Search for: All records

Abstract Inspired by animals that co-adapt their brain and body to interact with the environment, we present a tendon-driven and over-actuated (i.e.njoint,n+1 actuators) bipedal robot that (i) exploits its backdrivable mechanical properties to manage body-environment interactions without explicit control,and(ii) uses a simple 3-layer neural network to learn to walk after only 2 min of ‘natural’ motor babbling (i.e. an exploration strategy that is compatible with leg and task dynamics; akin to childsplay). This brain–body collaboration first learns to produce feet cyclical movements ‘in air’ and, without further tuning, can produce locomotion when the biped is lowered to be in slight contact with the ground. In contrast, training with 2 min of ‘naïve’ motor babbling (i.e. an exploration strategy that ignores leg task dynamics), does not produce consistent cyclical movements ‘in air’, and produces erratic movements and no locomotion when in slight contact with the ground. When further lowering the biped and making the desired leg trajectories reach 1 cm below ground (causing the desired-vs-obtained trajectories error to be unavoidable), cyclical movements based on either natural or naïve babbling presented almost equally persistent trends, and locomotion emerged with naïve babbling. Therefore, we show how continual learning of walking in unforeseen circumstances can be driven by continual physical adaptation rooted in the backdrivable properties of the plant and enhanced by exploration strategies that exploit plant dynamics. Our studies also demonstrate that the bio-inspired co-design and co-adaptations of limbs and control strategies can produce locomotion without explicit control of trajectory errors. 

Quantifying the dynamical features of discrete tasks is essential to understanding athletic performance for many sports that are not repetitive or cyclical. We compared three dynamical features of the (i) bow hand, (ii) drawing hand, and (iii) center of mass during a single bow-draw movement between professional and neophyte archers: dispersion (convex hull volume of their phase portraits), persistence (tendency to continue a trend as per Hurst exponents), and regularity (sample entropy). Although differences in the two groups are expected due to their differences in skill, our results demonstrate we can quantify these differences. The center of mass of professional athletes exhibits tighter movements compared to neophyte archers (6.3 < 11.2 convex hull volume), which are nevertheless less persistent (0.82 < 0.86 Hurst exponent) and less regular (0.035 > 0.025 sample entropy). In particular, the movements of the bow hand and center of mass differed more between groups in Hurst exponent analysis, and the drawing hand and center of mass were more different in sample entropy analysis. This suggests tighter neuromuscular control over the more fluid dynamics of the movement that exhibits more active corrections that are more individualized. Our work, therefore, provides proof of principle of how well-established dynamical analysis techniques can be used to quantify the nature and features of neuromuscular expertise for discrete movements in elite athletes. 

Synergy analysis via dimensionality reduction is a standard approach in biomechanics to capture the dominant features of limb kinematics or muscle activation signals, which can be called “coarse synergies.” Here we demonstrate that the less dominant features of these signals, which are often explicitly disregarded or considered noise, can nevertheless exhibit “fine synergies” that reveal subtle, yet functionally important, adaptations. To find the coarse synergies, we applied non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) to unilateral EMG data from eight muscles of the involved leg in ten people with drop-foot (DF), and of the right leg of 16 unimpaired (control) participants. We then extracted the fine synergies for each group by removing the coarse synergies (i.e., first two factors explaining $\ge$85% of variance) from the data and applying Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to those residuals. Surprisingly, the time histories and structure of the coarse EMG synergies showed few differences between DF and controls—even though the kinematics of drop-foot gait is evidently different from unimpaired gait. In contrast, the structure of the fine EMG synergies (as per their PCA loadings) showed significant differences between groups. In particular, loadings forTibialis Anterior,Peroneus Longus,Gastrocnemius Lateralis,BicepsandRectus Femoris,Vastus MedialisandLateralismuscles differed between groups ( $p<0.05$). We conclude that the multiple differences found in the structure of the fine synergies extracted from EMG in people with drop-foot vs. unimpaired controls—not visible in the coarse synergies—likely reflect differences in their motor strategies. Coarse synergies, in contrast, seem to mostly reflect the gross features of EMG in bipedal gait that must be met by all participants—and thus show few differences between groups. However, drawing insights into the clinical origin of these differences requires well-controlled clinical trials. We propose that fine synergies should not be disregarded in biomechanical analysis, as they may be more informative of the disruption and adaptation of muscle coordination strategies in participants due to drop-foot, age and/or other gait impairments.