Large-scale and high-density sensing arrays often require numerous connections. Using a row-column scanning method can effectively address this issue. The upper and bottom layers, with the design of row-column electrodes, reduce the number of connection wires, as shown in Fig.
2B. Through the MUX and inverse amplification circuit, the acquisition system scans each piezoresistive cell in sensing array to acquire the pressure signal. The resistance response of a piezoresistive sensing cell at various pressures is examined in Fig.
2C. The correlation between the change in the resistance value of sensing cell and the variation of the external pressure is articulated through a power function. The pressure range is set from 0 to 30 kPa after estimating the pressure on the seat. In the pressure range of 0 to 5 kPa, the resistance value decreases rapidly, with the sensor sensitivity being approximately 0.26 kPa
−1. However, above 10 kPa, the resistance change stabilizes, and the sensor sensitivity reduces to around 0.002 kPa
−1. The experimental results of sensing performance are shown in Fig.
S11. Figure S11A presents the sensing detection limit of 147 Pa. Figure
S11B shows the sensing pressure range. When the sensor is subjected to an external pressure ranging from 0 to 350 kPa, its resistance decreases gradually. Beyond 400 kPa, the sensor's response becomes less pronounced. The operating range is set from 0 to 350 kPa to maintain optimal sensing performance. The measurement results of sensing response and recovery time are shown in Fig.
S11C. Under a pressure of 10 kPa, the response time is approximately 0.1 s, and the recovery time is about 0.14 s. Figure
S11D shows the sensing dynamic performance. During a pressure cycle with a maximum pressure of 10 kPa at a frequency of 0.1 Hz, the sensor's resistance changes consistently with the pressure variations. The response of sensing array is demonstrated in Fig.
2D, corresponding to 7 possible sitting postures in daily work. From left to right, the sitting postures are leaning back, leaning left, crossing the right leg, lounging, leaning right, crossing the left leg, and sitting upright, respectively. The different sensing units exhibit excellent consistency, maintaining similar performance and response characteristics. This consistency ensures that the sensing array can provide highly reliable and accurate data during overall operation. The middle row of Fig.
2D shows the pressure distribution map (sampling rate of 10 Hz/channel) of the sensing array corresponding to various postures. Then, the pressure response map is calculated in real time for further processing by using an average compression method, as shown in the bottom row of Fig.
2D. Under various sitting postures, the compressed pressure responses of sensing arrays vary. The number of compressed data points (4 × 4 cells) is substantially smaller than before compression (32 × 32 cells), where the sensing response characteristics of various sitting postures remain with significant differences. More experiments are also conducted for other typical application scenarios. Figure
S12 shows pressure response maps across various typical applications, including robotic haptics, human–machine interaction, and smart skin. Figure S12A and B demonstrates the sensing array's response to pressure from a water cup and a laptop, illustrating its application in robotic tactile sensing. In human–machine interaction, a common application is palm pressing, as depicted in Fig.
S12C. Figure
S12D displays the response to an impact, representing a typical application in smart skin technology. Figure
S12E displays the recognition results of the 4 scenarios. The intelligent sensing array can differentiate between various scenarios well.