Biological Cybernetics

, Volume 104, Issue 4–5, pp 235–249 | Cite as

Biologically inspired kinematic synergies enable linear balance control of a humanoid robot

  • Helmut Hauser
  • Gerhard Neumann
  • Auke J. Ijspeert
  • Wolfgang Maass
Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

Despite many efforts, balance control of humanoid robots in the presence of unforeseen external or internal forces has remained an unsolved problem. The difficulty of this problem is a consequence of the high dimensionality of the action space of a humanoid robot, due to its large number of degrees of freedom (joints), and of non-linearities in its kinematic chains. Biped biological organisms face similar difficulties, but have nevertheless solved this problem. Experimental data reveal that many biological organisms reduce the high dimensionality of their action space by generating movements through linear superposition of a rather small number of stereotypical combinations of simultaneous movements of many joints, to which we refer as kinematic synergies in this paper. We show that by constructing two suitable non-linear kinematic synergies for the lower part of the body of a humanoid robot, balance control can in fact be reduced to a linear control problem, at least in the case of relatively slow movements. We demonstrate for a variety of tasks that the humanoid robot HOAP-2 acquires through this approach the capability to balance dynamically against unforeseen disturbances that may arise from external forces or from manipulating unknown loads.

Keywords

Kinematic synergies Humanoid robot Balance control Biologically inspired Motion primitives 

Supplementary material

ESM 1 (AVI 10,723 kb)

ESM 2 (AVI 5,101 kb)

References

  1. Alexandrov A, Frolov A, Massion J (1998) Axial synergies during human upper trunk bending. Exp Brain Res 118(2): 210–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Åstrom KJ, Wittenmark B (1995) Adaptive control. In: Adaptive control, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley Longman, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  3. Baerlocher P, Boulic R (1998) Task-priority formulations for the kinematic control of highly redundant articulated structures. In: Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, vol 1, pp 323–329, 13–17 October 1998Google Scholar
  4. Baerlocher P, Boulic R (2004) An inverse kinematics architecture enforcing an arbitrary number of strict priority levels. Vis Comput 20(6): 402–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. d’Avella A, Bizzi E (2005) Shared and specific muscle synergies in natural motor behaviors. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102(3): 3076–3081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. d’Avella A, Saltiel P, Bizzi E (2003) Combinations of muscle synergies in the construction of a natural motor behavior. Nature 6(3): 300–308Google Scholar
  7. Freitas SMSF, Duarte M, Latash ML (2006) Two kinematic synergies in voluntary whole-body movements during standing. J Neurophysiol 95(2): 636–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goswami A (1999) Postural stability of biped robots and the foot rotation indicator (FRI) point. Int J Robot Res 18(6): 523–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goswami A, Kallem V (2004) Rate of change of angular momentum and balance maintenance of biped robot. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEEE international conference on robotics and automation ICRA, vol 4, pp 3785–3790, April 2004Google Scholar
  10. Hauser H, Neumann G, Ijspeert AJ, Maass W (2007) Biologically inspired kinematic synergies provide a new paradigm for balance control of humanoid robots. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE RAS/RSJ conference on humanoids robots (HUMANOIDS07), Pittsburgh, PA, December 2007Google Scholar
  11. Kagami S, Kanehiro F, Tamiya Y, Inaba M, Inoue H (2001) Auto-Balancer: an online dynamic balance compensation scheme for humanoid robots. In: Donald BR, Lynch K, Rus D (eds) Algorithmic and computational robotics: new directions. A K Peters Ltd., Wellesley, pp 329–340Google Scholar
  12. Kajita S, Yamaura T, Kobayashi A (1992) Dynamic walking control of a biped robot along a potential energy conserving orbit. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 8(4): 431–438 ISSN 1042-296XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kajita S, Kanehiro F, Kaneko K, Yokoi K, Hirukawa H (2001) The 3D linear inverted pendulum mode: a simple modeling for a biped walking patttern generation. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Maui, pp 239–246Google Scholar
  14. Kober J, Peters J (2009) Policy search for motor primitives in robotics. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 22 (NIPS 2008). MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 849–856Google Scholar
  15. Kuo BC, Golnaraghi F (2002) Automatic control systems, 8th edn. Wiley Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee S-H, Goswami A (2007) Reaction mass pendulum (rmp): an explicit model for centroidal angular momentum of humanoid robots. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 10–14 April 2007, pp 4667–4672Google Scholar
  17. Mahboobin A, Loughlin PJ, Redfern MS, Anderson SO, Atkeson CG, Hodgins JK (2008) Sensory adaptation in human balance control: lessons for biomimetic robotic bipeds. Neural Netw 21(4): 621–627. ISSN 0893-6080. Robotics and Neuroscience.Google Scholar
  18. Mansard N, Chaumette F (2007) Task sequencing for high-level sensor-based control. IEEE Trans Robot 23(1): 60–72 ISSN 1552-3098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mason CR, Gomez JE, Ebner TJ (2001) Hand synergies during reach-to-grasp. J Neurophysiol 86(6): 2896–2910PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Michel O (2004) Webots: professional mobile robot simulation. J Adv Robot Syst 1: 39–42Google Scholar
  21. Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1999) Modular features of motor control and learning. Curr Opin Neurobiol 9: 713–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oppenheim AV, Willsky AS (1992) Signal and systems. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  23. Peterka RJ (2009) Comparison of human and humanoid robot control of upright stance. J Physiol Paris 103(3–5):149–158. ISSN 0928-4257. NeuroroboticsGoogle Scholar
  24. Popović MB, Goswami A, Herr H (2005) Ground reference points in legged locomotion: definitions, biological trajectories and control implications. Int J Robot Res 24(12): 1013–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sabatini AM (2002) Identification of neuromuscular synergies in natural upper-arm movements. Biol Cybern 86(4): 253–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sciavicco L, Siciliano B (1999) Modelling and control of robot manipulators, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Torres-Oviedo G, Ting LH (2007) Muscle synergies characterizing human postural responses. J Neurophysiol 98(4): 2144–2156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tricon V, Le Pellec-Muller A, Martin N, Mesure S, Azulay J-P, Vernazza-Martin S (2007) Balance control and adaptation of kinematic synergy in aging adults during forward trunk bending. Neurosci Lett 415(1): 81–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vukobratović M, Borovac B (2004) Zero-moment point—Thirty five years of its life. Int J Humanoid Robot 1: 157–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang Y, Zatsiorsky VM, Latash ML (2005) Muscle synergies involved in shifting the center of pressure while making a first step. Exp Brain Res 167(2): 196–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Whitney DE (1969) Resolved motion rate control of manipulators and human prostheses. IEEE Trans Man Mach Syst 10(2): 47–53 ISSN 0536-1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helmut Hauser
    • 1
  • Gerhard Neumann
    • 1
  • Auke J. Ijspeert
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Maass
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Theoretical Computer ScienceGraz University of TechnologyGrazAustria
  2. 2.BIOROB, Biorobotics Laboratory, École Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneSchool of EngineeringLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations