The Dynamics of Legged Locomotion: Models, Analyses, and Challenges
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (ESE) Department of Electrical & Systems Engineering 5-2-2006 The Dynamics of Legged Locomotion: Models, Analyses, and Challenges Philip Holmes Princeton University Robert J. Full University of California Daniel E. Koditschek University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] John Guckenheimer Cornell University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/ese_papers Part of the Biomechanics and Biotransport Commons Recommended Citation Philip Holmes, Robert J. Full, Daniel E. Koditschek, and John Guckenheimer, "The Dynamics of Legged Locomotion: Models, Analyses, and Challenges", . May 2006. Copyright SIAM, 2006. Reprinted in SIAM Review, Volume 48, Issue 2, 2006, pages 207-304. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/ese_papers/200 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Dynamics of Legged Locomotion: Models, Analyses, and Challenges Abstract Cheetahs and beetles run, dolphins and salmon swim, and bees and birds fly with grace and economy surpassing our technology. Evolution has shaped the breathtaking abilities of animals, leaving us the challenge of reconstructing their targets of control and mechanisms of dexterity. In this review we explore a corner of this fascinating world. We describe mathematical models for legged animal locomotion, focusing on rapidly running insects and highlighting past achievements and challenges that remain. Newtonian body–limb dynamics are most naturally formulated as piecewise-holonomic rigid body mechanical systems, whose constraints change as legs touch down or lift off. Central pattern generators and proprioceptive sensing require models of spiking neurons and simplified phase oscillator descriptions of ensembles of them. A full neuromechanical model of a running animal requires integration of these elements, along with proprioceptive feedback and models of goal-oriented sensing, planning, and learning. We outline relevant background material from biomechanics and neurobiology, explain key properties of the hybrid dynamical systems that underlie legged locomotion models, and provide numerous examples of such models, from the simplest, completely soluble “peg-leg walker” to complex neuromuscular subsystems that are yet to be assembled into models of behaving animals. This final integration in a tractable and illuminating model is an outstanding challenge. Keywords animal locomotion, biomechanics, bursting neurons, central pattern generators, control, systems, hybrid dynamical systems, insect locomotion, Lagrangians, motoneurons, muscles, neural networks, periodic gaits, phase oscillators, piecewise holonomic systems, preflexes, reflexes, robotics, sensory systems, stability, templates Disciplines Biomechanics and Biotransport Comments Copyright SIAM, 2006. Reprinted in SIAM Review, Volume 48, Issue 2, 2006, pages 207-304. This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/ese_papers/200 SIAM REVIEW c 2006 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Vol. 48,No. 2,pp. 207–304 The Dynamics of Legged Locomotion: Models, Analyses, and Challenges∗ Philip Holmes† Robert J. Full‡ Dan Koditschek§ John Guckenheimer¶ Abstract. Cheetahs and beetles run, dolphins and salmon swim, and bees and birds fly with grace and economy surpassing our technology. Evolution has shaped the breathtaking abilities of animals, leaving us the challenge of reconstructing their targets of control and mechanisms of dexterity. In this review we explore a corner of this fascinating world. We describe mathematical models for legged animal locomotion, focusing on rapidly running insects and highlighting past achievements and challenges that remain. Newtonian body–limb dynamics are most naturally formulated as piecewise-holonomic rigid body mechanical systems, whose constraints change as legs touch down or lift off. Central pattern gener- ators and proprioceptive sensing require models of spiking neurons and simplified phase oscillator descriptions of ensembles of them. A full neuromechanical model of a running an- imal requires integration of these elements, along with proprioceptive feedback and models of goal-oriented sensing, planning, and learning. We outline relevant background mate- rial from biomechanics and neurobiology, explain key properties of the hybrid dynamical systems that underlie legged locomotion models, and provide numerous examples of such models, from the simplest, completely soluble “peg-leg walker” to complex neuromuscu- lar subsystems that are yet to be assembled into models of behaving animals. This final integration in a tractable and illuminating model is an outstanding challenge. Key words. animal locomotion, biomechanics, bursting neurons, central pattern generators, control systems, hybrid dynamical systems, insect locomotion, Lagrangians, motoneurons, mus- cles, neural networks, periodic gaits, phase oscillators, piecewise holonomic systems, pre- flexes, reflexes, robotics, sensory systems, stability, templates AMS subject classifications. 34C15, 34C25, 34C29, 34E10, 70E, 70H, 92B05, 92B20, 92C10, 92C20, 93C10, 93C15, 93C85 DOI. 10.1137/S0036144504445133 1. Introduction. The question of how animals move may seem a simple one. They push against the world, with legs, fins, tails, wings, or their whole bodies, and ∗Received by the editors July 12, 2004; accepted for publication (in revised form) April 28, 2005; published electronically May 2, 2006. This work was supported by DARPA/ONR through grant N00014-98-1-0747, the DoE through grants DE-FG02-95ER25238 and DE-FG02-93ER25164, and the NSF through grants DMS-0101208 and EF-0425878. http://www.siam.org/journals/sirev/48-2/44513.html †Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, and Program in Applied and Computa- tional Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 ([email protected]). ‡Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 (rjfull@socrates. berkeley.edu). §Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104 ([email protected]). ¶Department of Mathematics and Center for Applied Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 ([email protected]). 207 208 HOLMES,FULL,KODITSCHEK,AND GUCKENHEIMER the rest is Newton’s third and second laws. A little reflection reveals, however, that locomotion, like other animal behaviors, emerges from complexinteractions among animals’ neural, sensory, and motor systems, their muscle–body dynamics, and their environments [101]. This has led to three broad approaches to locomotion. Neurobi- ology emphasizes studies of central pattern generators (CPGs): networks of neurons in spinal cords of vertebrates and invertebrate thoracic ganglia, capable of generating muscular activity in the absence of sensory feedback (e.g., [142, 79, 260]). CPGs are typically studied in preparations isolated in vitro, with sensory inputs and higher brain “commands” removed [79, 163], and sometimes in neonatal animals. A related, reflex-driven approach concentrates on the role of proprioceptive1 feedback and inter- and intralimb coordination in shaping locomotory patterns [258]. Finally, biomechan- ical studies focus on body–limb environment dynamics (e.g., [8]) and usually ignore neural detail. No single approach can encompass the whole problem, although each has amassed vast amounts of data. We believe that mathematical models, at various levels and complexities, can play a critical role in synthesizing parts of these data by developing unified neurome- chanical descriptions of locomotive behavior, and that in this exercise they can guide the modeling and understanding of other biological systems, as well as bio-inspired robots. This review introduces the general problem and, taking the specific case of rapidly running insects, describes models of varying complexity, outlines analyses of their behavior, compares their predictions with experimental data, and identifies a number of specific mathematical questions and challenges. We shall see that, while biomechanical and neurobiological models of varying complexity are individually rel- atively well developed, their integration remains largely open. The latter part of this article will therefore move from a description of work done to a prescription of work that is mostly yet to be done. Guided by previous experience with both mathematical and physical (robot) mod- els, we postulate that successful locomotion depends upon a hierarchical family of control loops. At the lowest end of the neuromechanical hierarchy, we hypothesize the primacy of mechanical feedback or preflexes2: neural clock-excited and tuned muscles acting through chosen skeletal postures. Here biomechanical models provide the basic description, and we are able to get quite far using simple models in which legs are represented as passively sprung, massless links. Acting above and in concert with this preflexive bottom layer, we hypothesize feedforward muscle activation from the CPG, and above that, sensory, feedback-driven reflexes that further increase an animal’s stability and dexterity by suitably adjusting CPG and motoneuron outputs. Here modeling of neurons, neural circuitry, and muscles is central. At the highest level, goal-oriented behaviors such as foraging or predator-avoidance employ environ- mental sensing and operate on a stride-to-stride timescale to “direct” the animal’s path. More abstract notions of connectionist neural networks