Models of Multifunctional Central Pattern Generators: Polyrhythmic Bursting

We demonstrate a motif of three reciprocally inhibitory cells that is able to produce multiple patterns of bursting rhythms. Through the examination of the qualitative geometric structure of two-dimensional maps for phase lag between the cells we reveal the organizing centers of emergent polyrhythmic patterns and their bifurcations, as the asymmetry of the synaptic coupling is varied. The presence of multistability and the types of attractors in the network are shown to be determined by the duty cycle of bursting. This analysis does not require knowledge of the equations that model the system, and so provides a powerful new approach to studying regulatory networks. Thus, the approach is applicable to a variety of biological phenomena beyond motor control

Fractional central pattern generators for bipedal locomotion

Locomotion has been a major research issue in the last few years. Many models for the locomotion rhythms of quadrupeds, hexapods, bipeds and other animals have been proposed. This study has also been extended to the control of rhythmic movements of adaptive legged robots. In this paper, we consider a fractional version of a central pattern generator (CPG) model for locomotion in bipeds. A fractional derivative D α f(x), with α non-integer, is a generalization of the concept of an integer derivative, where α=1. The integer CPG model has been proposed by Golubitsky, Stewart, Buono and Collins, and studied later by Pinto and Golubitsky. It is a network of four coupled identical oscillators which has dihedral symmetry. We study parameter regions where periodic solutions, identified with legs’ rhythms in bipeds, occur, for 0<α≤1. We find that the amplitude and the period of the periodic solutions, identified with biped rhythms, increase as α varies from near 0 to values close to unity

Multiple chaotic central pattern generators with learning for legged locomotion and malfunction compensation

An originally chaotic system can be controlled into various periodic dynamics. When it is implemented into a legged robot's locomotion control as a central pattern generator (CPG), sophisticated gait patterns arise so that the robot can perform various walking behaviors. However, such a single chaotic CPG controller has difficulties dealing with leg malfunction. Specifically, in the scenarios presented here, its movement permanently deviates from the desired trajectory. To address this problem, we extend the single chaotic CPG to multiple CPGs with learning. The learning mechanism is based on a simulated annealing algorithm. In a normal situation, the CPGs synchronize and their dynamics are identical. With leg malfunction or disability, the CPGs lose synchronization leading to independent dynamics. In this case, the learning mechanism is applied to automatically adjust the remaining legs' oscillation frequencies so that the robot adapts its locomotion to deal with the malfunction. As a consequence, the trajectory produced by the multiple chaotic CPGs resembles the original trajectory far better than the one produced by only a single CPG. The performance of the system is evaluated first in a physical simulation of a quadruped as well as a hexapod robot and finally in a real six-legged walking machine called AMOSII. The experimental results presented here reveal that using multiple CPGs with learning is an effective approach for adaptive locomotion generation where, for instance, different body parts have to perform independent movements for malfunction compensation.Comment: 48 pages, 16 figures, Information Sciences 201

The Role of Reflexes Versus Central Pattern Generators

Animals execute locomotor behaviors and more with ease. They have evolved these breath-taking abilities over millions of years. Cheetahs can run, dolphins can swim and flies can fly like no artificial technology can. It is often argued that if human technology could mimic nature, then biological-like performance would follow. Unfortunately, the blind copying or mimicking of a part of nature [Ritzmann et al., 2000] does not often lead to the best design for a variety of reasons [Vogel, 1998]. Evolution works on the just good enough principle. Optimal designs are not the necessary end product of evolution. Multiple satisfactory solutions can result in similar performances. Animals do bring to our attention amazing designs, but these designs carry with them the baggage of their history. Moreover, natural design is constrained by factors that may have no relationship to human engineered designs. Animals must be able to grow over time, but still function along the way. Finally, animals are complex and their parts serve multiple functions, not simply the one we happen to examine. In short, in their daunting complexity and integrated function, understanding animal behaviors remains as intractable as their capabilities are tantalizing