Human-Like Motion from Physiologically-Based Potential Energies

  • O. Khatib
  • J. Warren
  • V. De Sapio
  • L. Sentis
Conference paper

Abstract

Generating coordinated natural motion in human-like robotic structures has proved to be a challenging task. Given that humans easily solve this problem, we propose a methodology to devise the underlying strategies of human movement and apply them for robotic control. We use this approach to examine how humans utilize their muscles while performing positioning tasks. This analysis suggests an effort potential that is shown to characterize human postural motion. By applying this methodology to other criteria, we seek to establish a basis of human motion characteristics.

Keywords

human motion behaviors task-level control muscle kinematics and dynamics task/posture decomposition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, F.C., and Pandy, M.G. (2001), Static and dynamic optimization solutions for gait are practically equivalent, Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 34, pp. 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Crowninshield, R.D., and Brand, R.A. (1981), A physiologically based criterion of muscle force prediction in locomotion, Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 14, pp. 793–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Delp, S., and Loan, P. (1995), A software system to develop and analyze models of musculoskeletal structures, Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 25, pp. 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hogan, N. (1991), Mechanical Impedance of Single-and Multi-Articular Systems. In Multiple Muscle Systems, New York, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Ijspeert, A., Nakanishi, J., and Schaal, S. (2002), Movement imitation with nonlinear dynamical systems in humanoid robots, Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1398–1403.Google Scholar
  6. Khatib, O. (1987), A unified approach to motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation, International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 43–53.Google Scholar
  7. Khatib, O. (1995), Inertial properties in robotic manipulation: An object level framework, International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Khatib, O., Brock, O., Chang, K-S., Conti, F., Ruspini, D., Sentis, L. (2002), Robotics and Interactive Simulation, Communications of the ACM, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Khatib, O., Sentis, L., Park, J., and Warren, J. (2004), Whole body dynamic behavior and control of human-like robots, International Journal of Humanoid Robotics.Google Scholar
  10. Kuroki, Y., Blank, B., Mikami., T., Mayeux, P., Miyamoto, A., Playter, R., Nagasaka, K., Raibert, M., Nagano, M., and Yamaguchi, J. (2003), Motion creating system for a small biped entertainment robot, Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1394–1399.Google Scholar
  11. Schutte, L.M. (1992), Using musculoskeletal models to explore strategies for improving performance in electrical stimulation-induced leg cycle ergometry, PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  12. Zajac, F.E. (1993), Muscle coordination of movement: a perspective, Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 26, pp. 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Khatib
    • 1
  • J. Warren
    • 1
  • V. De Sapio
    • 1
  • L. Sentis
    • 1
  1. 1.Robotics Laboratory, Department of Computer ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations