Bridging of Models for Complex Movements in 3D

  • Stan Gielen
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 629)

Most daily movements, like grasping a cup of coffee, playing tennis, or stirring a cup of soup with one hand while holding the cup with the other hand, are movements in 3D-space. Sometimes, these movements have to be fast, sometimes accurate, and sometimes they require a delicate level of force in specific directions. Trying to simulate these movements has proven to be extremely difficult as anyone in the robotics community can tell. If playing chess seems difficult, playing tennis is much more difficult. This may become obvious if one realizes that there are several computer programs for playing chess that can beat the world-champion chess. However, the present state-of-the-art in robotics is that we can build robots that can walk slowly on a more or less flat surface as long as there are not many obstacles. Building a robot that can play tennis is yet far too difficult.

There are several reasons why robots fail to reveal the same flexibility and complexity as movements of the human...


Movement Trajectory Feedforward Control Tennis Player Tennis Ball Swing Movement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Admiraal MA, Keijsers NLW, and Gielen C. Gaze affects pointing toward remembered visual targets after a self-initiated step. Journal of Neurophysiology 92: 2380–2393, 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Admiraal MA, Keijsers NLW, and Gielen C. Interaction between gaze and pointing toward remembered visual targets. Journal of Neurophysiology 90: 2136–2148, 2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Flash T. The control of hand equilibrium trajectories in multijoint arm movements. Biological Cybernetics 57: 257–274, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Franklin DW, Burdet E, Osu R, Kawato M, and Milner TE. Functional significance of stiffness in adaptation of multijoint arm movements to stable and unstable dynamics. Experimental Brain Research 151: 145–157, 2003a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Franklin DW, Osu R, Burdet E, Kawato M, and Milner TE. Adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics achieved by combined impedance control and inverse dynamics model. Journal of Neurophysiology 90: 3270–3282, 2003b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gielen CCAM. Review of models for the generation of multi-joint movements in 3D. 2008.Google Scholar
  7. Gielen CCAM, and Houk JC. A model of the motor servo: incorporating nonlinear spindle receptor and muscle mechanical properties. Biological Cybernetics 57: 217–231, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gielen CCAM, Vrijenhoek EJ, Flash T, and Neggers SFW. Arm position constraints during pointing and reaching in 3-D space. Journal of Neurophysiology 78: 660–673, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Harris CM, and Wolpert DM. Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 394: 780–784, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kawato M. Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 9: 718–727, 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McIntyre J, Stratta F, and Lacquaniti F. Viewer-centered frame of reference for pointing to memorized targets in three-dimensional space. Journal of Neurophysiology 78: 1601–1618, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. McIntyre J, Stratta F, and Lacquaniti F. Viewer-centered frame of reference for pointing to memorized targets in three-dimensional space (vol. 78, pp. 1601, 1997). Journal of Neurophysiology 79: U9–U9, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. Medendorp WP, Van Asselt S, and Gielen C. Pointing to remembered visual targets after step-movements. Experimental Brain Research, 125: 50–60, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rosenbaum DA, Cohen RG, Dawson AM, Jax SA, Meulenbroek RGJ, van der Wel R, and Vaughan J. The posture-based motion planning framework: new findings related to object manipulation, moving around obstacles, moving in three spatial dimensions, and haptic tracking. 2008.Google Scholar
  15. Scholz JP, and Schöner G. The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task. Experimental Brain Research 126: 289–306, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Smeets JBJ, Brenner E, and Martin J. Grasping Occam's razor. 2008.Google Scholar
  17. Todorov E. Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nature Neuroscience 7: 907–915, 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Todorov E. Stochastic optimal control and estimation methods adapted to the noise characteristics of the sensorimotor system. Neural Computation 17: 1084–1108, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Todorov E, and Jordan MI. Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nature Neuroscience 5: 1226–1235, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tweed D, and Vilis T. Implications of rotational kinematics for the oculomotor system in 3 dimensions. Journal of Neurophysiology 58: 832–849, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Uno Y, Kawato M, and Suzuki R. Formation and control of optimal trajectory in human multijoint arm movement – Minimum torque-change model. Biological Cybernetics 61: 89–101, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiophysicsRadboud University NijmegenGeert Grooteplein 25The Netherlands

Personalised recommendations