Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 78, Issue 21, pp 30485–30502 | Cite as

Oscillator driven central pattern generator (CPG) system for procedural animation of quadruped locomotion

  • Zeeshan BhattiEmail author


In this paper a procedural animation framework is developed and discussed, which consists of a oscillator based Central Pattern Generator (CPG) system. This CPG based animation model is able to produce coupled leg oscillation derived through user-controlled parameters, producing in-phase and out-of-phase leg swing motion curves. Each leg has a separate CPG unit that is able to generate and control the swing and stance phases of each gait cycle with couple oscillation, having a time shift in correspondence to each leg, in a permuted symmetry. The dynamic motion is calculated independently for each body part with user interaction and control over the speed, frequency and oscillation of body parts individually, during runtime, for high divergence control of the simulation. The user can manipulate the simulation parameters for leg impact phases and duration at runtime and the system will automatically adjust the motion gaits and transitions between each gait at runtime. This procedural model for animating quadrupeds can generate various locomotion gaits with varying speed and footfall patterns dynamically. The various gaits produced by the CPG system are, walk, trot, gallop, canter, pace, pronk and rack. Various gait and footfall timing test are performed to test and validate the motion, along with a study of user’s perception test to determine a Visual Mean Opinion Score (VMOS) of the believability and accuracy of the generated animation with statistical significance.


Quadruped Animation Oscillator Procedural animation Central pattern generator Quadruped locomotion 



  1. 1.
    Agarwala A, Hertzmann A, Salesin DH, Seitz SM (2004) Keyframe-based tracking for rotoscoping and animation. In ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) (Vol. 23, No. 3). ACM, New York, pp 584–591Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhatti Z, Shah A, Karabasi M, Mahesar W (2013) Expression driven trignometric based procedural animation of quadrupeds. In: Informatics and creative multimedia (ICICM), 2013 international conference on, pp 104–109Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhatti Z, Shah A, Karabasi M, Mahesar W (2013) Expression driven trignometric based procedural animation of quadrupeds. In: International conference on informatics and creative multimedia 2013 (ICICM’13), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhatti Z, Shah A, Shahidi F (2013) Procedural model of horse simulation. In: 12th ACM SIGGRAPH international conference on virtual-reality continuum and its applications in industry (ACM-SIGGRAPH VRCAI 2013), pp 139–146Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhatti Z, Shah A, Waqas A, Karbasi M (2015) Automated animation of quadrupeds using procedural programming technique. Asian J Sci Res 8(2):165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhatti Z, Karbasi M, Dhomeja LD, Shaikh AA (2016) Autonomous quadruped animation techniques: a survey. Afr J Inf Commun Technol 10(1):131–147Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhatti Z (2017) Gait analysis and biomechanics of quadruped motion for procedural animation and robotic simulation. Bahria University Journal of Information & Communication Technologies (BUJICT) 10(2)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castellini H, Yudiarsah E, Romanelli L, Cerdeira HA (2005) Coupled chaotic oscillators and their relation to a central pattern generator for artificial quadrupeds. Pramana J Phys 64(4):525–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coros S, Karpathy A, Jones B, Reveret L, van de Panne M (2011) Locomotion skills for simulated quadrupeds. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2011 Pap. - SIGGRAPH ‘11, p 1Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cureton SM (2013) Using fourier analysis to generate believable gait patterns for virtual quadrupeds. Texas A&M University, College StationGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Curtis S, Lin M, Manocha D (2011) Walk this way : a lightweight , data-driven walking synthesis algorithm. In: Motion in Games. Springer, Berlin, pp 400–411Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Aguiar E, Stoll C, Theobalt C, Ahmed N, Thrun S, Informatik MPI (2008) Performance capture from sparse multi-view video. ACM Trans Graph (TOG) 27(3):98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fukuoka Y, Habu Y, Fukui T (2013) Analysis of the gait generation principle by a simulated quadruped model with a CPG incorporating vestibular modulation. Biol Cybern 107(6):695–710MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gibson DP, Oziem DJ, Dalton CJ, Campbell NW (2005) Capture and synthesis of insect motion. In: Proc. 2005 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symp. Comput. Animat. - SCA ‘05, p 39Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Griffin TM, Main RP, Farley CT (2004) Biomechanics of quadrupedal walking: how do four-legged animals achieve inverted pendulum-like movements? J Exp Biol 207(20):3545–3558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hecker C, Raabe B, Enslow RW, DeWeese J, Maynard J, van Prooijen K (2008) Real-time motion retargeting to highly varied user-created morphologies. ACM Trans Graph 27(3):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ijspeert AJ (2008) Central pattern generators for locomotion control in animals and robots: a review. Neural Netw 21(4):642–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johansen RS (2009) Automated semi-procedural animation for character locomotion. Aarhus University, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kry PG, Reveret L, Faure F, Cani M-P (2009) Modal locomotion: animating virtual characters with natural vibrations. Comput Graph Forum 28(2):289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu C, Chen Y, Zhang J, Chen Q (2009) CPG driven locomotion control of quadruped robot. In: Conf. Proc. - IEEE Int. Conf. Syst. Man Cybern., no. 60875057, pp 2368–2373Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marhefka DW, Orin DE, Schmiedeler JP, Waldron KJ (2003) Intelligent control of quadruped gallops. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatronics 8(4):446–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morel Y, Porez M, Leonessa A, Ijspeert AJ (2011) Nonlinear motion control of CPG-based movement with applications to a class of swimming robots. In: Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control, pp 6331–6336Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morimoto J, Endo G, Hyon S-H, Cheng G (2007) A simple approach to diverse humanoid locomotion. In: 2007 7th IEEE-RAS Int. Conf. Humanoid Robot, pp 596–602Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ramanan D, a Forsyth D, Barnard K (2006) Building models of animals from video. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 28(8):1319–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Skrba L, Reveret L, Hétroy F, Cani M-P, O’Sullivan C (2009) Animating quadrupeds: methods and applications. Comput Graph Forum 28(6):1541–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tolani D, Goswami A, Badler NI (2000) Real-time inverse kinematics techniques for anthropomorphic limbs. Graph Model 62(5):353–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wampler K, Popovi Z (2009) Optimal gait and form for animal locomotion. In ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) (Vol. 28, No. 3). ACM, New York, p 60Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yamamoto S (2000) Effective implementations of multi-dimensional Radix-2 FFT. Comput Phys Commun 125(1–3):1–7. vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yang Z, Rocha M, Lima P, Karamanoglu M (2014) A legged central pattern generation model for autonomous gait transition, no 61073118, pp 4–7Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zajac J (2003) Biped animation using mathematical expressions in Maya. In: Proc. CESCG’03 (Central Eur. Semin. Comput. Graph), pp 1–5Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Information and Communication TechnologyUniversity of SindhJamshoroPakistan

Personalised recommendations