Autonomous Robots

, 27:291 | Cite as

A biomimetic, force-field based computational model for motion planning and bimanual coordination in humanoid robots



This paper addresses the problem of planning the movement of highly redundant humanoid robots based on non-linear attractor dynamics, where the attractor landscape is obtained by combining multiple force fields in different reference systems. The computational process of relaxation in the attractor landscape is similar to coordinating the movements of a puppet by means of attached strings, the strings in our case being the virtual force fields generated by the intended/attended goal and the other task dependent combinations of constraints involved in the execution of the task. Hence the name PMP (Passive Motion Paradigm) was given to the computational model. The method does not require explicit kinematic inversion and the computational mechanism does not crash near kinematic singularities or when the robot is asked to achieve a final pose that is outside its intrinsic workspace: what happens, in this case, is the gentle degradation of performance that characterizes humans in the same situations. Further, the measure of inconsistency in the relaxation in such cases can be directly used to trigger higher level reasoning in terms of breaking the goal into a sequence of subgoals directed towards searching and perhaps using tools to realize the otherwise unrealizable goal. The basic PMP model has been further expanded in the present paper by means of (1) a non-linear dynamical timing mechanism that provides terminal attractor properties to the relaxation process and (2) branching units that allow to ‘compose’ complex PMP-networks to coordinate multiple kinematic chains in a complex structure, including manipulated tools. A preliminary evaluation of the approach has been carried out with the 53 degrees of freedom humanoid robot iCub, with particular reference to trajectory formation and bimanual/whole upper body coordination under the presence of different structural and task specific constraints.


Humanoid robots iCub Passive motion paradigm Bimanual coordination Terminal attractors 

Supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. (WMW 21.1 MB)


  1. Abend, W., Bizzi, E., & Morasso, P. (1982). Human arm trajectory formation. Brain, 105, 331–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkeson, C. G., Hale, J. G., Pollick, F. et al. (2000). Using humanoid robots to study human behavior. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 15, 46–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baillieul, J. (1985). Kinematic programming alternatives for redundant manipulators. In IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (pp. 722–728). Google Scholar
  4. Balestrino, A., De Maria, G., & Sciavicco, L. (1984). Robust control of robotic manipulators. In Proceedings of the 9th IFAC world congress (Vol. 5, pp. 2435–2440). Google Scholar
  5. Bizzi, E., Mussa Ivaldi, F. A., & Giszter, S. (1991). Computations underlying the execution of movement: A biological perspective. Science, 253, 287–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boysen, S. T., & Himes, G. T. (1999). Current issues and emerging theories in animal cognition. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 50, 683–705. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks, R. A. (1997). The Cog project. Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan, 15, 968–970. Google Scholar
  8. Brooks, R. A., & Stein, L. A. (1994). Building brains for bodies. Autonomous Robots, 1(1), 7–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bullock, D., & Grossberg, S. (1988). Neural dynamics of planned arm movements: Emergent invariants and speed-accuracy properties. Psychological Review, 95, 49–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buss, S. R., & Kim, J.-S. (2005). Selectively damped least squares for inverse kinematics. Journal of Graphics Tools, 10(3), 37–49. Google Scholar
  11. Chappell, L., & Kacelnik, J. (2002). Selection of tool diameter by new Caledonian crows Corvus moneduloides. Animal Cognition, 7, 121–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emery, N. J., & Clayton, N. S. (2004). The mentality of crows: Convergent evolution of intelligence in corvids and apes. Science, 306, 1903–1907. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flash, T., & Hogan, N. (1985). The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. The Journal of Neuroscience, 5, 688–703. Google Scholar
  14. Hersch, M., & Billard, A. G. (2008). Reaching with multi-referential dynamical systems. Autonomous Robots, 25(1–2), 71–83. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirose, M., & Ogawa, K. (2007). Honda humanoid robots development. Philosophical Transaction A: Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 365, 11–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoffmann, H., Pastor, P., Dae-Hyung, P., & Schaal, S. (2009a). Biologically-inspired dynamical systems for movement generation: Automatic real-time goal adaptation and obstacle avoidance. In ICRA 2009. Google Scholar
  17. Hoffmann, H., Pastor, P., Asfour, T., & Schaal, S. (2009b). Learning and generalization of motor skills by learning from demonstration. In ICRA 2009. Google Scholar
  18. Ijspeert, A. J., Nakanishi, J., & Schaal, S. (2002). Movement imitation with nonlinear dynamical systems in humanoid robots. In Proceed IEEE ICRA2002 (pp. 1398–1403). Google Scholar
  19. Jordan, M. I. (1986). Attractor dynamics and parallelism in a connectionist sequential machine. In Proc. eighth ann conf cognitive science society (pp. 531–546). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  20. Liegeosis, A. (1977). Automatic supervisory control of the configuration and behavior of multibody mechanisms. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 7, 868–871. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Limongelli, L., Boysen, S. T., & Visalberghi, E. (1995). Comprehension of cause-effect relations in a tool-using task by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 109, 18–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Metta, G., Fitzpatrick, P., & Natale, L. (2006). YARP: Yet another robot platform. International Journal of Advanced Robotics Systems, 3, 43–48. Google Scholar
  23. Metta, G., Sandini, G., Vernon, D., Natale, L., & Nori, F. (2008). The iCub humanoid robot: An open platform for research in embodied cognition. In PerMIS: Performance metrics for intelligent systems workshop, Aug 19–21, 2008. Washington DC: USA. Google Scholar
  24. Miall, R. C., & Wolpert, D. M. (1996). Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Networks, 9, 1265–1279. MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mohan, V., & Morasso, P. (2007). Towards reasoning and coordinating action in the mental space. International Journal of Neural Systems, 17(4), 1–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morasso, P. (1981). Spatial control of arm movements. Experimental Brain Research, 42, 223–227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morasso, P., Sanguineti, V., & Spada, G. (1997). A computational theory of targeting movements based on force fields and topology representing networks. Neurocomputing, 15, 414–434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mussa Ivaldi, F. A., Morasso, P., & Zaccaria, R. (1988). Kinematic networks. A distributed model for representing and regularizing motor redundancy. Biological Cybernetics, 60, 1–16. Google Scholar
  29. Nakamura, Y., & Hanafusa, H. (1986). Inverse kinematics solutions with singularity robustness for robot manipulator control. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 108, 163–171. MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nishiwaki, K., Kuffner, J., Kagami, S., Inaba, M., & Inoue, H. (2007). The experimental humanoid robot H7: A research platform for autonomous behaviour. Philosophical Transaction A: Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 365, 79–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pagliano, S., Sanguineti, V., & Morasso, P. (1991). A neural framework for robot motor planning. In IEE/RSJ international workshop on intelligent robots and systems IROS ’91. Google Scholar
  32. Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, G. (1997). The space around us. Science, 190–191. Google Scholar
  33. Shadmehr, R., & Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A. (1994). Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. The Journal of Neuroscience, 14, 3208–3224. Google Scholar
  34. Šoch, M., & Lórencz, R. (2005). Solving inverse kinematics—a new approach to the extended Jacobian technique. Acta Polytechnica, 45, 21–26. Google Scholar
  35. Taylor, J. G. (2003). The CODAM model and deficits of consciousness. In Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 2774/2003). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar
  36. Tikhanoff, V., Cangelosi, A., Fitzpatrick, P., Metta, G., Natale, L., & Nori, F. (2008). An open-source simulator for cognitive robotics research. Cogprints, article 6238. Google Scholar
  37. Tsuji, T., Morasso, P., Shigehashi, K., & Kaneko, M. (1995). Motion planning for manipulators using artificial potential field approach that can adjust convergence time of generated arm trajectory. Journal Robotics Society of Japan, 13, 285–290. Google Scholar
  38. Uno, Y., Kawato, M., & Suzuki, R. (1989). Formation and control of optimal trajectory in human multijoint arm movement: minimum torque-change model. Biological Cybernetics, 61, 89–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Visalberghi, E., & Tomasello, M. (1997). Primate causal understanding in the physical and in the social domains. Behavioral Processes, 42, 189–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wampler, C. W. (1986). Manipulator inverse kinematic solutions based on vector formulations and damped least squares methods. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 16, 93–101. MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whitney, D. E. (1969). Resolved motion rate control of manipulators and human prosthesis. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, MMS-10, 47–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolovich, W. A., & Elliot, H. (1984). A computational technique for inverse kinematics. In Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE conf. on decision and control (pp. 1359–1363). Google Scholar
  43. Wolpert, D. M., & Kawato, M. (1998). Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks, 11, 1317–1329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zak, M. (1988). Terminal attractors for addressable memory in neural networks. Physics Letters, 133, 218–222. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robotics, Brain and Cognitive Sciences DepartmentItalian Institute of TechnologyGenoaItaly
  2. 2.DISTUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations