Search for: All records

The geometry of multisegmented thermo-responsive gel robots was manipulated to break symmetry and support locomotion. 

While insects such asDrosophilaare flying, aerodynamic instabilities require that they make millisecond time scale adjustments to their wing motion to stay aloft and on course. These stabilization reflexes can be modeled as a proportional-integral (PI) controller; however, it is unclear how such control might be instantiated in insects at the level of muscles and neurons. Here, we show that the b1 and b2 motor units—prominent components of the fly’s steering muscle system—modulate specific elements of the PI controller: the angular displacement (integral) and angular velocity (proportional), respectively. Moreover, these effects are observed only during the stabilization of pitch. Our results provide evidence for an organizational principle in which each muscle contributes to a specific functional role in flight control, a finding that highlights the power of using top-down behavioral modeling to guide bottom-up cellular manipulation studies.

 

The gaits of locomoting systems are typically designed to maximize some sort of efficiency, such as cost of transport or speed. Equally important is the ability to modulate such a gait to effect turning maneuvers. For drag-dominated systems, geometric mechanics provides an elegant and practical framework for both ends—gait design and gait modulation. Within this framework, “constraint curvature” maps can be used to approximate the net displacement of robotic systems over cyclic gaits. Gait optimization is made possible under a previously reported “soap-bubble” algorithm. In this work, we propose both local and global gait morphing algorithms to modify a nominal gait to provide single-parameter steering control. Using a simplified swimmer, we numerically compare the two approaches and show that for modest turns, the local approach, while suboptimal, nevertheless proves effective for steering control. A potential advantage of the local approach is that it can be readily applied to soft robots or other systems where local approximations to the constraint curvature can be garnered from data, but for which obtaining an exact global model is infeasible. 

It is thought that the brain does not simply react to sensory feedback, but rather uses an internal model of the body to predict the consequences of motor commands before sensory feedback arrives. Time-delayed sensory feedback can then be used to correct for the unexpected—perturbations, motor noise, or a moving target. The cerebellum has been implicated in this predictive control process. Here, we show that the feedback gain in patients with cerebellar ataxia matches that of healthy subjects, but that patients exhibit substantially more phase lag. This difference is captured by a computational model incorporating a Smith predictor in healthy subjects that is missing in patients, supporting the predictive role of the cerebellum in feedback control. Lastly, we improve cerebellar patients’ movement control by altering (phase advancing) the visual feedback they receive from their own self movement in a simplified virtual reality setup. 

People come in different shapes and sizes, but most will perform similarly well if asked to complete a task requiring fine manual dexterity – such as holding a pen or picking up a single grape. How can different individuals, with different sized hands and muscles, produce such similar movements? One explanation is that an individual’s brain and nervous system become precisely tuned to mechanics of the body’s muscles and skeleton. An alternative explanation is that brain and nervous system use a more “robust” control policy that can compensate for differences in the body by relying on feedback from the senses to guide the movements. To distinguish between these two explanations, Uyanik et al. turned to weakly electric freshwater fish known as glass knifefish. These fish seek refuge within root systems, reed grass and among other objects in the water. They swim backwards and forwards to stay hidden despite constantly changing currents. Each fish shuttles back and forth by moving a long ribbon-like fin on the underside of its body. Uyanik et al. measured the movements of the ribbon fin under controlled conditions in the laboratory, and then used the data to create computer models of the brain and body of each fish. The models of each fish’s brain and body were quite different. To study how the brain interacts with the body, Uyanik et al. then conducted experiments reminiscent of those described in the story of Frankenstein and transplanted the brain from each computer model into the body of different model fish. These “brain swaps” had almost no effect on the model’s simulated swimming behavior. Instead, these “Frankenfish” used sensory feedback to compensate for any mismatch between their brain and body. This suggests that, for some behaviors, an animal’s brain does not need to be precisely tuned to the specific characteristics of its body. Instead, robust control of movement relies on many seemingly redundant systems that provide sensory feedback. This has implications for the field of robotics. It further suggests that when designing robots, engineers should prioritize enabling the robots to use sensory feedback to cope with unexpected events, a well-known idea in control engineering.