Artificial Life and Robotics

, Volume 12, Issue 1–2, pp 38–42 | Cite as

Adaptation of a distributed controller depending on morphology

Original Article


In this paper, we investigate the influence of an agent’s morphology on its neural controller. Our model consists of a number of identical modules, each of which comprises two half-wheels for movement and a central pattern generator (CPG) as its own neural control. Based on a series of simulation experiments, we conclude that one single type of CPG can adapt well to different types of morphologies, and that there seems to be a suitable or optimal morphology depending on the environmental givens.

Key words

Morphology Central pattern generator Evolutionary algorithm 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pfeifer R, Scheier C (1999) Understanding intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 312–315Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bongard JC, Pfeifer R (2002) A method for isolating morphological effects on evolved behaviour. In: Hallam B, Floreano D, et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Simulation of Adaptive Behaviour (SAB2002), MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 305–311Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kawauchi Y, Inaba M, Fukuda T (1994) A study on cellular robotic system (A realization of a robotic system capable of adaptation, self-organization, and self-evolution). JRSJ 12:116–132Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murata S, Tomita K, Yoshida E, et al. (1999) Self-reconfigurable robot: Module design and simulation. Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (IAS-6), IOS Press, Venice, Italy, pp 911–917Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castano A, Behar A, Will PM (2002) The Conro modules for reconfigurable robots. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatronics 7:403–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jørgensen MW, Østergaard EH, Lund HH (2004) Modular ATRON: modules for a self-reconfigurable robot. Proceedings of 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IEEE, Sendai, Japan, pp 2068–2073Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ijspeert A, Cabelguen J-M (2003) Gait transition from swimming to walking: investigation of salamander locomotion control using nonlinear oscillators. In: Kimura H, Tsuchiya K, Ishiguro A, et al. (eds), Adaptive motion of animals and machines. Springer-Verlag Tokyo, Tokyo, pp 177–188Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Satoh H, Yamamura M, Kobayashi S (1996) Minimal generation gap model for GAs considering both exploration and exploitation. Proceedings of IIZUKA’ 96, Iizuka, Japan, pp 494–497Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics (ISAROB). 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Department of InformaticsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations