Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
156 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Central pattern generators evolved for real-time adaptation to rhythmic stimuli (2210.08102v2)

Published 14 Oct 2022 in cs.RO and nlin.AO

Abstract: For a robot to be both autonomous and collaborative requires the ability to adapt its movement to a variety of external stimuli, whether these come from humans or other robots. Typically, legged robots have oscillation periods explicitly defined as a control parameter, limiting the adaptability of walking gaits. Here we demonstrate a virtual quadruped robot employing a bio-inspired central pattern generator (CPG) that can spontaneously synchronize its movement to a range of rhythmic stimuli. Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms were used to optimize the variation of movement speed and direction as a function of the brain stem drive and the center of mass control respectively. This was followed by optimization of an additional layer of neurons that filters fluctuating inputs. As a result, a range of CPGs were able to adjust their gait pattern and/or frequency to match the input period. We show how this can be used to facilitate coordinated movement despite differences in morphology, as well as to learn new movement patterns.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (68)
  1. A. J. Ijspeert, “Central pattern generators for locomotion control in animals and robots: a review,” Neural networks, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 642–653, 2008.
  2. S. Aoi, P. Manoonpong, Y. Ambe, F. Matsuno, and F. Wörgötter, “Adaptive control strategies for interlimb coordination in legged robots: a review,” Frontiers in neurorobotics, vol. 11, p. 39, 2017.
  3. S. Dasgupta, D. Goldschmidt, F. Wörgötter, and P. Manoonpong, “Distributed recurrent neural forward models with synaptic adaptation and cpg-based control for complex behaviors of walking robots,” Frontiers in neurorobotics, vol. 9, p. 10, 2015.
  4. S. Steingrube, M. Timme, F. Wörgötter, and P. Manoonpong, “Self-organized adaptation of a simple neural circuit enables complex robot behaviour,” Nature physics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 224–230, 2010.
  5. J. Buchli, F. Iida, and A. J. Ijspeert, “Finding resonance: Adaptive frequency oscillators for dynamic legged locomotion,” in 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.   IEEE, 2006, pp. 3903–3909.
  6. T. Iwasaki and M. Zheng, “Sensory feedback mechanism underlying entrainment of central pattern generator to mechanical resonance,” Biological cybernetics, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 245–261, 2006.
  7. K. Seo, S.-J. Chung, and J.-J. E. Slotine, “Cpg-based control of a turtle-like underwater vehicle,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 247–269, 2010.
  8. R. Thandiackal, K. Melo, L. Paez, J. Herault, T. Kano, K. Akiyama, F. Boyer, D. Ryczko, A. Ishiguro, and A. J. Ijspeert, “Emergence of robust self-organized undulatory swimming based on local hydrodynamic force sensing,” Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 57, p. eabf6354, 2021.
  9. C. Maufroy, H. Kimura, and K. Takase, “Integration of posture and rhythmic motion controls in quadrupedal dynamic walking using phase modulations based on leg loading/unloading,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 331–353, 2010.
  10. Y. Fukuoka, Y. Habu, and T. Fukui, “A simple rule for quadrupedal gait generation determined by leg loading feedback: a modeling study,” Scientific reports, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2015.
  11. O. Nocentini, L. Fiorini, G. Acerbi, A. Sorrentino, G. Mancioppi, and F. Cavallo, “A survey of behavioral models for social robots,” Robotics, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 54, 2019.
  12. G. Knoblich and N. Sebanz, “Evolving intentions for social interaction: from entrainment to joint action,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 363, no. 1499, pp. 2021–2031, 2008.
  13. S. Kotz, A. Ravignani, and W. Fitch, “The evolution of rhythm processing,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 896–910, 2018.
  14. S. M. Danner, N. A. Shevtsova, A. Frigon, and I. A. Rybak, “Computational modeling of spinal circuits controlling limb coordination and gaits in quadrupeds,” Elife, vol. 6, p. e31050, 2017.
  15. R. D. Beer, R. D. Quinn, H. J. Chiel, and R. E. Ritzmann, “Biologically inspired approaches to robotics: What can we learn from insects?” Communications of the ACM, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 30–38, 1997.
  16. A. J. Ijspeert, “A connectionist central pattern generator for the aquatic and terrestrial gaits of a simulated salamander,” Biological cybernetics, vol. 84, no. 5, pp. 331–348, 2001.
  17. T. Sun, X. Xiong, Z. Dai, D. Owaki, and P. Manoonpong, “A comparative study of adaptive interlimb coordination mechanisms for self-organized robot locomotion,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, p. 638684, 2021.
  18. M. Chen, X. Mo, Y. Zhang, and S. Wang, “Research on fusion control of sensor information and biological reflection based on cpg,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 16878132221149560, 2023.
  19. C. Liu, Q. Chen, and D. Wang, “Cpg-inspired workspace trajectory generation and adaptive locomotion control for quadruped robots,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 867–880, 2011.
  20. Y. Nakamura, T. Mori, M.-a. Sato, and S. Ishii, “Reinforcement learning for a biped robot based on a cpg-actor-critic method,” Neural networks, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 723–735, 2007.
  21. M. Thor, B. Strohmer, and P. Manoonpong, “Locomotion control with frequency and motor pattern adaptations,” Frontiers in Neural Circuits, vol. 15, 2021.
  22. H. Ravichandar, A. Polydoros, S. Chernova, and A. Billard, “Recent advances in robot learning from demonstration,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 3, pp. 297–330, 2020.
  23. J. C. Bongard, “Evolutionary robotics,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 74–83, 2013.
  24. S. Doncieux, N. Bredeche, J.-B. Mouret, and A. E. Eiben, “Evolutionary robotics: what, why, and where to,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 2, p. 4, 2015.
  25. K. Deb and H. Jain, “An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting approach, part i: solving problems with box constraints,” IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 577–601, 2013.
  26. J. B. Mouret, “Evolving the Behavior of Machines: From Micro to Macroevolution,” iScience, vol. 23, no. 11, p. 101731, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101731
  27. J. Collins, D. Howard, W. Geles, and F. Maire, “Towards the targeted environment-specific evolution of robot components,” GECCO 2018 - Proceedings of the 2018 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pp. 61–68, 2018.
  28. N. Cheney, R. MacCurdy, J. Clune, and H. Lipson, “Unshackling Evolution: Evolving Soft Robots with Multiple Materials and a Powerful Generative Encoding,” Proceeding of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation - GECCO ’13, p. 167, 2013.
  29. J. Nordmoen, F. Veenstra, K. O. Ellefsen, and K. Glette, “Map-elites enables powerful stepping stones and diversity for modular robotics,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, p. 639173, 2021.
  30. F. Veenstra and K. Glette, “How different encodings affect performance and diversification when evolving the morphology and control of 2d virtual creatures,” in Artificial Life Conference Proceedings.   MIT Press, 2020, pp. 592–601.
  31. K.-i. Funahashi and Y. Nakamura, “Approximation of dynamical systems by continuous time recurrent neural networks,” Neural networks, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 801–806, 1993.
  32. D. Floreano, P. Dürr, and C. Mattiussi, “Neuroevolution: from architectures to learning,” Evolutionary intelligence, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 47–62, 2008.
  33. J. Hwangbo, J. Lee, A. Dosovitskiy, D. Bellicoso, V. Tsounis, V. Koltun, and M. Hutter, “Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots,” Science Robotics, vol. 4, no. 26, p. eaau5872, 2019.
  34. P. Arena, S. De Fiore, L. Patané, M. Pollino, and C. Ventura, “Stdp-based behavior learning on the tribot robot,” in Bioengineered and Bioinspired Systems IV, vol. 7365.   SPIE, 2009, pp. 49–59.
  35. M. Jouaiti, L. Caron, and P. Hénaff, “Hebbian plasticity in cpg controllers facilitates self-synchronization for human-robot handshaking,” Frontiers in neurorobotics, vol. 12, p. 29, 2018.
  36. T. Reil and P. Husbands, “Evolution of central pattern generators for bipedal walking in a real-time physics environment,” IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 159–168, 2002.
  37. M. Oliveira, C. P. Santos, L. Costa, V. Matos, and M. Ferreira, “Multi-objective parameter cpg optimization for gait generation of a quadruped robot considering behavioral diversity,” in 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.   IEEE, 2011, pp. 2286–2291.
  38. C. Liu, H. Xiao, D. Wang, and Q. Chen, “Evolution of neural oscillator network for the biped walking control of a four-link robot,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation.   IEEE, 2015, pp. 2305–2310.
  39. B. Wang, X. Cui, J. Sun, and Y. Gao, “Parameters optimization of central pattern generators for hexapod robot based on multi-objective genetic algorithm,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 18, no. 5, p. 17298814211044934, 2021.
  40. C. Chambers, G. Kong, K. Wei, and K. Kording, “Pose estimates from online videos show that side-by-side walkers synchronize movement under naturalistic conditions,” PloS one, vol. 14, no. 6, p. e0217861, 2019.
  41. Y. Miyake, “Interpersonal synchronization of body motion and the walk-mate walking support robot,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 638–644, 2009.
  42. N. Rudin, H. Kolvenbach, V. Tsounis, and M. Hutter, “Cat-like jumping and landing of legged robots in low gravity using deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 317–328, 2021.
  43. E. Medvet, G. Nadizar, and F. Pigozzi, “On the impact of body material properties on neuroevolution for embodied agents: the case of voxel-based soft robots,” in Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion, 2022, pp. 2122–2130.
  44. J.-B. Mouret and J. Clune, “Illuminating search spaces by mapping elites,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.04909, 2015.
  45. A. Szorkovszky, F. Veenstra, and K. Glette, “Rapid rhythmic entrainment in bio-inspired central pattern generators,” in 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).   IEEE, 2022.
  46. T. F. Nygaard, C. P. Martin, J. Torresen, K. Glette, and D. Howard, “Real-world embodied ai through a morphologically adaptive quadruped robot,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 410–419, 2021.
  47. K. Matsuoka, “Sustained oscillations generated by mutually inhibiting neurons with adaptation,” Biological cybernetics, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 367–376, 1985.
  48. G. Taga, Y. Yamaguchi, and H. Shimizu, “Self-organized control of bipedal locomotion by neural oscillators in unpredictable environment,” Biological cybernetics, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 147–159, 1991.
  49. H. Kimura, S. Akiyama, and K. Sakurama, “Realization of dynamic walking and running of the quadruped using neural oscillator,” Autonomous robots, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 247–258, 1999.
  50. T. Fukui, H. Fujisawa, K. Otaka, and Y. Fukuoka, “Autonomous gait transition and galloping over unperceived obstacles of a quadruped robot with cpg modulated by vestibular feedback,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 111, pp. 1–19, 2019.
  51. M. Jouaiti and P. Henaff, “Comparative study of forced oscillators for the adaptive generation of rhythmic movements in robot controllers,” Biological cybernetics, vol. 113, no. 5, pp. 547–560, 2019.
  52. K. Matsuoka, “Mechanisms of frequency and pattern control in the neural rhythm generators,” Biological cybernetics, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 345–353, 1987.
  53. F. K. Skinner, N. Kopell, and E. Marder, “Mechanisms for oscillation and frequency control in reciprocally inhibitory model neural networks,” Journal of computational neuroscience, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 69–87, 1994.
  54. F. Grimminger, A. Meduri, M. Khadiv, J. Viereck, M. Wüthrich, M. Naveau, V. Berenz, S. Heim, F. Widmaier, T. Flayols, J. Fiene, A. Badri-Spröwitz, and L. Righetti, “An open torque-controlled modular robot architecture for legged locomotion research,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 3650–3657, 2020.
  55. A. Juliani, V.-P. Berges, E. Teng, A. Cohen, J. Harper, C. Elion, C. Goy, Y. Gao, H. Henry, M. Mattar et al., “Unity: A general platform for intelligent agents,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.02627, 2018.
  56. F.-A. Fortin, F.-M. De Rainville, M.-A. Gardner, M. Parizeau, and C. Gagné, “DEAP: Evolutionary algorithms made easy,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 13, pp. 2171–2175, jul 2012.
  57. J. Bongard, “Morphological change in machines accelerates the evolution of robust behavior,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 1234–1239, 2011.
  58. G. Brambilla, J. Buchli, and A. J. Ijspeert, “Adaptive four legged locomotion control based on nonlinear dynamical systems,” in From Animals to Animats 9: 9th International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, SAB 2006, Rome, Italy, September 25-29, 2006. Proceedings 9.   Springer, 2006, pp. 138–149.
  59. J. Nagumo, S. Arimoto, and S. Yoshizawa, “An active pulse transmission line simulating nerve axon,” Proceedings of the IRE, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 2061–2070, 1962.
  60. D. Owaki, M. Goda, S. Miyazawa, and A. Ishiguro, “A minimal model describing hexapedal interlimb coordination: the tegotae-based approach,” Frontiers in neurorobotics, vol. 11, p. 29, 2017.
  61. F. L. Bouwer, V. Nityananda, A. A. Rouse, and C. Ten Cate, “Rhythmic abilities in humans and non-human animals: A review and recommendations from a methodological perspective,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 376, no. 1835, p. 20200335, 2021.
  62. S. Koelsch, P. Vuust, and K. Friston, “Predictive processes and the peculiar case of music,” Trends in cognitive sciences, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 63–77, 2019.
  63. P. Lakatos, J. Gross, and G. Thut, “A new unifying account of the roles of neuronal entrainment,” Current Biology, vol. 29, no. 18, pp. R890–R905, 2019.
  64. E. W. Large and M. R. Jones, “The dynamics of attending: How people track time-varying events.” Psychological review, vol. 106, no. 1, p. 119, 1999.
  65. C. Palmer and A. P. Demos, “Are we in time? how predictive coding and dynamical systems explain musical synchrony,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 147–153, 2022.
  66. R. Kempter, W. Gerstner, and J. L. Van Hemmen, “Hebbian learning and spiking neurons,” Physical Review E, vol. 59, no. 4, p. 4498, 1999.
  67. A. F. Winfield and M. D. Erbas, “On embodied memetic evolution and the emergence of behavioural traditions in robots,” Memetic Computing, vol. 3, pp. 261–270, 2011.
  68. M. Krzyżaniak, “Musical robot swarms, timing, and equilibria,” Journal of New Music Research, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 279–297, 2021.
Citations (3)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets