Trade-offs in exploiting body morphology for control: From simple bodies and model-based control to complex ones with model-free distributed control schemes
In Helmut Hauser, Rudolf M. Füchslin & Rolf Pfeifer (eds.), Opinions and Outlooks on Morphological Computation. E-Book. pp. 185-194 (2014)
Tailoring the design of robot bodies for control purposes is implicitly performed by engineers, however, a methodology or set of tools is largely absent and optimization of morphology (shape, material properties of robot bodies, etc.) is lag- ging behind the development of controllers. This has become even more prominent with the advent of compliant, deformable or "soft" bodies. These carry substantial potential regarding their exploitation for control – sometimes referred to as "mor- phological computation" in the sense of offloading computation needed for control to the body. Here, we will argue in favor of a dynamical systems rather than com- putational perspective on the problem. Then, we will look at the pros and cons of simple vs. complex bodies, critically reviewing the attractive notion of “soft” bodies automatically taking over control tasks. We will address another key dimension of the design space – whether model-based control should be used and to what extent it is feasible to develop faithful models for different morphologies. ----- This paper was also published in the 2014 AISB proceedings http://aisb50.org/representation-of-reality-humans-animals-and-machines/ - http://doc.gold.ac.uk/aisb50/
|Keywords||soft robotics control morphology embodiment morphological computation dynamical systems|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Simple or Complex Bodies? Trade-Offs in Exploiting Body Morphology for Control.Matej Hoffmann & Vincent C. Müller - forthcoming - In Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic & Raffaela Giovagnoli (eds.), Representation of Reality: Humans, Animals and Machines. Springer.
Philosophical problems of control.Alessandro Giordani & Luca Mari - 2012 - Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica 104 (4):661-686.
Why Doxastic Responsibility is Not Based on Direct Doxastic Control.Andrea Kruse - forthcoming - Synthese:1-32.
Energy, Structure, Soil and Self-Regulation in Plant/Soil Systems: A Conceptual Model.Bryce Fuller Payne - 1989 - Dissertation, Colorado State University
In Search of Control Variables: A Systems Approach.G. J. Dalenoort - 1997 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):772-772.
Does Behaviorism Explain Self-Control?Robert Eisenberger - 1995 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18 (1):125-125.
In Defense of Some "Cartesian" Assumption Concerning the Brain and its Operation.Rick Grush - 2003 - Biology and Philosophy 18 (1):53-92.
Design and Application of Wind Power Peak Control Technology.Songyi Zhu - 2014 - Journal of Power and Energy Engineering 2:23-28.
Ethics Programs and The Paradox of Control.Jason Stansbury & Bruce Barry - 2007 - Business Ethics Quarterly 17 (2):239-261.
The Concept of Simulation in Control-Theoretic Accounts of Motor Control and Action Perception.Mitchell Herschbach - 2008 - In B. C. Love, K. McRae & V. M. Sloutsky (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society. pp. 315--20.
Control of Perception Should Be Operationalized as a Fundamental Property of the Nervous System.Warren Mansell - 2011 - Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2):257-261.
Added to index2016-01-16
Total downloads164 ( #28,151 of 2,169,342 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #32,390 of 2,169,342 )
How can I increase my downloads?