Romansy 16 pp 271-278 | Cite as

Human Equilibrium Control Principles Implemented into a Biped Humanoid Robot

  • T. Mergner
  • F. Huethe
  • C. Maurer
  • C. Ament
Part of the CISM Courses and Lectures book series (CISM, volume 487)


We describe how human equilibrium control principles, which were derived from neurophysiological experiments, can be implemented in a biped humanoid robot (‘PostuRob’). Stance control in humans uses sensorbased feedback which involves mainly three sensors that measure: (1) body motion in space (vestibular system), (2) body motion with respect to the feet (ankle angle proprioception), and (3) torque between body and feet (ankle torque proprioception). The sensor signals are not used directly for feedback, but instead are used to internally reconstruct the physical stimuli in the outside world by means of sensor fusions. These reconstructions yield internal estimates of the external force fields such as gravity, the external contact forces (e.g. push), and support surface motion. The estimates are fed into an ankle angle proprioceptive feedback loop. By way of the signal fusions the robot’s control adjusts to the external stimulus situations, a fact that allows for low loop gain and robust control. This control differs from that of the biped robots described in the literature. They tend to use a global stability measure such as the COP (centre of pressure) or ZMP (zero moment point) and this control does not adjust to the external stimulus situation. Our PostuRob is used in a biorobotics approach to better understand stance control deficits of neurological patients and the effects of therapy and rehabilitation.


Sensor Fusion Biped Robot Torque Sensor Ankle Angle Body Inertia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Duysens J, Clarac F, Cruse H (2000) Load-regulating mechanisms in gait and posture: comparative aspects. Physiol Rev 80:83–133Google Scholar
  2. Maurer C, Mergner T, Bolha B, Hlavacka F (2000) Vestibular, visual, and somatosensory contributions to human control of upright stance. Neursci Let 281:99–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Maurer C, Mergner T, Peterka RJ (2005) Multisensory control of human upright stance. Exp Brain Res (DOI 10.1007/s00221-005-0256.y)Google Scholar
  4. Mergner T (2002) The Matryoshka Dolls principle in human dynamic behavior in space-A theory of linked references for multisensory perception and control of action. Curr Psychol Cogn 21:129–212Google Scholar
  5. Mergner T, Glasauer S (1999) A simple model of vestibular canal-otolith signal fusion. Ann New York Acad Sci 871:430–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mergner T, Huber W, Becker W (1997) Vestibular-neck interaction and transformations of sensory coordinates. J Vestib Res 7:119–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mergner T, Maurer C, Peterka RJ (2003) A multisensory posture control model of human upright stance. In: Prablanc C, Pélisson D, Rossetti Y (eds) Neural control of space coding and action production. Progr Brain Res 142:189–201Google Scholar
  8. Mergner T, Nasios G, Maurer C, Becker W (2001) Visual object localization in space. Interaction of retinal, eye position, vestibular and neck proprioceptive information. Exp Brain Res 141:33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Peterka RJ (2002) Sensorimotor integration in human postural control. J Neurophysiol 88:1097–1118Google Scholar
  10. Popovic MB, Goswami A, Herr H (2005) Ground reference points in legged locomotion: definitions, biological trajectories and control implications. Int J Robotics Res 24:1013–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. van der Kooij H, Jacobs R, Koopman B, van der Helm F (2001) An adaptive model of sensory integration in a dynamic environment applied to human stance control. Biol Cybern 84:103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. van der Kooij H, van Asseldonk E, van der Helm FC (2005). Comparison of different methods to identify and quantify balance control. J Neurosci Methods 145:175–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Webb B (2001) Can robots make good models of biological behaviour? Behav Brain Sci 24:1033–1094Google Scholar

Copyright information

© CISM, Udine 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Mergner
    • 1
  • F. Huethe
    • 1
  • C. Maurer
    • 1
  • C. Ament
    • 2
  1. 1.NeurologyUniversity of FreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Microsystems EngineeringUniversity of FreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations