3.1. Setup with Transparent PMMA
To investigate the influence of transparent substrates on the measurement characteristics of the TMF8828, a 2 mm thick PMMA sheet was mounted on a linear translation stage and displaced from 0 to 280 mm along the optical axis. At each position, histogram frames were recorded to extract the main parameters of the detected peaks—namely peak intensity, mean distance, and confidence. Owing to its ability to report two peaks simultaneously, the TMF8828 could separately resolve the reflection from the PMMA sheet (moving peak) and the white reference target placed at 315 mm (fixed peak). This provides considerably more insight into the optical interaction between the propagating beam and the transparent obstacle compared to sensors that only output a single scalar distance value. Throughout this subsection, we refer to the PMMA-related return as Obj1 and to the distant diffuse target as Obj2; these labels are used consistently in the legends of
Figure 3 and
Figure 4.
The results are summarized in
Figure 3. In the legend and subsequent discussion, Obj1 denotes the return from the PMMA sheet and Obj2 denotes the return from the distant paper target. The top panel (
Figure 3a) shows the evolution of peak intensities on a logarithmic scale. Upon insertion of the PMMA sheet into the sensor field of view, a distinct moving peak appeared with high amplitude. As the sheet advanced deeper into the optical path, the intensity of this peak gradually decayed, spanning nearly three orders of magnitude across the full displacement range. In contrast, the fixed peak associated with the far reflector remained relatively stable, showing only moderate attenuation due to scattering and absorption within the PMMA.
The middle panel (
Figure 3b) presents the evolution of mean distances. Without PMMA, the baseline distance to the white target was 315 mm. At 0 mm displacement, the measured value was 316 mm, fully consistent with the intrinsic accuracy of the sensor. However, once the PMMA was shifted 10 mm away from the aperture, the system exhibited an object swap: the PMMA reflection became the first object, while the white target was reassigned as the second. In this case, the mean distance reading for the target dropped to 279 mm, a deviation of approximately 13% from the baseline. Between 10–70 mm displacement, this behavior remained stable, with the white target consistently reported as the second object and distance readings clustering around 278 mm. From 70–240 mm, the target signal gradually regained dominance, and the measured distance steadily converged back to 315–316 mm, recovering the baseline accuracy. Beyond 240 mm, however, a transition region emerged: between 240–260 mm the histogram exhibited strong fluctuations, with alternating dominance of the target and PMMA peaks, leading to unstable distance readings. Finally, in the 260–280 mm range, the behavior resembled the initial 0–10 mm interval but in reverse: the white target was reassigned as the first object, restoring accurate readings of 315 mm, while the PMMA reflection collapsed.
The bottom panel (
Figure 3c) shows the corresponding confidence values. The confidence of the moving PMMA peak was initially high but decreased steadily with insertion depth, reflecting the decay in its intensity. The target peak maintained high confidence over most of the displacement range, only collapsing sharply in the 240–260 mm transition zone. Importantly, the distance assigned to the PMMA itself remained highly accurate—within ±1 mm—up to 260 mm, demonstrating the robustness of the TMF8828 in resolving both a transparent layer and a fixed background target.
For clarity, the experiment can thus be divided into five operating regions: (1) 0–10 mm, where near and far peaks overlap strongly; (2) 10–70 mm, where the PMMA reflection dominates and the target is shifted to second object with 13% deviation; (3) 70–240 mm, where the target steadily recovers as the dominant peak; (4) 240–260 mm, an unstable transition with competing reflections; and (5) 260–280 mm, where the target regains priority and accurate baseline readings are restored.
To gain deeper insight into how transparent dielectric substrates influence the raw photon distribution, histogram data from the TMF8828 was analyzed at representative PMMA positions across the sensor’s field of view (
Figure 4). These histograms complement the average curves shown in
Figure 3 and allow the dynamics of peak evolution to be visualized directly.
At the initial position of 0 mm (
Figure 4a), two well-defined peaks are observed. The first corresponds to the PMMA sheet, which introduces a strong scattering contribution at short distances, while the second represents the fixed reflective target located deeper in the measurement volume. The separation between the two peaks is stable, confirming the capability of the multi-zone ToF device to distinguish multiple optical paths. When the PMMA is shifted to 10 mm (
Figure 4b), the intensity of its associated peak becomes dominant, while the fixed reference peak is still visible but already shows signs of attenuation. This indicates that even at very shallow insertion depths, the PMMA efficiently couples and redirects part of the guided infrared light, redistributing the photon counts away from the background reference. At 70 mm (
Figure 4c), both peaks remain clearly separable, but the PMMA-induced peak has started to decay exponentially. This attenuation reflects the absorption and scattering losses accumulated along the increasing optical path length in the transparent substrate. The fixed peak is still detectable at this stage, albeit with lower amplitude, demonstrating the dual-object detection capacity of the sensor. By 240 mm (
Figure 4d), the moving PMMA peak is still present but its amplitude has decreased by nearly two orders of magnitude compared to the 10 mm case. The histogram also begins to show overlap between the decaying PMMA peak and the fixed reference peak, highlighting the challenge of distinguishing multiple transparent objects at longer propagation distances. At 260 mm (
Figure 4e), the interference becomes pronounced. Both peaks broaden and partially merge, producing distorted shapes and unstable centroid positions. This corresponds to the transition region identified in the averaged confidence metrics (
Figure 3c), where object recognition reliability rapidly deteriorates. Finally, at 280 mm (
Figure 4f), only a faint residual of the fixed reference peak remains. The PMMA-associated contribution has essentially disappeared from the histogram, confirming that the transparent substrate has exited the effective sensing volume. Taken together, these representative histograms demonstrate that transparent PMMA substrates can be tracked over a substantial portion of the ToF sensor’s field of view, but that their presence introduces strong attenuation and interference effects as a function of insertion depth. Importantly, such behavior can only be resolved by analyzing histogram-level data; relying solely on the black-box distance outputs would conceal the dual-peak structure and the detailed evolution of signal degradation. These results emphasize the importance of raw-data access for material interaction studies and for developing correction strategies in practical FTIR–ToF integrations.
3.2. Setup with Dual-Sensor Layout
This subsection analyzes the behavior of the dual-sensor system under two conditions: detection of an elevated object positioned 120 mm above the PMMA light guide and a direct surface touch event.
Figure 5a presents the histogram response of TMF8828 sensor Nr. 2 configured for proximity sensing. The first peak, consistently observed around bin 15, originates from inherent sensor crosstalk and internal reflections, while the second peak at bin 23 corresponds to the elevated object at 120 mm distance. The measured distance remains stable and unaffected while the PMMA light guide is positioned within the “blind spot” of the sensor, as described in the previous subsection. When the object makes direct contact with the surface above sensor Nr. 2 (
Figure 5b), the second peak merges with the crosstalk peak, producing a saturated response at bin 15. This behavior indicates overexposure of the SPAD array, effectively “blinding” the proximity sensor to external objects under surface-touch conditions.
The baseline histogram of TMF8828 sensor Nr. 1, configured for FTIR-based tactile sensing, is shown in
Figure 5c. Two dominant peaks are visible: the first at bin 15, attributed to sensor crosstalk and reflections from the adjacent PMMA edge, and the second at bin 48, arising from reflections at the opposite edge of the light guide. When the object establishes surface contact, a strong additional peak emerges at bin 32 (
Figure 5d), corresponding to scattering of the guided light at the contact point. Importantly, no measurable interference or coupling is observed between the tactile and proximity sensors during the surface touch event.
These findings demonstrate that crosstalk between the two TMF8828 modules is negligible under normal operating conditions and occurs only in the presence of strong scattering events, such as direct contact. This confirms the feasibility of combining FTIR-based tactile sensing with ToF proximity detection in a dual-sensor configuration, enabling concurrent operation without significant performance degradation.
