robotics.sciencemag.

org/cgi/content/full/4/32/eaax2198/DC1

Supplementary Materials for

A neuro-inspired artificial peripheral nervous system for scalable electronic skins

Wang Wei Lee, Yu Jun Tan, Haicheng Yao, Si Li, Hian Hian See, Matthew Hon, Kian Ann Ng, Betty Xiong,
John S. Ho, Benjamin C. K. Tee*

*Corresponding author. Email: benjamin.tee@nus.edu.sg

Published 17 July 2019, Sci. Robot. 4, eaax2198 (2018)

DOI: 10.1126/scirobotics.aax2198

The PDF file includes:

Text S1. Pressure sensor fabrication and characterization.

Text S2. Temperature sensor fabrication and characterization.
Fig. S1. Additional characterization of ACES signaling.
Fig. S2. Characterization of transducers.
Fig. S3. Example prototypes of ACES sensor arrays.
Fig. S4. SPICE circuit used for simulation.
Fig. S5. Setup for local curvature and hardness classification.

Other Supplementary Material for this manuscript includes the following:

(available at robotics.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/4/32/eaax2198/DC1)

Movie S1 (.mp4 format). A typical 5 × 5 cross-bar sensor array subjected to physical damage.
Movie S2 (.mp4 format). Robustness of an ACES sensor array to physical damage.
Fig. S1. Additional characterization of ACES signaling .
(A), Example of a recorded pulse signature with 14 pulses after quantization, hence weight (W)
= 14. (Inset): Example electrical pulse. V+ and V- denotes the quantization thresholds for pulse
detection. (B), The temporal precision, obtained through SPICE simulations, as a function of the
number of connected receptors. (C), Decoded Signal to Interference Ratio (DSIR) as a function
of the number of overlapping signatures (W=10, Pulse Width = 60ns). Dashed line indicates
results by Monte-Carlo simulation. (Inset): Experimental results indicate agreement with the
simulations. (D), Signal to noise ratio (SNR) when 13.56 MHz electromagnetic interference
(EMI) from an RFID reader placed 1cm above the various parts of the ACES system (See
Methods). (E), SNR when 2.45 GHz EMI of various power levels were projected onto an
unshielded ACES system.
Fig. S2. Characterization of transducers .
(A), Illustration of how ACES-FA model reacts to the voltage signal as resistance changes. See
methods for detailed description. (B), Resistance v.s. frequency of events for ACES-SA. (C),
Illustration of resistive pressure and temperature sensors on a single substrate. (D),
Characterization of the micro-pyramid based piezoresistive sensors, as a function of the PDMS
hardness. (E), An SEM image of the micro-pyramidal structure of the sensor. (F), The
distribution of Young’s modulus at the boundary between micro-pyramids fabricated using hard
and soft PDMS. (G), Characterization of the resistive temperature sensor. (H), Optical
microscope image of PCL:Ni temperature sensor. (Inset): SEM image of Ni microparticles. (I),
Frequency modulated output from an ACES receptor mimicking the general response of cold
receptors.
Fig. S3. Example prototypes of ACES sensor arrays.
(A), Photograph of an ACES receptor array connected using flexible serpentine interconnects,
used in Movie S1. Inset: Photograph of the underside of one ACES receptor. The logical
components occupy an approximately 3x3mm footprint. (B) Photograph of data collection board
fitted with electrodes used for grasping hot object, grating classification and slip detection. (C)
Photograph of data collection board fitted with electrode used for local curvature and hardness
classification.
Fig. S4. SPICE circuit used for simulation.
(A), Example of ringing as more receptors are connected to the signal carrying conductor. (B),
Circuit showing total impedance contributed by N sensor nodes. A large capacitance at the
operational amplifier’s negative terminal causes ringing, which is compensated by a larger CF at
the expense of bandwidth. A lower bandwidth translates to a longer pulse width.

Load cell

A B

hard

soft

Indentor shapes

Fig. S5. Setup for local curvature and hardness classification.

(A), Indenters used in the experiment. Black indenters are softer. (B), Experimental setup.
Indenters are pushed onto a thin layer of elastomer that is covered on a rigid electrode array at
controlled forces and speeds using a linear actuator with integrated load cell capabilities.
Text S1 . Pressure sensor fabrication and characterization
Hard and soft pyramids were fabricated from 5:1 and 20:1 mixture of PDMS elastomer to

cross-linker (Sylgard 184 from Dow Corning), respectively. The mixture was mixed for 1 minute

at 2500 RPM and transferred onto silicon wafer mould treated with octadecyltrichlorosilane

(OTS), then spin coated at 1000 RPM for 30 seconds. A silicon wafer substrate was placed on

top of the degassed PDMS film in vacuum, then the stack was heat-compressed at 80 °C for at

least 4 hours. The flexible sensor matrix was made using the same process, but using flexible 12-

μm-thick PET film that was plasma-treated for 30s as substrates. Molded PDMS films on PET or

silicon substrates were coated with a thin layer of PEDOT:PSS (CLEVIOS PH1000; Heraeus)

that was premixed with 5 wt% DMSO and 0.1 wt% Zonyl FS-300. When fabricating samples

with hard and soft PDMS in one sensor, places where soft pyramids are needed were masked

with tape on the silicon wafer mold. Hard pyramids were spin coated and cured, followed by

removing the mask and spin coating and curing of the soft pyramids.

The sensor was imaged under FEI Verios 460 SEM (Fig. S2B). The accelerating voltage

was 2 kV. Mechanical stiffness of micro pyramid was characterized in micromechanical tester

(FT-MTA03) and assembly system (FemtoTools). Lateral microforce sensing probe (FT-S2000-

LAT) was used to compress each pyramid. When sensing probes move down vertically to

compress each pyramid, force (maximum force of 1500 µN) and displacement (maximum

displacement of 25 µm) data were recorded with a pre-determined strain rate of 18 µm/s and

sampling rate of 10 µm/s. Resistance measurements were taken using the Keithley 2450

SourceMeter. A mechanized Z-axis stage (Newmark) and force gauge (Mark 10 5i force gauge)

were used to apply loads onto the sensor pads interfaced through Labview.
Text S2. Temperature sensor fabrication and characterization

Temperature sensor was fabricated using polycaprolactone (PCL) (Sigma Aldrich) and

nickel (Ni) microparticles (Type 255; Vale) as conductive filler. The composites were prepared

in three different weight ratios: 20, 40 and 60 wt% Ni. A polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) control

with 40 wt% Ni was also prepared. The Ni-filled composites were prepared by melting PCL with

the Ni particles in an oven at 70°C, and mixing using a mixer (Flack-Tek) at 3000 rpm for 45 s.

The PCL-Ni ink was quickly spread onto electrodes prior to solidification of the composite. To

test the sensor, resistance was measured with Keithley 2450 SourceMeter, while the temperature

was controlled by a thermoelectric setup (ATEC302 TEC Temperature Controller). Temperature

sweeps were conducted from 15-50°C with a ramp function for a 0.1°C/s heating or cooling rate.