Skip to main content

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Fungal sensing skin

This article was retracted on 02 June 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

A fungal skin is a thin flexible sheet of a living homogeneous mycelium made by a filamentous fungus. The skin could be used in future living architectures of adaptive buildings and as a sensing living skin for soft self-growing/adaptive robots.

Results

In experimental laboratory studies we demonstrate that the fungal skin is capable for recognising mechanical and optical stimulation. The skin reacts differently to loading of a weight, removal of the weight, and switching illumination on and off.

Conclusion

These are the first experimental evidences that fungal materials can be used not only as mechanical ‘skeletons’ in architecture and robotics but also as intelligent skins capable for recognition of external stimuli and sensorial fusion.

Introduction

Flexible electronics, especially electronic skins [1,2,3] is amongst the most rapidly growing and promising fields of novel and emergent hardware. The electronic skins are made of flexible materials where electronics capable of tactile sensing [4,5,6,7] are embedded. The electronic skins are capable of low level perception [8, 9] and could be developed as autonomous adaptive devices [10]. Typical designs of electronic skins include thin-film transistor and pressure sensors integrated in a plastic substrate [11], micro-patterned polydimethylsiloxane with carbon nanotube ultra-thin films [12, 13], a large-area film synthesised by sulfurisation of a tungsten film [14], multilayered graphene [15], platinum ribbons [3], Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) based silver electrodes [16], digitally printed hybrid electrodes for electromyographic recording [17] or for piezoresistive pressure sensing [18], or channels filled with conductive polymer [19].

Whilst the existing designs and implementations are highly impactful, the prototypes of electronic skins lack a capacity to self-repair and grow. Such properties are useful, and could be necessary, when an electronic skin is used in e.g. unconventional living architecture [20], soft and self-growing robots [21,22,23,24] and development of intelligent materials from fungi [25,26,27,28]. Based on our previous experience with designing tactile, colour sensors from slime mould Physarum polycephalum [29,30,31] and our recent results on fungal electrical activity [32,33,34] we decided to propose a thin layer of homogeneous mycelium of the trimitic polypore species Ganoderma resinaceum as a live electronic skin and thus investigate its potential to sense and respond to tactile and optical stimuli. We call the fungal substrate, used in present paper, ‘fungal skin’ due to its overall appearance and physical feeling. In fact, several species of fungi have been proposed as literal skin substitutes and tested in wound healing [35,36,37,38,39,40].

The paper is structured as follows. We introduce the protocol for growing the fungal skin and the methods of electrical activity recording in "Methods" section. Patterns of electrical activity of the fungal skin are analysed in "Results" section. Results are considered in a wider context and directions of future studies are outlined in "Conclusion" section.

Methods

Potato dextrose agar (PDA), malt extract agar (MEA) and malt extract (ME) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (USA). The Ganoderma resinaceum culture used in this experiment was obtained from a wild basidiocarp found at the shores of Lago di Varese, Lombardy (Italy) in 2018 and maintained in alternate PDA and MEA slants at MOGU S.r.l. for the last 3 years at 4 \(^\circ\)C under the collection code 019-18.

The fungal skin was prepared as follows. G. resinaceum was grown on MEA plates and a healthy mycelium plug was inoculated into an Erlenmeyer flask containing 200 ml of 2% ME broth (MEB). The liquid culture flask was then incubated in a rotary shaker at 200 rpm and 28 oC for 5 days. Subsequently, this liquid culture was homogenised for 1 min at max. speed in a sterile 1L Waring laboratory blender (USA) containing 400 mL of fresh MEB, the resulting 600 mL of living slurry were then poured into a 35 by 35 cm static fermentation tray. The slurry was let to incubate undisturbed for 15 days to allow the fungal hyphae to inter-mesh and form a floating mat or skin of fungal mycelium. Finally, a living fungal skin c. 1.5 mm thick was harvested (see texture of the skin in Fig. 1a), washed in sterile demineralised water, cut to the size 23 cm by 11 cm and placed onto a polyurethane base to keep electrodes stable during the electrical characterisation steps (Fig. 1b).