3.3. Analysis of Touch Reconstruction with Dual-Sensor Layout
The experimental results demonstrate that the TMF8828 ToF sensor, integrated with a PMMA light guide, reliably detects surface contact events through the mechanism of frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR). To evaluate multi-sensor operation, an additional TMF8828 module was placed beneath the PMMA light guide and configured for proximity detection, providing complementary free-space measurements to the FTIR-based tactile channel. It is important to note that all reconstructed images and heat maps shown in this subsection are computed exclusively from the histogram data of sensor Nr. 1 (FTIR configuration); the proximity sensor (Nr. 2) is used only as a source of optical excitation and for distance measurements, but its data are not used to form the tactile maps.
Across all three measurement points, C1, C2, and C3 (as defined in
Figure 6), a clear increase in signal intensity was observed by the FTIR-configured TMF8828 when the test object made contact with the light guide. This confirms that object contact consistently disrupts total internal reflection and enables accurate localization of the touch position.
A particularly notable finding was obtained at point C2, where the average signal intensity was approximately 85% higher than at C1 and C3. This amplification is attributed to localized optical coupling between the two TMF8828 modules: when the object touches directly above the proximity sensor at C2, scattered infrared light from that sensor partially couples into the light guide, boosting the amplitude of the FTIR signal. Although this effect slightly increases noise at C2, it is spatially localized, disappears once the object is removed, and does not compromise the overall fidelity of touch point reconstruction.
Despite the additional optical input observed at C2, the TMF8828 sensor remained fully operational and preserved sufficient signal integrity to correctly localize the contact point. This demonstrates the robustness of the FTIR-based sensing approach to moderate levels of optical interference, which is essential for practical applications where multiple sensors may operate in close proximity. Nevertheless, the elevated noise floor and amplified signal response at C2 underline potential limitations for scalability, particularly when integrating additional proximity sensors beneath the PMMA sheet. To address these challenges, future implementations could incorporate strategies such as physical or optical shielding, temporal multiplexing, or wavelength-selective filtering. Moreover, further investigations are warranted to evaluate the angular dependence of this interference and to study the role of object material and geometry in shaping the resulting signal distortion.
Figure 7 investigates the influence of optical interference between two TMF8828 sensors when arranged in close proximity and operated under varying separation distances. Panel (d) shows the difference maps, which reveal that scattering artifacts introduced by ToF 2 diminish as its distance from ToF 1 increases. This indicates that the coupling between sensors is highly localized and decays rapidly with spatial separation.
At the same time, the reconstructed tactile images in panel (b) confirm that such scattering does not noticeably degrade the quality of FTIR-based contact detection. Even in configurations where both sensors are simultaneously active, the contact point remains sharply resolved. Furthermore, when no touch occurs directly above ToF 2, there is no measurable increase in background noise, demonstrating that the system can be scaled to larger sensor arrays without accumulating interference.
These results highlight the potential of combining multiple ToF modules in a distributed architecture to extend tactile coverage across larger substrates. The findings also emphasize that inter-sensor interference must be considered in system design but can be effectively mitigated through geometric arrangement and spatial separation.
From a performance perspective, the dual-sensor configuration achieves a spatial resolution of 10–12 mm for linear tactile input and an angular resolution of approximately 3.5°, enabling reliable localization of surface interactions. In parallel, the proximity channel provides distance measurements up to 2000 mm with an accuracy of ±1 mm, which meets the requirements of many collaborative robotics (COBOT) and human–machine interaction scenarios. Overall, the Optoskin architecture demonstrates a practical route to integrating tactile and proximity sensing in a compact, optically transparent platform.
In the present prototype we did not implement any synchronization between the two TMF8828 modules; both sensors operate continuously and simultaneously. Nevertheless, the available GPIO pins of the dToF devices could be used as synchronization lines to drive the emitters in separate time slots, effectively eliminating optical crosstalk at the expense of a reduced overall update rate for the dual-sensor system.