text: In this work, we address a challenging problem of fine-grained and coarse-grained recognition of object manipulation actions. Due to the variations in geometrical and motion constraints, there are different manipulations actions possible to perform different sets of actions with an object. Also, there are subtle movements involved to complete most of object manipulation actions. This makes the task of object manipulation action recognition difficult with only just the motion information. We propose to use grasp and motion-constraints information to recognise and understand action intention with different objects. We also provide an extensive experimental evaluation on the recent Yale Human Grasping dataset consisting of large set of 455 manipulation actions. The evaluation involves a) Different contemporary multi-class classifiers, and binary classifiers with one-vs-one multi- class voting scheme, b) Differential comparisons results based on subsets of attributes involving information of grasp and motion-constraints, c) Fine-grained and Coarse-grained object manipulation action recognition based on fine-grained as well as coarse-grained grasp type information, and d) Comparison between Instance level and Sequence level modeling of object manipulation actions. Our results justifies the efficacy of grasp attributes for the task of fine-grained and coarse-grained object manipulation action recognition.
  @cite_9: This paper is the second in a two-part series analyzing human grasping behavior during a wide range of unstructured tasks. It investigates the tasks performed during the daily work of two housekeepers and two machinists and correlates grasp type and object properties with the attributes of the tasks being performed. The task or activity is classified according to the force required, the degrees of freedom, and the functional task type. We found that 46 percent of tasks are constrained, where the manipulated object is not allowed to move in a full six degrees of freedom. Analyzing the interrelationships between the grasp, object, and task data show that the best predictors of the grasp type are object size, task constraints, and object mass. Using these attributes, the grasp type can be predicted with 47 percent accuracy. Those parameters likely make useful heuristics for grasp planning systems. The results further suggest the common sub-categorization of grasps into power, intermediate, and precision categories may not be appropriate, indicating that grasps are generally more multi-functional than previously thought. We find large and heavy objects are grasped with a power grasp, but small and lightweight objects are not necessarily grasped with precision grasps—even with grasped object size less than 2 cm and mass less than 20 g, precision grasps are only used 61 percent of the time. These results have important implications for robotic hand design and grasp planners, since it appears while power grasps are frequently used for heavy objects, they can still be quite practical for small, lightweight objects.
  @cite_25: 
  @cite_20: In this paper, we analyze and compare existing human grasp taxonomies and synthesize them into a single new taxonomy (dubbed “The GRASP Taxonomy” after the GRASP project funded by the European Commission). We consider only static and stable grasps performed by one hand. The goal is to extract the largest set of different grasps that were referenced in the literature and arrange them in a systematic way. The taxonomy provides a common terminology to define human hand configurations and is important in many domains such as human–computer interaction and tangible user interfaces where an understanding of the human is basis for a proper interface. Overall, 33 different grasp types are found and arranged into the GRASP taxonomy. Within the taxonomy, grasps are arranged according to 1) opposition type, 2) the virtual finger assignments, 3) type in terms of power, precision, or intermediate grasp, and 4) the position of the thumb. The resulting taxonomy incorporates all grasps found in the reviewed taxonomies that complied with the grasp definition. We also show that due to the nature of the classification, the 33 grasp types might be reduced to a set of 17 more general grasps if only the hand configuration is considered without the object shape size.
summary: At this point, we note here that the above mentioned works involve processing low-level information (e.g. feature extraction from videos images), whereas our goal in this work is to convey the importance of grasp and motion-constraints information at the higher semantic level (e.g. types of grasps and motion-constraints). Such high level attributes for manipulating actions, are indeed available @cite_25 , @cite_9 , @cite_20 as a part of the Yale human grasping dataset that we are considering in this work.