smart Mater. Struct. 2022, 31, 073002.
4. Shintake, J.; Cacucciolo, V.; Floreano, D.; Shea, H. Soft Robotic Grippers. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1707035.
5. Hughes, J.; Culha, U.; Giardina, F.; Guenther, F.; Rosendo, A.; Iida, F. Soft Manipulators and Grippers: A Review. Front. Robot. AI
2016, 3, 69.
6. Goh, G.D.; Goh, G.L.; Lyu, Z.; Ariffin, M.Z.; Yeong, W.Y.; Lum, G.Z.; Campolo, D.; Han, B.S.; Wong, H.Y.A. 3D Printing of Robotic
Soft Grippers: Toward Smart Actuation and Sensing. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2022, 7, 2101672.
7. Chen, H.; Wu, Z. Soft-rigid coupling grippers: Collaboration strategies and integrated fabrication methods. Sci. China Technol. Sci.
2023. [CrossRef]
8. Trivedi, D.; Walker, I.D. Soft robotics: Biological inspiration, state of the art, and future research. Appl. Bionics Biomech. 2008,
5, 99–117.
9. Saudabayev, A.; Rysbek, Z.; Khassenova, R.; Varol, H.A. Human grasping database for activities of daily living with depth, color
and kinematic data streams. Sci. Data 2018, 5, 180101.
10. Feix, T.; Romero, J.; Schmiedmayer, H.B.; Dollar, A.M.; Kragic, D. The GRASP Taxonomy of Human Grasp Types.
IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 2016, 46, 66–77.
11. Stival, F.; Atzori, M. A quantitative taxonomy of human hand grasps. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2018, 16, 28.
12. Spiers, A.J.; Liarokapis, M.V.; Calli, B.; Dollar, A.M. Single-Grasp Object Classification and Feature Extraction with Simple Robot
Hands and Tactile Sensors. IEEE Trans. Haptics 2016, 9, 207–220.
13. Kaneko, M.; Harada, K. Grasp and Manipulation of Multiple Objects. In Robotics Research; Springer: London, UK, 2000.
14. Nguyen, P.V.; Bui, T.H. Towards Safely Grasping Group Objects by Hybrid Robot Hand. In Proceedings of the 2021 4th
International Conference on Robotics, Control and Automation Engineering (RCAE), Wuhan, China, 4–6 November 2021;
pp. 389–393.
15. Nguyen, V.P.; Nguyen, P.N.; Nguyen, T.; Le, T.L. Hybrid robot hand for stably manipulating one group objects. Arch. Mech. Eng.
2022, 69, 375–391.
16. Nguyen, V.P.; Sunil Bohra, D.; Han, B.S.; Chow, W.T. Towards Flexible Manipulation with Wiring-Base Robot Hand. In Robot
Intelligence Technology and Applications 7, RiTA 2022; Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland,
2022; Volume 642.
17. Nguyen, V.P.; Chow, W.T. Wiring-Claw Gripper for Soft-Stable Picking up Multiple Objects. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2023,
8, 3972–3979.
18. Agboh, W. Learning to Efficiently Plan Robust Frictional Multi-Object Grasps. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2210.07420.
19. Agboh, W.C.; Ichnowski, J.; Goldberg, K.; Dogar, M.R. Multi-Object Grasping in the Plane. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2206.00229. [CrossRef]
20. Sun, Y.; Amatova, E.; Chen, T. Multi-Object Grasping–Types and Taxonomy. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2205.15276.
21. Kapandji, I. The Physiology of the Joints: Lower Limb; Edinburgh Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh, UK, 1987.
22. Schlesinger, G. The mechanical structure of the artificial limbs. In Replacement Links and Work Aids: For War Disabled and Accident
Victims; Julius Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1919; pp. 321–661.
23. Napier, J.R. The prehensile movements of the human hand. J. Bone Jt. Surgery Br. Vol. 1956, 38, 902–913.
24. Samadikhoshkho, Z.; Zareinia, K.; Janabi-Sharifi, F. A Brief Review on Robotic Grippers Classifications. In Proceedings of
the 2019 IEEE Canadian Conference of Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), Edmonton, AB, Canada, 5–8 May 2019;
pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
25. Zhou, L.; Ren, L.; Chen, Y.; Niu, S.; Han, Z.; Ren, L. Bio-Inspired Soft Grippers Based on Impactive Gripping. Adv. Sci. 2021,
8, 2002017.
26. Deimel, R.; Brock, O. A novel type of compliant and underactuated robotic hand for dexterous grasping. Int. J. Robot. Res. 2016,
35, 161–185. [CrossRef]
27. Catalano, M.G.; Grioli, G.; Farnioli, E.; Serio, A.; Piazza, C.; Bicchi, A. Adaptive synergies for the design and control of the
Pisa/IIT SoftHand. Int. J. Robot. Res. 2014, 33, 768–782.
28. Dickinson, M.H.; Farley, C.T.; Full, R.J.; Koehl, M.; Kram, R.; Lehman, S. How animals move: An integrative view. Science 2000,
288, 100–106.
29. Zheng, W.; Xie, Y.; Zhang, B.; Zhou, J.; Zhang, J. Dexterous robotic grasping of delicate fruits aided with a multi-sensory e-glove
and manual grasping analysis for damage-free manipulation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 190, 106472.
30. Dollar, A.M.; Howe, R.D. The Highly Adaptive SDM Hand: Design and Performance Evaluation. Int. J. Robot. Res. 2010,
29, 585–597.
31. Crisman, J.; Kanojia, C.; Zeid, I. Graspar: A flexible, easily controllable robotic hand. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 1996,
3, 32–38. [CrossRef]
32. Odhner, L.U.; Jentoft, L.P.; Claffee, M.R.; Corson, N.; Tenzer, Y.; Ma, R.R.; Buehler, M.; Kohout, R.; Howe, R.D.; Dollar, A.M. A
compliant, underactuated hand for robust manipulation. Int. J. Robot. Res. 2014, 33, 736–752. [CrossRef]
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 26 of 34

33. Ciocarlie, M.; Hicks, F.M.; Holmberg, R.; Hawke, J.; Schlicht, M.; Gee, J.; Stanford, S.; Bahadur, R. The Velo gripper: A versatile
single-actuator design for enveloping, parallel and fingertip grasps. Int. J. Robot. Res. 2014, 33, 753–767. [CrossRef]
34. Wolf, A.; Schunk, H. Grippers in Motion. In Grippers in Motion; Wolf, A., Schunk, H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2018; pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]
35. Birglen, L.; Laliberté, T.; Gosselin, C. Underactuated Robotic Hands; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; Volume 40. [CrossRef]
36. Hirose, S.; Umetani, Y. The development of soft gripper for the versatile robot hand. Mech. Mach. Theory 1978, 13, 351–359. [CrossRef]
37. 2F-85 and 2F-140 Grippers. Available online: https://robotiq.com/products/2f85-140-adaptive-robot-gripper (accessed on
8 September 2023).
38. Festo. Mechanical Grippers. Available online: https://www.festo.com/hk/en/c/products/industrial-automation/pneumatic-
grippers/mechanical-grippers-id_pim415/ (accessed on 8 September 2023).
39. Bullock, I.M.; Dollar, A.M. Classifying human manipulation behavior. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference
on Rehabilitation Robotics, Zurich, Switzerland, 29 June–1 July 2011; pp. 1–6.
40. Bullock, I.M.; Ma, R.R.; Dollar, A.M. A hand-centric classification of human and robot dexterous manipulation. IEEE Trans. Haptics 2012,
6, 129–144.
41. Iberall, T. Human Prehension and Dexterous Robot Hands. Int. J. Robot. Res. 1997, 16, 285–299. [CrossRef]
42. Bicchi, A.; Marigo, A. Dexterous grippers: Putting nonholonomy to work for fine manipulation. Int. J. Robot. Res. 2002,
21, 427–442.
43. Chen, F.; Cannella, F.; Canali, C.; D’Imperio, M.; Hauptman, T.; Sofia, G.; Caldwell, D. A study on data-driven in-hand twisting
process using a novel dexterous robotic gripper for assembly automation. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Chicago, IL, USA, 14–18 September 2014; pp. 4470–4475.
44. Tincani, V.; Grioli, G.; Catalano, M.G.; Garabini, M.; Grechi, S.; Fantoni, G.; Bicchi, A. Implementation and control of the velvet
fingers: A dexterous gripper with active surfaces. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, Karlsruhe, Germany, 6–10 May 2013; pp. 2744–2750.
45. Samuels, M.; Lu, L.; Wang, C. Two-finger Multi-DOF Folding Robot Grippers. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2022, 55, 76–81. [CrossRef]
46. Loeve, A.; Ven, O.; Vogel, J.; Breedveld, P.; Dankelman, J. Vacuum packed particles as flexible endoscope guides with controllable
rigidity. Granul. Matter 2010, 12, 543–554. [CrossRef]
47. Courchesne, J.; Cardou, P.; Rachide Onadja, P.A. A compact underactuated gripper with two fingers and a retractable suction cup.
Front. Robot. AI 2023, 10, 1066516. [CrossRef]
48. Townsend, W.T., BarrettHand Grasper: Programmably Flexible Part Handling and Assembly. In Humanoid Robotics: A Reference;
Goswami, A., Vadakkepat, P., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 535–551. [CrossRef]
49. Backus, S.B.; Dollar, A.M. An Adaptive Three-Fingered Prismatic Gripper with Passive Rotational Joints. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.
2016, 1, 668–675. [CrossRef]
50. Ciocarlie, M.; Miller, A.; Allen, P. Grasp analysis using deformable fingers. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2–6 August 2005; pp. 4122–4128. [CrossRef]
51. Hanafusa, H.; Asada, H.H. A robot hand with elastic fingers and its application to assembly process. IFAC-PapersOnLine 1977,
10, 127–138.
52. Rodriguez, A. Shape for Contact. Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2013.
53. Sompur, V.; Thondiyath, A.; SKM, V. Design and Development of a Bio-Inspired Novel 3-Fingered Gripper Platform. In
Proceedings of the AIR2021: Advances in Robotics-5th International Conference of the Robotics Society, New York, NY, USA,
1 June 2022. [CrossRef]
54. Jacobsen, S.; Iversen, E.; Knutti, D.; Johnson, R.; Biggers, K. Design of the Utah/MIT dextrous hand. In Proceedings of the 1986
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, San Francisco, CA, USA, 7–10 April 1986; Volume 3, pp. 1520–1532.
55. Jacobsen, S.C.; Wood, J.E.; Knutti, D.; Biggers, K.B. The UTAH/MIT dextrous hand: Work in progress. Int. J. Robot. Res. 1984,
3, 21–50.
56. Biggers, K.; Jacobsen, S.; Gerpheide, G. Low level control of the Utah/MIT dextrous hand. In Proceedings of the 1986 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, San Francisco, CA, USA, 7–10 April 1986; Volume 3, pp. 61–66.
57. Salisbury, J.K.; Craig, J.J. Articulated Hands: Force Control and Kinematic Issues. Int. J. Robot. Res. 1982, 1, 4–17. [CrossRef]
58. Jau, B. Dexterous telemanipulation with four fingered hand system. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, Nagoya, Japan, 21–27 May 1995; Volume 1, pp. 338–343. [CrossRef]
59. Kyriakopoulos, K.; Van Riper, J.; Zink, A.; Stephanou, H. Kinematic analysis and position/force control of the Anthrobot dextrous
hand. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B Cybern. 1997, 27, 95–104. [CrossRef]
60. Bekey, G.A.; Tomovic, R.; Zeljkovic, I. Control architecture for the Belgrade/USC hand. In Dextrous Robot Hands; Springer: Berlin,
Germany, 1990.
61. Rosheim, M.E. Robot Evolution: The Development of Anthrobotics; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1994.
62. Lin, L.R.; Huang, H.P. Integrating fuzzy control of the dexterous National Taiwan University (NTU) hand. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron.
1996, 1, 216–229. [CrossRef]
63. Butterfass, J.; Hirzinger, G.; Knoch, S.; Liu, H. DLR’s multisensory articulated hand. I. Hard- and software architecture. In
Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 98CH36146), Leuven, Belgium,
20 May 1998; Volume 3, pp. 2081–2086. [CrossRef]
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 27 of 34

64. Liu, H.; Meusel, P.; Seitz, N.; Willberg, B.; Hirzinger, G.; Jin, M.; Liu, Y.; Wei, R.; Xie, Z. The modular multisensory DLR-HIT-Hand.
Mech. Mach. Theory 2007, 42, 612–625. [CrossRef]
65. Liu, H.; Wu, K.; Meusel, P.; Seitz, N.; Hirzinger, G.; Jin, M.; Liu, Y.; Fan, S.; Lan, T.; Chen, Z. Multisensory five-finger dexterous
hand: The DLR/HIT Hand II. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
Nice, France, 22–26 September 2008; pp. 3692–3697. [CrossRef]
66. Kawasaki, H.; Komatsu, T.; Uchiyama, K. Dexterous anthropomorphic robot hand with distributed tactile sensor: Gifu hand II.
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2002, 7, 296–303. [CrossRef]
67. Gupta, A.; Eppner, C.; Levine, S.; Abbeel, P. Learning Dexterous Manipulation for a Soft Robotic Hand from Human Demon-
strations. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Daejeon,
Republic of Korea, 9–14 October 2016; pp. 3786–3793. [CrossRef]
68. Bryan, P.; Kumar, S.; Sahin, F. Design of a Soft Robotic Gripper for Improved Grasping with Suction Cups. In Proceedings of the 2019
IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), Bari, Italy, 6–9 October2019; pp. 2405–2410. [CrossRef]
69. Wang, Z.; Zhu, M.; Kawamura, S.; Hirai, S. Comparison of different soft grippers for lunch box packaging. Robot. Biomimetics
2017, 4, 10. [CrossRef]
70. Petković, D.; Issa, M.; Pavlović, N.D.; Zentner, L.; Ćojbašić, Ž. Adaptive neuro fuzzy controller for adaptive compliant robotic
gripper. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 13295–13304.
71. Petković, D.; Pavlović, N.D.; Shamshirband, S.; Badrul Anuar, N. Development of a new type of passively adaptive compliant
gripper. Ind. Robot. Int. J. 2013, 40, 610–623.
72. Belzile, B.; Birglen, L. A compliant self-adaptive gripper with proprioceptive haptic feedback. Auton. Robot. 2014, 36, 79–91.
73. Liu, C.H.; Huang, G.F.; Chiu, C.H.; Pai, T.Y. Topology synthesis and optimal design of an adaptive compliant gripper to maximize
output displacement. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2018, 90, 287–304.
74. Ma, S.; Hirose, S.; Yoshinada, H. Design and experiments for a coupled tendon-driven manipulator. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 1993,
13, 30–36. [CrossRef]
75. Ma, R.; Dollar, A. Yale OpenHand Project: Optimizing Open-Source Hand Designs for Ease of Fabrication and Adoption.
IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2017, 24, 32–40. [CrossRef]
76. Zolfagharian, A.; Gharaie, S.; Gregory, J.; Bodaghi, M.; Kaynak, A.B.; Nahavandi, S. A Bioinspired Compliant 3D-Printed Soft
Gripper. Soft Robot. 2021, 9, 680–689.
77. Manti, M.; Cacucciolo, V.; Cianchetti, M. Stiffening in Soft Robotics: A Review of the State of the Art. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag.
2016, 23, 93–106. [CrossRef]
78. Beddow, L.; Wurdemann, H.; Kanoulas, D. A Caging Inspired Gripper using Flexible Fingers and a Movable Palm. In
Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Prague, Czech Republic,
27 September–1 October 2021; pp. 7195–7200. [CrossRef]
79. Meng, J.; Gerez, L.; Chapman, J.; Liarokapis, M. A Tendon-Driven, Preloaded, Pneumatically Actuated, Soft Robotic Gripper with
a Telescopic Palm. In Proceedings of the 2020 3rd IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), New Haven, CT,
USA, 15 May–15 July 2020; pp. 476–481. [CrossRef]
80. Abo-Ismail, A. On the development of a new pneumatic versatile gripper. Proc. JFPS Int. Symp. Fluid Power 1993,
1993, 701–706. [CrossRef]
81. Dollar, A.M.; Howe, R.D. The SDM Hand: A Highly Adaptive Compliant Grasper for Unstructured Environments. In Experimental
Robotics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008.
82. Shimoga, K.; Goldenberg, A. Soft materials for robotic fingers. In Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, Nice, France, 12–14 May 1992; Volume 2, pp. 1300–1305. [CrossRef]
83. Cutkosky, M.; Jourdain, J.; Wright, P. Skin materials for robotic fingers. In Proceedings of the 1987 IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, Raleigh, NC, USA, 31 March–3 April 1987; Volume 4, pp. 1649–1654. [CrossRef]
84. Xu, Z.; Todorov, E. Design of a highly biomimetic anthropomorphic robotic hand towards artificial limb regeneration. In
Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Stockholm, Sweden, 16–21 May
2016; pp. 3485–3492. [CrossRef]
85. Sun, L.; Huang, W.; Ding, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, C.; Purnawali, H.; Tang, C. Stimulus-responsive shape memory materials: A review.
Mater. Des. 2012, 33, 577–640. [CrossRef]
86. Monkman, G. Advances in shape memory polymer actuation. Mechatronics 2000, 10, 489–498. [CrossRef]
87. Lan, C.C.; Lin, C.M.; Fan, C.H. A Self-Sensing Microgripper Module with Wide Handling Ranges. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron.
2011, 16, 141–150. [CrossRef]
88. Nagase, J.-y.; Wakimoto, S.; Satoh, T.; Saga, N.; Suzumori, K. Design of a variable-stiffness robotic hand using pneumatic soft
rubber actuators. Smart Mater. Struct. 2011, 20, 105015. [CrossRef]
89. Amend, J.; Lipson, H. The JamHand: Dexterous manipulation with minimal actuation. Soft Robot. 2017, 4, 70–80.
90. Fakhri, O.; Youssef, G.; Nacy, S.; Jameel Al-Tamimi, A.N.; Hussein, O.; Abbood, W.T.; Abdullah, O.I.; AL-Karkhi, N.K. A
Systematic Approach to Stable Grasping of a Two-Finger Robotic Hand Activated by Jamming of Granular Media. Electronics
2023, 12, 1902. [CrossRef]
91. Nguyen, V.P.; Dhyan, S.B.; Han, B.S.; Chow, W.T. Universally Grasping Objects with Granular—Tendon Finger: Principle and
Design. Micromachines 2023, 14, 1471. [CrossRef]
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 28 of 34

92. Siegel, A.; Bruzewicz, D.; Weibel, D.; Whitesides, G. Microsolidics: Fabrication of three-dimensional metallic microstructures in
poly(dimethylsiloxane). Adv. Mater. 2007, 19, 727–733. [CrossRef]
93. Shintake, J.; Schubert, B.; Rosset, S.; Shea, H.; Floreano, D. Variable stiffness actuator for soft robotics using dielectric elastomer
and low-melting-point alloy. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
(IROS), Hamburg, Germany, 28 September–3 October 2015; pp. 1097–1102. [CrossRef]
94. Yun, S.; Niu, X.; Yu, Z.; Hu, W.; Brochu, P.; Pei, Q. Compliant silver nanowire-polymer composite electrodes for bistable large
strain actuation. Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 1321–1327. [CrossRef]
95. Besse, N.; Rosset, S.; Zarate, J.J.; Shea, H. Flexible active skin: Large reconfigurable arrays of individually addressed shape
memory polymer actuators. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2017, 2, 1700102. [CrossRef]
96. Takashima, K.; Sugitani, K.; Morimoto, N.; Sakaguchi, S.; Noritsugu, T.; Mukai, T. Pneumatic artificial rubber muscle using
shape-memory polymer sheet with embedded electrical heating wire. Smart Mater. Struct. 2014, 23, 125005. [CrossRef]
97. Patel, D.K.; Sakhaei, A.H.; Layani, M.; Zhang, B.; Ge, Q.; Magdassi, S. Highly stretchable and UV curable elastomers for digital
light processing based 3D printing. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1606000.
98. Thrasher, C.J.; Schwartz, J.J.; Boydston, A.J. Modular elastomer photoresins for digital light processing additive manufacturing.
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 39708–39716.
99. Wang, W.; Ahn, S. Non-intrusive load monitoring system for anomaly detection based on energy disaggregation by cascading
semi-supervised learning and deep learning methods. Soft Robot. 2017, 3, 379.
100. Firouzeh, A.; Paik, J. Grasp Mode and Compliance Control of an Underactuated Origami Gripper Using Adjustable Stiffness
Joints. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2017, 22, 2165–2173. [CrossRef]
101. Firouzeh, A.; Paik, J. An under-actuated origami gripper with adjustable stiffness joints for multiple grasp modes.
Smart Mater. Struct. 2017, 26, 055035. [CrossRef]
102. Firouzeh, A.; Salerno, M.; Paik, J. Stiffness Control with Shape Memory Polymer in Underactuated Robotic Origamis.
IEEE Trans. Robot. 2017, 33, 765–777. [CrossRef]
103. Liu, M.; Hao, L.; Zhang, W.; Zhao, Z. A novel design of shape-memory alloy-based soft robotic gripper with variable stiffness.
Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2020, 17, 1729881420907813. [CrossRef]
104. Biswas, A.; Aswal, V.K.; Sastry, P.U.; Rana, D.; Maiti, P. Reversible Bidirectional Shape Memory Effect in Polyurethanes through
Molecular Flipping. Macromolecules 2016, 49, 4889–4897. [CrossRef]
105. She, Y.; Chen, J.; Shi, H.; Su, H.-J. Modeling and Validation of a Novel Bending Actuator for Soft Robotics Applications. Soft Robot.
2016, 3, 71–81.
106. Shahinpoor, M.; Bar-Cohen, Y.; Simpson, J.O.; Smith, J. Ionic polymer-metal composites (IPMCs) as biomimetic sensors, actuators
and artificial muscles—A review. Smart Mater. Struct. 1998, 7, R15. [CrossRef]
107. Suzumori, K.; Iikura, S.; Tanaka, H. Applying a flexible microactuator to robotic mechanisms. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 1992,
12, 21–27. [CrossRef]
108. Ilievski, F.; Mazzeo, A.D.; Shepherd, R.F.; Chen, X.; Whitesides, G.M. Soft robotics for chemists. Angew. Chem. 2011, 123, 1930–1935.
109. Yamaguchi, A.; Takemura, K.; Yokota, S.; Edamura, K. A robot hand using electro-conjugate fluid. In Proceedings of the 2011
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Shanghai, China, 9–13 May 2011; pp. 5923–5928.
110. Niiyama, R.; Sun, X.; Sung, C.; An, B.; Rus, D.; Kim, S. Pouch motors: Printable soft actuators integrated with computational
design. Soft Robot. 2015, 2, 59–70.
111. Zheng, Z.; Ding, N. Design and Implementation of CCRobot-II: A Palm-based Cable Climbing Robot for Cable-stayed Bridge
Inspection. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Montreal, QC, Canada,
20–24 May 2019; pp. 9747–9753.
112. Thomas, J.; Polin, J.; Sreenath, K.; Kumar, V. Avian-Inspired Grasping for Quadrotor Micro UAVs, Volume 6A: 37th Mechanisms
and Robotics Conference. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering
Conference; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
113. Liu, S.; Wang, F.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, W.; Tian, Y.; Zhang, D. A Two-Finger Soft-Robotic Gripper With Enveloping and Pinching
Grasping Modes. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2021, 26, 146–155.
114. Kang, L.; Seo, J.T.; Kim, S.H.; Kim, W.J.; Yi, B.J. Design and Implementation of a Multi-Function Gripper for Grasping General
Objects. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5266.
115. Triyonoputro, J.C.; Wan, W.; Akanesuvan, K.; Harada, K. A Double-jaw Hand that Mimics A Mouth of the Moray Eel.
In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
12–15 December 2018; pp. 1527–1532.
116. Feliu-Talegon, D.; Acosta, J.; Suarez, A.; Ollero, A. A Bio-Inspired Manipulator with Claw Prototype for Winged Aerial Robots:
Benchmark for Design and Control. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6516.
117. Bai, L.; Sun, Y. Design and Experiment of a Deformable Bird-inspired UAV Perching Mechanism. J. Bionic Eng. 2021, 18, 1304–1316.
118. Zhu, Y.; He, X.; Zhang, P.; Guo, G.; Zhang, X. Perching and Grasping Mechanism Inspired by a Bird—Claw. Machines 2022, 10, 656.
119. Yan, W.; Mehta, A. Origami-based integration of robots that sense, decide, and respond. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 1553.
120. Nam, N.D.; Linh, H.N.; Thanh-Phong, D.; Ngoc, L.C. Multi-objective optimization design for a sand crab-inspired compliant
microgripper. Microsyst. Technol. 2019, 25, 3991–4009.
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 29 of 34

121. Kellaris, N.; Rothemund, P.; Zeng, Y.; Mitchell, S.K.; Smith, G.M.; Jayaram, K.; Keplinger, C. Spider-Inspired Electrohydraulic
Actuators for Fast, Soft-Actuated Joints. Adv. Sci. 2021, 8, 2100916.
122. Crooks, W. Fin Ray® Effect Inspired Soft Robotic Gripper: From the RoboSoft Grand Challenge toward Optimization.
Front. Robot. AI 2016, 3, 70.
123. Suder, J.; Bobovský, Z.; Mlotek, J.; Vocetka, M.; Oščádal, P.; Zeman, Z. Structural Optimization Method of a FinRay Finger for the
Best Wrapping of Object. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3858.
124. Yang, J.; Kang, R. Design of a Flexible Capture Mechanism Inspired by Sea Anemone for Non-cooperative Targets.
Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 2022, 34, 77.
125. Chen, R.; Song, R.; Zhang, Z.; Bai, L.; Liu, F.; Jiang, P.; Sindersberger, D.; Monkman, G.J.; Guo, J. Bio-Inspired Shape-Adaptive Soft
Robotic Grippers Augmented with Electroadhesion Functionality. Soft Robot. 2019, 6, 701–712.
126. Kier, W.M.; Stella, M.P. The arrangement and function of octopus arm musculature and connective tissue. J. Morphol. 2007,
268, 831–843.
127. Kennedy, E.B.L.; Hanlon, R.T. Octopus arms exhibit exceptional flexibility. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 20872.
128. Grasso, F.W. Octopus sucker-arm coordination in grasping and manipulation. Am. Malacol. Bull. 2008, 24, 13–23.
129. Richter, J.N.; Hochner, B.; Kuba, M.J. Octopus arm movements under constrained conditions: Adaptation, modification and
plasticity of motor primitives. J. Exp. Biol. 2015, 218, 1069–1076.
130. Guglielmino, E.; Godage, I.; Zullo, L.; Caldwell, D.G. A pragmatic bio-inspired approach to the design of octopus-inspired arms.
In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Tokyo, Japan, 3–7 November
2013; pp. 4577–4582.
131. Walker, I.D.; Dawson, D.M.; Flash, T.; Grasso, F.W.; Hanlon, R.T.; Hochner, B.; Kier, W.M.; Pagano, C.C.; Rahn, C.D.; Zhang, Q.M.
Continuum robot arms inspired by cephalopods. In Proceedings of the Unmanned Ground Vehicle Technology VII; SPIE: Bellingham,
DC, USA, 2005; Volume 5804, pp. 303–314.
132. McMahan, W.; Walker, I.D. Octopus-inspired grasp-synergies for continuum manipulators. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, Guilin, China, 19–23 December 2009; pp. 945–950.
133. Grissom, M.D.; Chitrakaran, V.; Dienno, D.; Csencits, M.; Pritts, M.; Jones, B.; McMahan, W.; Dawson, D.; Rahn, C.; Walker, I.
Design and experimental testing of the OctArm soft robot manipulator. In Proceedings of the Unmanned Systems Technology VIII;
SPIE: Bellingham, DC, USA, 2006; Volume 6230.
134. Calisti, M.; Giorelli, M.; Levy, G.; Mazzolai, B.; Hochner, B.; Laschi, C.; Dario, P. An octopus-bioinspired solution to movement
and manipulation for soft robots. Bioinspir. Biomim. 2011, 6, 036002.
135. Mazzolai, B.; Margheri, L.; Cianchetti, M.; Dario, P.; Laschi, C. Soft-robotic arm inspired by the octopus: II. From artificial
requirements to innovative technological solutions. Bioinspir. Biomim. 2012, 7, 025005.
136. Laschi, C.; Cianchetti, M.; Mazzolai, B.; Margheri, L.; Follador, M.; Dario, P. Soft Robot Arm Inspired by the Octopus. Adv. Robot.
2012, 26, 709–727.
137. Fras, J.; Macias, M.; Noh, Y.; Althoefer, K. Fluidical bending actuator designed for soft octopus robot tentacle. In Proceedings of
the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), Livorno, Italy, 24–28 April 2018; pp. 253–257.
138. Pi, J.; Liu, J.; Zhou, K.; Qian, M. An Octopus-Inspired Bionic Flexible Gripper for Apple Grasping. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1014.
139. Mazzolai, B.; Mondini, A.; Tramacere, F.; Riccomi, G.; Sadeghi, A.; Giordano, G.; Del Dottore, E.; Scaccia, M.; Zampato,
M.; Carminati, S. Octopus-Inspired Soft Arm with Suction Cups for Enhanced Grasping Tasks in Confined Environments.
Adv. Intell. Syst. 2019, 1, 1900041.
140. Xie, Z.; Domel, A.G.; An, N.; Green, C.; Gong, Z.; Wang, T.; Knubben, E.M.; Weaver, J.C.; Bertoldi, K.; Wen, L. Octopus
Arm-Inspired Tapered Soft Actuators with Suckers for Improved Grasping. Soft Robot. 2020, 7, 639–648.
141. Baik, S.; Pang, C. A wet-tolerant adhesive patch inspired by protuberances in suction cups of octopi. Nature 2017, 546, 396–400.
142. Wu, M.; Zheng, X.; Liu, R.; Hou, N.; Afridi, W.H.; Afridi, R.H.; Guo, X.; Wu, J.; Wang, C.; Xie, G. Glowing Sucker Octopus
(Stauroteuthis syrtensis)-Inspired Soft Robotic Gripper for Underwater Self-Adaptive Grasping and Sensing. Adv. Sci. 2022,
9, 2104382.
143. Wang, D.; Wu, X.; Zhang, J.; Du, Y. A Pneumatic Novel Combined Soft Robotic Gripper with High Load Capacity and Large
Grasping Range. Actuators 2022, 11, 3.
144. Pedro, P.; Ananda, C.; Rafael, P.B.; Carlos, A.R. Closed structure soft robotic gripper. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International
Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), Livorno, Italy, 24–28 April 2018; pp. 66–70.
145. Mathew, B.P.; Devasia, F.; Asok, A.; Jayadevu, P.; Baby, R. Implementation of an origami inspired gripper robot for picking objects
of variable geometry. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 58, 176–183.
146. Sage, H.G.; Mathelin, M.F.D.; Ostertag, E. Robust control of robot manipulators: A survey. Int. J. Control 1999, 72, 1498–1522.
147. Wang, W.; Lakshmanan, S. Continuum Robots for Manipulation Applications: A Survey. J. Robot. 2020, 2020, 4187048.
148. Russo, M.; Sadati, S.M.H.; Dong, X.; Mohammad, A.; Walker, I.D.; Bergeles, C.; Xu, K.; Axinte, D.A. Continuum Robots:
An Overview. Adv. Intell. Syst. 2023, 5, 2200367.
149. Chirikjian, G. Conformational Modeling of Continuum Structures in Robotics and Structural Biology: A Review. Adv. Robot.
2015, 29, 817–829.
150. Robert J. Webster, I.; Jones, B.A. Design and Kinematic Modeling of Constant Curvature Continuum Robots: A Review.
Int. J. Robot. Res. 2010, 29, 1661–1683.
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 30 of 34

151. Uppalapati, N.K.; Krishnan, G. Towards Pneumatic Spiral Grippers: Modeling and Design Considerations. Soft Robot. 2018,
5, 695–709.
152. Zhong, Y.; Hu, L.; Xu, Y. Recent Advances in Design and Actuation of Continuum Robots for Medical Applications. Actuators
2020, 9, 142.
153. Burgner-Kahrs, J.; Rucker, D.C.; Choset, H. Continuum Robots for Medical Applications: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2015,
31, 1261–1280.
154. Dagenais, P.; Hensman, S.; Haechler, V.; Milinkovitch, M.C. Elephants evolved strategies reducing the biomechanical complexity
of their trunk. Curr. Biol. 2021, 31, 4727–4737.e4.
155. Schulz, A.K.; Reidenberg, J.S.; Wu, J.N.; Tang, C.Y.; Seleb, B.; Mancebo, J.; Elgart, N.; Hu, D.L. Elephant trunks use an adaptable
prehensile grip. Bioinspir. Biomim. 2023, 18, 026008.
156. Chevalier-Skolnikoff, S.; Liska, J. Tool use by wild and captive elephants. Anim. Behav. 1993, 46, 209–219.
157. Plotnik, J.M.; Brubaker, D.L.; Dale, R.; Tiller, L.N.; Mumby, H.S.; Clayton, N.S. Elephants have a nose for quantity.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 12566–12571.
158. Shoshani, J.; Kupsky, W.J.; Marchant, G.H. Elephant brain: Part I: Gross morphology, functions, comparative anatomy, and
evolution. Brain Res. Bull. 2006, 70, 124–157.
159. Wilson, J.F.; Li, D.; Chen, Z.; George, R.T. Flexible Robot Manipulators and Grippers: Relatives of Elephant Trunks and Squid
Tentacles. In Robots and Biological Systems: Towards a New Bionics? Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1993; pp. 475–494.
160. Kang, M.; Han, Y.J.; Han, M.W. A Shape Memory Alloy-Based Soft Actuator Mimicking an Elephant—Trunk. Polymers 2023,
15, 1126.
161. Cheng, N.G.; Lobovsky, M.B.; Keating, S.J.; Setapen, A.M.; Gero, K.I.; Hosoi, A.E.; Iagnemma, K.D. Design and Analysis of a
Robust, Low-cost, Highly Articulated manipulator enabled by jamming of granular media. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, St Paul, MN, USA, 14–18 May 2012; pp. 4328–4333.
162. Anderson, V.C.; Horn, R.C. Tensor Arm Manipulator. U.S. Patent US3497083A, 24 February 1970.
163. Hannan, M.W.; Walker, I.D. Kinematics and the Implementation of an Elephant’s Trunk Manipulator and Other Continuum Style
Robots. J. Robot. Syst. 2003, 20, 45–63.
164. Huang, Q.; Wang, P.; Wang, Y.; Xia, X.; Li, S. Kinematic Analysis of Bionic Elephant Trunk Robot Based on Flexible Series-Parallel
Structure. Biomimetics 2022, 7, 228.
165. Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Kan, Z.; Yuan, Q.; Rajabi, H.; Wu, Z.; Peng, H.; Wu, J. A Preprogrammable Continuum Robot Inspired by
Elephant Trunk for Dexterous Manipulation. Soft Robot. 2023, 10, 636–646.
166. Becker, K.; Teeple, C.; Charles, N.; Jung, Y.; Baum, D.; Weaver, J.C.; Mahadevan, L.; Wood, R. Active entanglement enables
stochastic, topological grasping. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2209819119.
167. Martinez, R.V.; Branch, J.L.; Fish, C.R.; Jin, L.; Shepherd, R.F.; Nunes, R.M.D.; Suo, Z.; Whitesides, G.M. Robotic Tentacles with
Three-Dimensional Mobility Based on Flexible Elastomers. Adv. Mater. 2013, 25, 205–212.
168. Liu, T.; Wang, Y.; Lee, K. Three-Dimensional Printable Origami Twisted Tower: Design, Fabrication, and Robot Embodiment.
IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2018, 3, 116–123.
169. Gilbert, H.B.; Godage, I.S. Validation of an Extensible Rod Model for Soft continuum Manipulators. In Proceedings of the 2019
2nd IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), Seoul, Republic of Korea, 14–18 April 2019; pp. 711–716.
170. Smith, A.M. Cephalopod Sucker Design and the Physical Limits to Negative Pressure. J. Exp. Biol. 1996, 199, 949–958.
171. Hou, J.; Wright, E.; Bonser, R.H.; Jeronimidis, G. Development of Biomimetic Squid-Inspired Suckers. J. Bionic Eng. 2012,
9, 484–493.
172. Hamidi, A.; Almubarak, Y.; Rupawat, Y.M.; Warren, J.; Tadesse, Y. Poly-Saora robotic jellyfish: Swimming underwater by twisted
and coiled polymer actuators. Smart Mater. Struct. 2020, 29, 045039.
173. Tessler, M.; Wood, R.J. Ultra-gentle soft robotic fingers induce minimal transcriptomic response in a fragile marine animal.
Curr. Biol. 2020, 30, R157–R158.
174. Nate, I.; Wang, Z.; Kameoka, M.; Watanabe, Y.; Nahin Islam, S.M.; Kawakami, M.; Furukawa, H.; Hirai, S. Jellyfish Grasping
and Transportation with a Wire-Driven Gripper and Deep Learning Based Recognition. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/ASME
International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), Sapporo, Japan, 11–15 July 2022; pp. 1018–1023.
175. Joshi, A.; Kulkarni, A.; Tadesse, Y. FludoJelly: Experimental Study on Jellyfish-Like Soft Robot Enabled by Soft Pneumatic
Composite (SPC). Robotics 2019, 8, 56.
176. Wang, T.; Joo, H.J.; Song, S.; Hu, W.; Keplinger, C.; Sitti, M. A versatile jellyfish-like robotic platform for effective underwater
propulsion and manipulation. Sci. Adv. 2023, 9, eadg0292.
177. Devereux, D.; Nutter, P.; Richardson, R. Determining an object’s shape with a blind tactile manipulator. In Proceedings of the 2009
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, St. Louis, MO, USA, 11–15 October 2009; pp. 4745–4750.
178. Wang, H.; Fan, S.; Ni, F.; Liu, H. Biologically inspired guidelines for the design of the Hyper-Dexterous Manipulator. In
Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, Harbin, China, 7–10 August
2016; pp. 641–646.
179. Wu, G.; Shi, G.; Shi, Y. Modeling and analysis of a parallel continuum robot using artificial neural network. In Proceedings of the
2017 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics (ICM), Churchill, Australia, 13–15 February 2017; pp. 153–158.
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 31 of 34

180. Maghooa, F.; Stilli, A.; Noh, Y.; Althoefer, K.; Wurdemann, H.A. Tendon and pressure actuation for a bio-inspired manipulator
based on an antagonistic principle. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation
(ICRA), Seattle, WA, USA, 26–30 May 2015; pp. 2556–2561.
181. Hsiao, K.; Mochiyama, H. A wire-driven continuum manipulator model without assuming shape curvature constancy. In
Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Vancouver, BC, Canada,
24–28 September 2017; pp. 436–443.
182. Jiang, Z.; Luo, Y.; Jin, Y. New cable-driven continuun robot with only one actuator. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International
Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems (CIS) and IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (RAM),
Ningbo, China, 19–21 November 2017; pp. 693–698.
183. Sadati, S.M.H.; Naghibi, S.E.; Walker, I.D.; Althoefer, K.; Nanayakkara, T. Control Space Reduction and Real-Time Accurate
Modeling of Continuum Manipulators Using Ritz and Ritz–Galerkin Methods. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2018, 3, 328–335.
184. Yao, P.; Li, K.; Xu, Z.; Wang, Z.; Bao, G. Bending model of a novel long-arm biomimetic robot. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE
International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), Okinawa, Japan, 14–18 July 2017; pp. 115–120.
185. Santoso, J.; Skorina, E.H.; Luo, M.; Yan, R.; Onal, C.D. Design and analysis of an origami continuum manipulation module with
torsional strength. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS),
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 24–28 September 2017; pp. 2098–2104.
186. Ossiboff, R.J. Chapter 37—Serpentes. In Pathology of Wildlife and Zoo Animals; Terio, K.A., McAloose, D., Leger, J.S., Eds.; Academic
Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 897–919.
187. Hsiang, A.Y.; Gauthier, J.A. he origin of snakes: Revealing the ecology, behavior, and evolutionary history of early snakes using
genomics, phenomics, and the fossil record. BMC Evol. Biol. 1996, 15, 949–958.
188. Reeder, T.W.; Townsend, T.M.; Mulcahy, D.G.; Noonan, B.P.; Wood, P.L., Jr.; Sites, J.W., Jr.; Wiens, J.J. Integrated Analyses Resolve
Conflicts over Squamate Reptile Phylogeny and Reveal Unexpected Placements for Fossil Taxa. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118199.
189. Yang, X.; Ren, L. The snake-inspired robots: A review. Assem. Autom. 2021, 42, 567–583.
190. Seetohul, J.; Shafiee, M. Snake Robots for Surgical Applications: A Review. Robotics 2022, 11, 57.
191. Hirose, S.; Mori, M. Biologically Inspired Snake-like Robots. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Biomimetics, New Orleans, LA, USA, 26 April–1 May 2004; pp. 1–7.
192. Clement, W.; Iñigo, R. Design of a snake-like manipulator. Robot. Auton. Syst. 1990, 6, 265–282.
193. Wang, K.; Ma, Y.; Shan, H.; Ma, S. A Snake-Like Robot with Envelope Wheels and Obstacle-Aided Gaits. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3749.
194. Mehling, J.; Diftler, M.; Chu, M.; Valvo, M. A Minimally Invasive Tendril Robot for In-Space Inspection. In Proceedings of the
2006 First IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob 2006), Pisa, Italy,
20–22 February 2006; pp. 690–695.
195. Cohen, C.; Hiott, B.; Kapadia, A.D.; Walker, I.D. Robot tongues in space: Continuum surfaces for robotic grasping and
manipulation. In Proceedings of the Micro- and Nanotechnology Sensors, Systems, and Applications VIII; George, T., Dutta,
A.K., Islam, M.S., Eds.; International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE: Bellingham, DC, USA, 2016; Volume 9836, p. 98362B.
196. Han, S.; Chon, S.; Kim, J.; Seo, J.; Shin, D.G.; Park, S.; Kim, J.T.; Kim, J.; Jin, M.; Cho, J. Snake Robot Gripper Module for Search
and Rescue in Narrow Spaces. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2022, 7, 1667–1673.
197. Power, M.; Thompson, A.J.; Anastasova, S.; Yang, G.Z. A Monolithic Force-Sensitive 3D Microgripper Fabricated on the Tip of an
Optical Fiber Using 2-Photon Polymerization. Small 2018, 14, 1703964.
198. Xue, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, W.; Jiang, C.; Xiao, X. Design, Control and Experiment of a Snake-like Robot with Gripper. In
Proceedings of the 2020 17th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR), Kyoto, Japan, 22–26 June 2020; pp. 50–55.
199. Kumar, V.A.; Adithya, B.; Antony, P.T.B. Snake Robots for Rescue Operation. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 1055.
200. Hoang, T.T.; Phan, P.T.; Thai, M.T.; Lovell, N.H.; Do, T.N. Bio-Inspired Conformable and Helical Soft Fabric Gripper with Variable
Stiffness and Touch Sensing. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2020, 5, 2000724.
201. Runge, G.; Zellmer, S.; Preller, T.; Garnweitner, G.; Raatz, A. Actuation principles for the bioinspired soft robotic manipulator
spineman. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Zhuhai, China,
6–9 December 2015; pp. 1329–1336.
202. Niikura, A.; Nabae, H.; Endo, G.; Gunji, M.; Mori, K.; Niiyama, R.; Suzumori, K. Giraffe Neck Robot: First Step Toward a
Powerful and Flexible Robot Prototyping Based on Giraffe Anatomy. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2022, 7, 3539–3546.
203. Arachchige, D.D.K.; Godage, I.S. Hybrid Soft Robots Incorporating Soft and Stiff Elements. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 5th
International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), San Diego, CA, USA, 14–17 April 2022; pp. 267–272.
204. Wang, Z.; Freris, N.M. Bioinspired Soft Spiral Robots for Versatile Grasping and Manipulation. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2303.09861.
205. Russell, A.; Bels, V. Biomechanics and kinematics of limb-based locomotion in lizards: Review, synthesis and prospectus.
Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2001, 131, 89–112.
206. Autumn, K.; Full, R.J. Adhesive force of a single gecko foot-hair. Nature 2000, 405, 681–685.
207. Pesika, N.S.; Zeng, H.; Kristiansen, K.; Zhao, B.; Tian, Y.; Autumn, K.; Israelachvili, J. Gecko adhesion pad: A smart surface?
J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2009, 21, 464132.
208. Tian, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Cai, D.; Chen, C.; Zhang, J.; Duan, W. Theoretical modelling of soft robotic gripper with bioinspired fibrillar
adhesives. Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 2022, 29, 2250–2266.
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 32 of 34

209. Yu, J.; Chary, S.; Das, S.; Tamelier, J.; Pesika, N.S.; Turner, K.L.; Israelachvili, J.N. Gecko-Inspired Dry Adhesive for Robotic
Applications. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2011, 21, 3010–3018.
210. Sikdar, S.; Rahman, M.H.; Siddaiah, A.; Menezes, P.L. Gecko-Inspired Adhesive Mechanisms and Adhesives for Robots—
A Review. Robotics 2022, 11, 143.
211. Ruotolo, W.; Brouwer, D.; Cutkosky, M.R. From grasping to manipulation with gecko-inspired adhesives on a multifinger gripper.
Sci. Robot. 2021, 6, eabi9773.
212. Glick, P.; Suresh, S.A.; Ruffatto, D.; Cutkosky, M.; Tolley, M.T.; Parness, A. A Soft Robotic Gripper with Gecko-Inspired Adhesive.
IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2018, 3, 903–910.
213. Alizadehyazdi, V.; Bonthron, M.; Spenko, M. An Electrostatic/Gecko-Inspired Adhesives Soft Robotic Gripper.
IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2020, 5, 4679–4686.
214. Han, A.K.; Hajj-Ahmad, A.; Cutkosky, M.R. Hybrid electrostatic and gecko-inspired gripping pads for manipulating bulky,
non-smooth items. Smart Mater. Struct. 2020, 30, 025010.
215. Tian, H.; Liu, H.; Shao, J.; Li, S.; Li, X.; Chen, X. An electrically active gecko-effect soft gripper under a low voltage by mimicking
gecko’s adhesive structures and toe muscles. Soft Matter 2020, 16, 5599–5608.
216. Hoang, T.T.; Quek, J.J.S.; Thai, M.T.; Phan, P.T.; Lovell, N.H.; Do, T.N. Soft robotic fabric gripper with gecko adhesion and variable
stiffness. Sens. Actuators Phys. 2021, 323, 112673.
217. Modabberifar, M.; Spenko, M. A shape memory alloy-actuated gecko-inspired robotic gripper. Sens. Actuators Phys. 2018,
276, 76–82.
218. Gwon, M.; Koh, J.s. Soft Directional Adhesion Gripper Fabricated by 3D Printing Process for Gripping Flexible Printed Circuit
Boards. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green Technol. 2009, 9, 1151–1163.
219. Chu, Z.; Sun, F. A gecko-inspired adhesive robotic end effector for critical-contact manipulation. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 2022,
65, 182203.
220. Li, S.; Tian, H.; Shao, J.; Liu, H.; Wang, D.; Zhang, W. Switchable Adhesion for Nonflat Surfaces Mimicking Geckos’ Adhesive
Structures and Toe Muscles. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 39745–39755.
221. Shi, X.; Zhao, Z. Magnetic-field-driven switchable adhesion of NdFeB/PDMS composite with gecko-like surface. Nano Res. 2023,
16, 1–9.
222. Tian, H.; Li, X.; Shao, J.; Wang, C.; Wang, Y.; Tian, Y.; Liu, H. Gecko-Effect Inspired Soft Gripper with High and Switchable
Adhesion for Rough Surfaces. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 6, 1900875.
223. Hawkes, E.W. Grasping Without Squeezing: Design and Modeling of Shear-Activated Grippers. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2018,
34, 303–316.
224. Federle, W.; Barnes, W.; Baumgartner, W.; Drechsler, P.; Smith, J. Wet but not slippery: Boundary friction in tree frog adhesive toe
pads. J. R. Soc. Interface 2006, 3, 689–697.
225. Persson, B.N.J. Wet adhesion with application to tree frog adhesive toe pads and tires. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2007, 19, 376110.
226. Liu, Q.; Meng, F.; Tan, D.; Shi, Z.; Zhu, B.; Xiao, K.; Xue, L. Gradient Micropillar Array Inspired by Tree Frog for Robust Adhesion
on Dry and Wet Surfaces. Biomimetics 2022, 7, 209.
227. Lindner, M.; Tresztenyak, A.; Fülöp, G.; Jahr, W.; Prinz, A.; Prinz, I.; Danzl, J.G.; Schütz, G.J.; Sevcsik, E. A Fast and Simple
Contact Printing Approach to Generate 2D Protein Nanopatterns. Front. Chem. 2019, 6, 655.
228. Xue, L.; Kovalev, A.; Eichler-Volf, A.; Steinhart, M.; Gorb, S.N. Humidity-enhanced wet adhesion on insect-inspired fibrillar
adhesive pads. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6621.
229. Rohrs, C.; Azimi, A.; He, P. Wetting on Micropatterned Surfaces: Partial Penetration in the Cassie State and Wenzel Deviation
Theoretically Explained. Langmuir 2019, 35, 15421–15430.
230. Xue, L.; Sanz, B.; Luo, A.; Turner, K.T.; Wang, X.; Tan, D.; Zhang, R.; Du, H.; Steinhart, M.; Mijangos, C.; et al. Hybrid Surface
Patterns Mimicking the Design of the Adhesive Toe Pad of Tree Frog. ACS Nano 2017, 11, 9711–9719.
231. Xie, J.; Li, M.; Dai, Q.; Huang, W.; Wang, X. Key parameters of biomimetic patterned surface for wet adhesion. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes.
2018, 82, 72–78.
232. Liu, Q.; Meng, F.; Wang, X.; Yang, B.; Tan, D.; Li, Q.; Shi, Z.; Shi, K.; Chen, W.; Liu, S.; et al. Tree Frog-Inspired Micropillar Arrays
with Nanopits on the Surface for Enhanced Adhesion under Wet Conditions. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 19116–19122.
233. Liu, Q.; Tan, D.; Meng, F.; Yang, B.; Shi, Z.; Wang, X.; Li, Q.; Nie, C.; Liu, S.; Xue, L. Adhesion Enhancement of Micropillar Array
by Combining the Adhesive Design from Gecko and Tree Frog. Small 2021, 17, 2005493.
234. Langowski, J.K.A.; Dodou, D.; Kamperman, M.; van Leeuwen, J.L. Tree frog attachment: Mechanisms, challenges, and
perspectives. Front. Zool. 2018, 15, 1–21.
235. Zhang, Y.; Wan, X.; Xu, X.; Teng, P.; Wang, S. Recent progress of tree frog toe pads inspired wet adhesive materials. Biosurf. Biotribol.
2022, 15, 279–289.
236. Langowski, J.K.A.; Dodou, D.; van Assenbergh, P.; van Leeuwen, J.L. Design of Tree-Frog-Inspired Adhesives. Integr. Comp. Biol.
2020, 64, 906–918.
237. Chen, D.; Zhang, Y.; Long, G.; Liu, W.; Li, X.; Sun, Y.; Chang, Z. An Optimal Wet Friction Plate Inspired by Biological Surface
Patterns. J. Bionic Eng. 2018, 15, 872–882.
238. Mizushima, K. Surface Texture of Deformable Robotic Fingertips for a Stable Grasp Under Both Dry and Wet Conditions.
IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2017, 2, 2048–2055.
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 33 of 34

239. Li, M.S. Milliscale Features Increase Friction of Soft Skin in Lubricated Contact. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2020, 5, 4781–4787.
240. Nguyen, P.V.; Huynh, N.V.; Phan, T.T.; Ho, V.A. Soft grasping with wet adhesion: Preliminary evaluation. In Proceedings of the
2018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), Livorno, Italy, 24–28 April 2018; pp. 418–423.
241. Nguyen, P.V.; Ho, V. Mechanics of wet adhesion in soft interaction with patterned morphology. Bioinspir. Biomim. 2018, 14, 016005.
242. Van Nguyen, P.; Ho, V.A. Wet Adhesion of Soft Curved Interfaces with Micro Pattern. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2021,
6, 4273–4280. [CrossRef]
243. Nguyen, P.V.; Ho, V.A. Grasping Interface with Wet Adhesion and Patterned Morphology: Case of Thin Shell. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.
2019, 4, 792–799.
244. Nguyen, T.N.; Dang, L.M.; Lee, J.; Nguyen, P.V. Load-Carrying Capacity of Ultra-Thin Shells with and without CNTs Reinforce-
ment. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1481.
245. Nguyen, V.P.; Pham, V.C.; Tan, Y.; Ho, V.A. Toward a Tactile Ontology for Semantic Interoperability of the Tactile Internet. In
Proceedings of the IEEE 16th International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC), Laguna Hills, CA, USA, 26–28 January
2022; pp. 115–118.
246. Nguyen, P.V.; Luu, Q.; Takamura, Y.; Ho, V. Wet Adhesion of Micro-patterned Interfaces for Stable Grasping of Deformable
Objects. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Las Vegas, NV,
USA, 25–29 October 2020; pp. 9213–9219.
247. Fulcher, B.A.; Motta, P.J. Suction disk performance of echeneid fishes. Can. J. Zool. 2006, 84, 42–50.
248. Wang, Y.; Yang, X.; Chen, Y.; Wainwright, D.K.; Kenaley, C.P.; Gong, Z.; Liu, Z.; Liu, H.; Guan, J.; Wang, T.; et al. A biorobotic
adhesive disc for underwater hitchhiking inspired by the remora suckerfish. Sci. Robot. 2017, 2, eaan8072.
249. Zi, P.; Xu, K.; Tian, Y.; Ding, X. A mechanical adhesive gripper inspired by beetle claw for a rock climbing robot.
Mech. Mach. Theory 2023, 181, 105168.
250. Li, X.; Chen, W.; Li, X.; Hou, X.; Zhao, Q.; Meng, Y.; Tian, Y. An Underactuated Adaptive Microspines Gripper for Rough Wall.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 39.
251. Zhang, W.; Wu, Z. A Mathematical Modeling Method Elucidating the Integrated Gripping Performance of Ant Mandibles and
Bio-inspired Grippers. J. Bionic Eng. 2020, 17, 732–746.
252. Zhakypov, Z.; Paik, J. Designing minimal and scalable insect-inspired multi-locomotion millirobots. Nature 2019,
571, 381–386.
253. Wang, J.; Jiao, N.; Tung, S.; Liu, L. Target clamping and cooperative motion control of ant robots. Bioinspir. Biomim. 2019,
14, 066015.
254. Jiang, H.; Han, X.; Jing, Y.; Guo, N.; Wan, F.; Song, C. Rigid–Soft Interactive Design of a Lobster-Inspired Finger Surface for
Enhanced Grasping Underwater. Front. Robot. AI 2021, 8, 787187.
255. Sui, D.; Zhu, Y.; Zhao, S.; Wang, T.; Agrawal, S.K.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, J. A Bioinspired Soft Swallowing Gripper for Universal
Adaptable Grasping. Soft Robot. 2022, 9, 36–56.
256. Zang, H.; Liao, B.; Lang, X.; Zhao, Z.L.; Yuan, W.; Feng, X.Q. Bionic torus as a self-adaptive soft grasper in robots. Appl. Phys. Lett.
2020, 116, 023701.
257. Wang, D.; Wu, X. Grasping Performance Analysis and Comparison of Multi-Chamber Ring-Shaped Soft Grippers. Biomimetics
2023, 8, 337.
258. Washio, S.; Gilday, K.; Iida, F. Design and Control of a Multi-Modal Soft Gripper Inspired by Elephant Fingers. In Proceedings
of the 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Kyoto, Japan, 23–27 October 2022;
pp. 4228–4235.
259. Chen, R.; Chen, J.Q.; Sun, Y.; Wu, L.; Guo, J.L. A Chameleon Tongue Inspired Shooting Manipulator with Vision-Based
Localization and Preying. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2020, 5, 4923–4930.
260. Lee, D.J.; Jung, G.P. Snatcher: A Highly Mobile Chameleon-Inspired Shooting and Rapidly Retracting Manipulator.
IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2020, 5, 6097–6104.
261. Jeong, Y.; Ahn, J.; Ha, J.H.; Ko, J.; Hwang, S.H.; Jeon, S.; Bok, M.; Jeong, J.H.; Park, I. Biomimetic, Programmable, and Part-by-Part
Maneuverable Single-Body Shape-Morphing Film. Adv. Intell. Syst. 2023, 5, 2200293.
262. Lin, Y.; Zhang, C.; Tang, W.; Jiao, Z.; Wang, J.; Wang, W.; Zhong, Y.; Zhu, P.; Hu, Y.; Yang, H.; et al. A Bioinspired Stress-Response
Strategy for High-Speed Soft Grippers. Adv. Sci. 2021, 8, 2102539.
263. Yang, M.; Cooper, L.P.; Liu, N.; Wang, X.; Fok, M.P. Twining plant inspired pneumatic soft robotic spiral gripper with a fiber optic
twisting sensor. Opt. Express 2020, 28, 35158–35167.
264. Wooten, M.; Frazelle, C.; Walker, I.D.; Kapadia, A.; Lee, J.H. Exploration and Inspection with Vine-Inspired Continuum Robots. In
Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Brisbane, Australia, 21–25 May2018;
pp. 5526–5533.
265. Walker, I.D. Biologically inspired vine-like and tendril-like robots. In Proceedings of the 2015 Science and Information Conference
(SAI), London, UK, 28–30 July 2015; pp. 714–720.
266. Hu, F.; Lyu, L.; He, Y. A 3D Printed Paper-Based Thermally Driven Soft Robotic Gripper Inspired by Cabbage. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.
2019, 20, 023701.
267. Bruhn, B.R.; Schroeder, T.B.H.; Li, S.; Billeh, Y.N.; Wang, K.W.; Mayer, M. Osmosis-Based Pressure Generation: Dynamics and
Application. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e91350.
Micromachines 2023, 14, 1772 34 of 34

268. Yang, H.; D’Ambrosio, N.; Liu, P.; Pasini, D.; Ma, L. Shape memory mechanical metamaterials. Mater. Today 2023, 66, 36–49.
269. Nguyen, V.P.; Dhyan, S.B.; Hoang, C.C.; Han, B.S.; Tan, J.Y.; Chow, W.T. Mitigate Inertia for Wrist and Forearm Towards Safe
Interaction in 5-DOF Cable-Driven Robot Arm. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced
Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), Seattle, WA, USA, 27 June–3 July 2023; pp. 215–220.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.