Fig. 1
figure1

Recording of electrical activity of fungal skin. a Close-up texture detail of a fungal skin. b A photograph of electrodes inserted into the fungal skin. c Train of three low-frequency spikes, average spike’s width there is 1500 s, a distance between spike peaks is 3000 s and average amplitude is 0.2 mV. d Example of several train of high-frequency spikes. Each train \(T_{xy}=(A_{xy}, W_{xy}, P_{xy})\) is characterised by average amplitude of spikes \(A_{xy}\) mV, width of spikes \(W_{xy}\) sec and average distance between neighbouring spikes’ peaks \(P_{xy}\) sec: \(T_{ab}=(2.6, 245, 300)\), \(T_{cd}=(1.7, 160, 220)\), \(T_{ef}=(1.6, 340, 340)\), \(T_{gh}=(2.5, 240, 350)\), \(T_{ij}=(2.5, 220, 590)\), \(T_{kl}=(2.6, 290, 440)\)

The electrical activity of the skin was measured as follows. We used iridium-coated stainless steel sub-dermal needle electrodes (Spes Medica S.r.l., Italy), with twisted cables. The pairs of electrode were inserted in fungal skin (Fig. 1b). In each pair we recorded a difference in electrical potential between the electrodes. We used ADC-24 (Pico Technology, UK) high-resolution data logger with a 24-bit Analog to Digital converter, galvanic isolation and software-selectable sample rates. We recorded electrical activity with a frequency of one sample per second. We set the acquisition voltage range to 156 mV with an offset accuracy of 9 \(\mu\)V to maintain a gain error of 0.1%. For mechanical stimulation with 30 g nylon cylinder, contact area with the fungal skin was c. 35 mm disc. For optical stimulation we used an aquarium light, array of LEDs, 36 white LEDs and 12 blue LEDs, 18 W, illumination on the fungal skin was 0.3 LUX.

Results

Endogenous electrical activity of the fungal material is polymorphic. Low and high frequency oscillations patterns can emerge intermittently. A train of four spikes in Fig. 1c is an example of low frequency oscillations. Trains of high-frequency spikes are exemplified in Fig. 1d.

Electrical responses to tactile loading and illumination are distinctive. An example of several rounds of stimulation is shown in Fig. 2a. The fungal skin responds to loading of a weight with a high-amplitude wide spike of electrical potential sometimes followed by a train of high-frequency spikes. The skin also responds to removal of the weight by a high-amplitude spike of electrical potential.

Fig. 2
figure2

Fungal skin response to mechanical and optical stimulation. a Exemplar recording of fungal skin electrical activity under tactile and optical stimulation. Moments of applying and removing a weight are shown as ‘W*’ and ‘Wo’ and switching light ON and OFF as ‘L*’ and ‘Lo’. b Exemplar response to mechanical stimulation. Moments of applying and removing a weight are shown as ‘W*’ and ‘Wo’. High-amplitude response is labelled ‘s’. This response is following by a train of spikes ‘r’. A response to the removal of the weight is labelled ‘p’. c Exemplar response of fungal skin to illumination, recorded on three pairs of differential electrodes. ‘L*’ indicates illumination is applied, ‘Lo’ illumination is switched off. d A train of spikes on the raised potential as a response to illumination

An exemplar response to loading and removal of weight is shown in Fig. 2b. The parameters of the fungal skin responses to the weight being placed on the skin are the following. An average delay of the response (the time from weight application to a peak of the high-amplitude spike) is 911.4 s (\(\sigma\) = 1280.1, minimum 25 s and maximum 3200 s). An average amplitude of the response spike (marked ‘s’ in the example Fig. 2b) is 0.4 mV (\(\sigma\) = 0.2, minimum 0.1 mV and maximum 0.8 mV). An average width of the response spike is 1261.8 s (\(\sigma\) = 1420.3, minimum 199 s and maximum 4080 s), meaning that the average energy consumed per current unit, associated to the response, is approximately 0.5 J/A. A train of spikes (marked ‘r’ in the example Fig. 2b), if any, following the response spike usually has 4 or 5 spikes. The fungal skin responds to removal of the weight (the response is marked ‘p’ in the example Fig. 2b) with a spike which average amplitude is 0.4 mV (\(\sigma\) = 0.2, minimum 0.2 mV and maximum 0.85 mV). Amplitudes are less indicative than frequencies because an amplitude depends on the position of electrodes with regards to propagating wave of excitation. An average width of the spike is 774 s (\(\sigma\) = 733.1, minimum 100 s and maximum 2000 s. A response of the fungal skin to removal of the weight was not observed in c. 20% of differential electrode pairs. The average response time is 385.5 s (\(\sigma\) = 693.3 s, minimum 77 s and maximum 1800 s).

Fungal skin’s response to illumination is manifested in the raising of the baseline potential, as illustrated in the exemplar recordings in Fig. 2c. In contrast to mechanical stimulation response the response-to-illumination spike does not subside but the electrical potential stays raised till illumination is switched off. An average amplitude of the response is 0.61 mV (\(\sigma\) = 0.27, minimum 0.2 mV and maximum 1 mV). The raise of the potential starts immediately after the illumination is switched on. The potential reaches its maximum and goes onto plateau in 2960 s in average (\(\sigma\) = 2201, minimum 879 s and maximum 9530 s). Typically, we did not observe any spike trains after the illumination switched off however in a couple of trials we witnessed spike trains on top of the raised potential, as shown in Fig. 2d.

Conclusion

We demonstrated that a thin sheet of homogeneous living mycelium of Ganoderma resinaceum, which we named ‘fungal skin’, shows pronounced electrical responses to mechanical and optical stimulation. Can we differentiate between the fungal skin’s response to mechanical and optical stimulation? Definitely, see Fig. 3a. The fungal skin responds to mechanical stimulation with a 15 min spike of electrical potential, which diminishes even if the applied pressure on the skin remains. The skin responds to optical stimulation by raising its electrical potential and keeping it raised till the light is switched off.

Fig. 3
figure3

a A scheme of the fungal skin responses to mechanical load and optical stimulations. b Slime mould P. polycephalum response to application of 0.01 g glass capillary tube. Redrawn from [30]

Can we differentiate the responses to loading and removal of the weight? Yes. Whilst amplitudes of ‘loading’ and ‘removal’ spikes are the same (0.4 mV in average) the fungal skin average reaction time to removal of the weight is 2.4 times shorter than the reaction to loading of the weight (385 s versus 911 s). Also ‘loading’ spikes are 1.6 times wider than ‘removal’ spikes (1261 s versus 774 s).

Fungal skin response to weight application is, in some cases, esp. Fig. 2y, similar to response of slime mould to application of the light weight [30]. The following events are observed (Fig. 3)b: oscillatory activity before stimulation, immediate response to stimulation, prolonged response to stimulation as a train of high-amplitude spikes, return to normal oscillatory activity. This might indicate some universal principles of sensing and information processing in fungi and slime moulds.

The sensing fungal skin proposed has a range of advantages comparing to other living sensing materials, e.g. slime mould sensors [29,30,31] electronic sensors with living cell components [41], chemical sensors using living taste, olfactory, and neural cells and tissues [42] and tactile sensor from living cell culture [43]. The advantages are low production costs, simple maintenance, durability. The last but not least advantage is scalability: a fungal skin patch can be few microns and it can be grown to several metres in size.

In future studies we will aim to answer the following questions. Would it be possible to infer a weight of the load applied to the fungal skin from patterns of its electrical activity? Would the fungal skin indicate directionality of the load movement by its spiking activity? Would it be possible to locate the position of the weight within the fungal network? Would it be possible to map a spectrum of the light applied to the skin onto patterns of the skin’s electrical activity?

Availability of data and materials

The data and materials are available on request.

Change history

References

  1. 1.

