Next Article in Journal
Event-Driven Decentralized Control for Multi-Robot Cooperative Manipulation
Previous Article in Journal
Integrating Vision–Language–Action Models and RGB-D Sensing for Robotic Waste Sorting on KUKA LBR iiwa
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quantitative Evaluation of Thumb Degrees of Freedom Relevance in Anthropomorphic Robot Hands

1
Institute of Mechanism Theory, Machine Dynamics and Robotics, RWTH Aachen University, 52062 Aachen, Germany
2
The Sirindhorn International Thai-German Graduate School of Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok 10800, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Robotics 2026, 15(5), 101; https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics15050101
Submission received: 20 April 2026 / Revised: 12 May 2026 / Accepted: 18 May 2026 / Published: 21 May 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Humanoid and Human Robotics)

Abstract

Thumb degree-of-freedom (DOF) allocation in anthropomorphic robot hands involves a trade-off between functional mobility and mechanical-control complexity. This study presents a controlled multi-metric framework for comparing recurring thumb DOF configurations under common palm geometry, non-thumb finger structure, reference frames, Denavit–Hartenberg kinematics, and sampling assumptions. Five literature-derived thumb configurations, namely 3-1-1, 2-2-1, 2-1-1, 2-0-1, and 1-1-1, were evaluated to determine which thumb DOFs should be preserved when kinematic complexity is reduced. The theoretical evaluation included Kapandji Opposition Test reachability, opposition alignment, workspace volume, workspace compactness, cylindrical grasp opportunity, and Jacobian-based dexterity. A targeted experimental validation of the 2-1-1 and 2-0-1 prototypes was then performed on a tendon-driven test bench. The results showed that qualitatively similar thumb configurations are quantitatively unequal: several designs achieved identical Kapandji scores but differed substantially in workspace, alignment, dexterity, and grasp feasibility. Overall, 3-1-1 achieved the strongest overall capability, while 2-2-1 emerged as the strongest reduced-complexity alternative and achieved the best mean dexterity. Retaining two active carpometacarpal DOFs preserved a large share of dexterous function, whereas metacarpophalangeal fixation maintained selected cylindrical grasps but narrowed the feasible task boundary.
Keywords: anthropomorphic robot hand; robotic thumb design; thumb degree of freedom; opposition; Kapandji opposition test; workspace analysis; kinematic dexterity; grasp analysis; reduced-complexity design anthropomorphic robot hand; robotic thumb design; thumb degree of freedom; opposition; Kapandji opposition test; workspace analysis; kinematic dexterity; grasp analysis; reduced-complexity design

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Polzin, S.; Farooq, O.; Gossen, D.; Riswadkar, S.; Hüsing, M.; Corves, B.; Brezing, A. Quantitative Evaluation of Thumb Degrees of Freedom Relevance in Anthropomorphic Robot Hands. Robotics 2026, 15, 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics15050101

AMA Style

Polzin S, Farooq O, Gossen D, Riswadkar S, Hüsing M, Corves B, Brezing A. Quantitative Evaluation of Thumb Degrees of Freedom Relevance in Anthropomorphic Robot Hands. Robotics. 2026; 15(5):101. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics15050101

Chicago/Turabian Style

Polzin, Sebastian, Omar Farooq, Daniel Gossen, Shubhankar Riswadkar, Mathias Hüsing, Burkhard Corves, and Alexander Brezing. 2026. "Quantitative Evaluation of Thumb Degrees of Freedom Relevance in Anthropomorphic Robot Hands" Robotics 15, no. 5: 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics15050101

APA Style

Polzin, S., Farooq, O., Gossen, D., Riswadkar, S., Hüsing, M., Corves, B., & Brezing, A. (2026). Quantitative Evaluation of Thumb Degrees of Freedom Relevance in Anthropomorphic Robot Hands. Robotics, 15(5), 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics15050101

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop