TABLE 5.
Comparison between the conventional and emerging tactile sensing technologies for MIS.
| Classification | Flexibility | Fabrication | Biocompatibility | MIS adaptability | Transparency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional | MEMS-based | Low | - MEMS technology | Mostly biocompatible | Easy | Low |
| - Photolithography | ||||||
| Emerging | Microfluidic-based | Very high | - 3D printing | Biocompatible elastomers and microchannel’s sealing | Easy | High |
| - Molding | ||||||
| - Liquid injection | ||||||
| Imaging-based | Low | Image sensor: | Biocompatible sensing skin | Moderate | High (Partial) | |
| - CMOS technology | ||||||
| Sensing skin: | ||||||
| - 3D printing | ||||||
| - Molding | ||||||