    Soni M, Dahiya R. Soft eskin: distributed touch sensing with harmonized energy and computing. Philos Trans R Soc A. 2020;378(2164):20190156.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Ma M, Zhang Z, Liao Q, Yi F, Han L, Zhang G, Liu S, Liao X, Zhang Y. Self-powered artificial electronic skin for high-resolution pressure sensing. Nano Energy. 2017;32:389–96.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Zhao S, Zhu R. Electronic skin with multifunction sensors based on thermosensation. Adv Mater. 2017;29(15):1606151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Chou H-H, Nguyen A, Chortos A, To JW, Lu C, Mei J, Kurosawa T, Bae W-G, Tok JB-H, Bao Z. A chameleon-inspired stretchable electronic skin with interactive colour changing controlled by tactile sensing. Nat Commun. 2015;6(1):1–10.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Yang T, Wang W, Zhang H, Li X, Shi J, He Y, Zheng Q-S, Li Z, Zhu H. Tactile sensing system based on arrays of graphene woven microfabrics: electromechanical behavior and electronic skin application. ACS Nano. 2015;9(11):10867–75.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Wang X, Dong L, Zhang H, Yu R, Pan C, Wang ZL. Recent progress in electronic skin. Adv Sci. 2015;2(10):1500169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Pu X, Liu M, Chen X, Sun J, Du C, Zhang Y, Zhai J, Hu W, Wang ZL. Ultrastretchable, transparent triboelectric nanogenerator as electronic skin for biomechanical energy harvesting and tactile sensing. Sci Adv. 2017;3(5):e1700015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Chortos A, Liu J, Bao Z. Pursuing prosthetic electronic skin. Nat Mater. 2016;15(9):937–50.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Park S, Kim H, Vosgueritchian M, Cheon S, Kim H, Koo JH, Kim TR, Lee S, Schwartz G, Chang H, et al. Stretchable energy-harvesting tactile electronic skin capable of differentiating multiple mechanical stimuli modes. Adv Mater. 2014;26(43):7324–32.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Núñez C G, Manjakkal L, Dahiya R. Energy autonomous electronic skin. NPJ Flexible Electron. 2019;3(1):1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Wang C, Hwang D, Yu Z, Takei K, Park J, Chen T, Ma B, Javey A. User-interactive electronic skin for instantaneous pressure visualization. Nat Mater. 2013;12(10):899–904.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Wang X, Gu Y, Xiong Z, Cui Z, Zhang T. Silk-molded flexible, ultrasensitive, and highly stable electronic skin for monitoring human physiological signals. Adv Mater. 2014;26(9):1336–42.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Sekitani T, Someya T. Stretchable organic integrated circuits for large-area electronic skin surfaces. Mrs Bull. 2012;37(3):236–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Guo H, Lan C, Zhou Z, Sun P, Wei D, Li C. Transparent, flexible, and stretchable ws 2 based humidity sensors for electronic skin. Nanoscale. 2017;9(19):6246–53.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Qiao Y, Wang Y, Tian H, Li M, Jian J, Wei Y, Tian Y, Wang D-Y, Pang Y, Geng X, et al. Multilayer graphene epidermal electronic skin. ACS Nano. 2018;12(9):8839–46.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Zhao X, Hua Q, Yu R, Zhang Y, Pan C. Flexible, stretchable and wearable multifunctional sensor array as artificial electronic skin for static and dynamic strain mapping. Adv Electron Mater. 2015;1(7):1500142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Scalisi R, Paleari M, Favetto A, Stoppa M, Ariano P, Pandolfi P, Chiolerio A. Inkjet printed flexible electrodes for surface electromyography. Organ Electron. 2015;18:89–94.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Chiolerio A, Rivolo P, Porro S, Stassi S, Ricciardi S, Mandracci P, Canavese G, Bejtka K, Pirri CF. Inkjet-printed pedot: pss electrodes on plasma modified pdms nanocomposites: quantifying plasma treatment hardness. RSC Adv. 2014;4:51477.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Chiolerio A, Adamatzky A. Tactile sensing and computing on a random network of conducting fluid channels. Flexible Print Electron. 2020;5:025006.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Adamatzky A, Ayres P, Belotti G, Wösten H. Fungal architecture position paper. Int J Unconvent Comput. 2019;14:397–441.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    El-Hussieny H, Mehmood U, Mehdi Z, Jeong S-G, Usman M, Hawkes EW, Okarnura AM, Ryu J-H. Development and evaluation of an intuitive flexible interface for teleoperating soft growing robots, In: 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE, 2018;4995–5002.

  22. 22.

    Sadeghi A, Mondini A, Mazzolai B. Toward self-growing soft robots inspired by plant roots and based on additive manufacturing technologies. Soft Robot. 2017;4(3):211–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Rieffel J, Knox D, Smith S, Trimmer B. Growing and evolving soft robots. Artif Life. 2014;20(1):143–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Greer JD, Morimoto TK, Okamura AM, Hawkes EW. A soft, steerable continuum robot that grows via tip extension. Soft Robot. 2019;6(1):95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Meyer V, Basenko EY, Benz JP, Braus GH, Caddick MX, Csukai M, de Vries RP, Endy D, Frisvad JC, Gunde-Cimerman N, Haarmann T, Hadar Y, Hansen K, Johnson RI, Keller NP, Kraševec N, Mortensen UH, Perez R, Ram AFJ, Record E, Ross P, Shapaval V, Steiniger C, van den Brink H, van Munster J, Yarden O, Wösten HAB. Growing a circular economy with fungal biotechnology: a white paper. Fungal Biol Biotechnol. 2020;7(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40694-020-00095-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Haneef M, Ceseracciu L, Canale C, Bayer IS, Heredia-Guerrero JA, Athanassiou A. Advanced materials from fungal mycelium: fabrication and tuning of physical properties. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Jones M, Mautner A, Luenco S, Bismarck A, John S. Engineered mycelium composite construction materials from fungal biorefineries: a critical review. Mater Design. 2020;. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Wösten HAB. Filamentous fungi for the production of enzymes, chemicals and materials. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2019;59:65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COPBIO.2019.02.010https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0958166918302283.

  29. 29.

    Adamatzky A. Towards slime mould colour sensor: recognition of colours by physarum polycephalum. Organ Electron. 2013;14(12):3355–61.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Adamatzky A. Slime mould tactile sensor. Sensors Actuat B Chem. 2013;188:38–44.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Whiting J G, de Lacy Costello B P, Adamatzky A. Towards slime mould chemical sensor: mapping chemical inputs onto electrical potential dynamics of physarum polycephalum. Sensors Actuat B Chem. 2014;191:844–53.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Adamatzky A. On spiking behaviour of oyster fungi pleurotus djamor. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Beasley AE, Powell AL, Adamatzky A. Capacitive storage in mycelium substrate, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.07816.

  34. 34.

    Beasley A, Abdelouahab M-S, Lozi R, Powell A, Adamatzky A. Mem-fractive properties of mushrooms, arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06413v2.

  35. 35.

    Hamlyn PF. Fabricating fungi. In: Glasman I, Lennox-Kerr P, editors. New applications. Textile Technology International, Sterling Publications Ltd: London; 1991. p. 254–7.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Hamlyn PF, Schmidt RJ. Potential therapeutic application of fungal filaments in wound management. Mycologist. 1994;8(4):147–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-915X(09)80176-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Su C-H, Sun C-S, Juan S-W, Hu C-H, Ke W-T, Sheu M-T. Fungal mycelia as the source of chitin and polysaccharides and their applications as skin substitutes. Biomaterials. 1997;18(17):1169–74.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Su C-H, Sun C-S, Juan S-W, Ho H-O, Hu C-H, Sheu M-T. Development of fungal mycelia as skin substitutes: effects on wound healing and fibroblast. Biomaterials. 1999;20(1):61–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Xu H, Liu L, Cao C, Lu W, Zhu Z, Guo Z, Li M, Wang X, Huang D, Wang S, et al. Wound healing activity of a skin substitute from residues of culinary-medicinal winter mushroom flammulina velutipes (agaricomycetes) cultivation. Int J Med Mushrooms. 2019;21(7):683–91.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Narayanan KB, Zo SM, Han SS. Novel biomimetic chitin-glucan polysaccharide nano/microfibrous fungal-scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;149:724–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.01.276.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Kovacs GT. Electronic sensors with living cellular components. Proc IEEE. 2003;91(6):915–29.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Wu C, Lillehoj PB, Wang P. Bioanalytical and chemical sensors using living taste, olfactory, and neural cells and tissues: a short review. Analyst. 2015;140(21):7048–61.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Minzan K, Shimizu M, Miyasaka K, Ogura T, Nakai J, Ohkura M, Hosoda K. Toward living tactile sensors. In: Conference on biomimetic and biohybrid systems, Springer, 2013, p. 409–11.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors have nothing else to acknowledge.

Funding

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme FET OPEN “Challenging current thinking” under grant agreement No 858132.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

AA, AG, AC designed the experiments, analysed results and wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Adamatzky.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors give their consent for publication.

Competing interests

Authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

This article has been retracted. Please see the retraction notice for more detail:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40694-021-00114-7

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adamatzky, A., Gandia, A. & Chiolerio, A. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Fungal sensing skin. Fungal Biol Biotechnol 8, 3 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40694-021-00110-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fungi
  • Biomaterials
  • Sensing
  • Sensorial fusion
  • Soft robotics