Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 47 references

The Robot of Theseus: A modular robotic testbed for legged locomotion

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read TROT is a $4,000 open-source quadruped whose modular, telescoping legs can be reconfigured to match a wide range of animal limb morphologies, giving biologists a physical testbed for locomotion hypotheses.

desk verdict A genuinely useful modular quadruped platform, but the flagship cost-of-transport numbers rest on broken motor equations and need major revision before the biological claims can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12649 v1 pith:CEJXKBMV submitted 2025-05-19 cs.RO

Karthik Urs , Jessica Carlson , Aditya Srinivas Manohar , Michael Rakowiecki , Abdulhadi Alkayyali , John E. Saunders , Faris Tulbah , Talia Y. Moore This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords modularquadrupedrobotleggedlocomotionmorphologyquasi-directdriveactuatorgroundreactionforcecostoftransportopen-sourcehardwareadditivemanufacturing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper presents TROT, a 10 kg quadrupedal robot that can be built for under $4,000 from 3D printed parts and off-the-shelf components. Its limbs are modular: each leg has two or three rigid links, the proximal joint can be a knee or elbow, and telescoping sections change link lengths, so the robot can approximate the limb proportions of many quadrupedal mammal families. The authors argue that such a reconfigurable, proprioceptive platform lets researchers empirically test biomechanical hypotheses that currently require either expensive commercial robots or simulation. They demonstrate this with three experiments: actuator-based ground reaction force estimates, foot trajectories across tibia:femur ratios, and a cost-of-transport comparison of distally versus proximally added mass. The central claim is that the platform provides a reproducible, accessible physical testbed for comparing extant, extinct, and theoretical limb designs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the modular limb built around quasi-direct drive actuators—high-torque, backdrivable motors whose current draw measures joint torque—with power transmitted through a four-bar linkage that couples the tarsus angle to the femur angle, keeping actuators proximal to minimize limb inertia. Telescoping tibia and tarsus segments set link lengths, and swappable gear ratios (7.5:1 or 15:1) expand the reachable length-ratio space. Ground reaction force is computed as $\mathrm{GRF} = (J^T)^{-1}\tau$ from the leg Jacobian and actuator torques, treating the closed four-bar chain as a serial three-link chain; the paper states this simplification introduces a linear scaling error that can be manually calibrated per axis. This sensing scheme is what lets the robot measure whole-body dynamics without force plates or foot sensors.

What would settle it

Run TROT on a force-measuring treadmill at the same 0.3 m/s trot used in the cost-of-transport experiment and compare the forces estimated from motor torques with the treadmill's readings; if the dynamic errors are as large as the static errors reported in the paper (up to roughly 11 newtons vertically) or the measured cost of transport shifts by more than the claimed 7.5% effect, the sensing-based results are not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a low-cost quadruped with modular legs can serve as a physical model for testing how limb morphology shapes locomotion, and that the robot as built realizes that capability. TROT's legs can be arranged in three- or four-link configurations, with knee/elbow orientation, torso length, and link lengths all adjustable; with a 15:1 gear ratio the reachable limb-length ratios span felids, canids, rodents, lagomorphs, artiodactyls, and perissodactyls. The paper reports that actuator-derived ground reaction force estimates track a force platform with root-mean-square errors between roughly 1.3 and 11.2 N depending on axis and leg, that changing the tibia:femur ratio from 50:50 to 45:55 or 55:45 visibly changes foot trajectory and hip translation, and that adding 500 g to the tibiae instead of the femora raises cost of transport by 44.1%, supporting the hypothesis that distal limb mass is energetically costly.

Load-bearing premise

The force and energy measurements assume that the motor torques in each leg simply balance the force from the ground, with the leg treated as a chain of three straight segments; the paper acknowledges that the real four-bar linkage makes this a scaling error that is left uncalibrated and untested while the robot is moving.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Biology laboratories without large equipment budgets can build a quadrupedal testbed and vary morphology, gait, and controller in ways previously limited to commercial robots or simulation.
  • Hypotheses about extinct or theoretical limb configurations, such as limb proportions that no living animal exhibits, can be tested physically rather than only in simulation.
  • The cost-of-transport data support the claim that shifting mass distally along the leg increases energetic cost, giving a concrete empirical target for theories of limb design.
  • The foot-trajectory results imply that even a modest change in tibia:femur ratio meaningfully changes foot clearance and hip translation under identical control, so morphological changes alone can alter gait outcomes.
  • Because the actuators estimate ground reaction forces, locomotion can be studied on natural or uneven substrates without instrumented force plates, if the quoted calibration errors can be reduced.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the ground reaction force estimates can be validated during dynamic trotting after per-axis calibration, the same torque-sensing scheme could be extended to field biomechanics, where force plates are unavailable.
  • The 44.1% cost-of-transport gap between femur- and tibia-loaded limbs is a strong candidate for a controlled test of elastic energy storage: adding virtual or physical series elasticity to the distal joints should reduce that gap if the penalty is chiefly inertial.
  • The modular limb design effectively samples a morphospace of limb proportions; a natural next step is to systematically sweep tibia:femur ratio at fixed speed and measure cost of transport, producing a map that could be compared with allometric data from living mammals.
  • The paper leaves the four-bar-to-serial scaling correction uncalibrated; publishing per-axis correction factors would let other users reproduce the sensing results on different builds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents TROT, a low-cost (~$4,000), open-source, modular quadrupedal robot built from 3D-printed parts and off-the-shelf components. The authors describe the actuator, limb, torso, sensing, and control architecture, and they report three demonstrations: proprioceptive ground-reaction-force estimation validated against a force platform, kinematic foot-trajectory comparisons across three tibia-to-femur length ratios, and a cost-of-transport (COT) experiment intended to test a biological hypothesis about limb moment of inertia. The central claim is that TROT provides a reproducible physical testbed for biomechanical hypothesis testing across extant, extinct, and theoretical limb morphologies.

Significance. If the hardware, open-source CAD/software, and kinematic results hold up, TROT would fill a real gap between expensive commercial quadrupeds and one-off, species-specific robots. The explicit low cost, modularity, and external validation against a force platform are genuine strengths, as is the kinematic demonstration that simple limb-ratio changes produce large trajectory differences. The COT experiment is the paper's only quantitative biological hypothesis test, however, and it is currently compromised by dimensional errors in the electrical power model and by protocol inconsistencies. Because the platform claim itself is plausible and the errors appear correctable, the manuscript merits revision rather than rejection.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (5)] Equation (5), printed as V = ωK_B ∗ IR, is dimensionally inconsistent: the left side is a voltage, while the right side is the product of two voltages and therefore has units of voltage squared. The surrounding prose correctly describes the back-EMF term and the resistive drop as additive, so the intended equation is evidently V = ωK_B + IR. As printed, however, every power value in Table 2 is computed from a wrong voltage model, because Eq. (6) uses P = IV. This is a load-bearing error for the COT demonstration and must be corrected and the analysis re-run.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (3)] Equation (3), I = τKτ, is dimensionally wrong for a conventional torque constant: if Kτ has units of N·m/A, the product τKτ has units of (N·m)^2/A, not amperes. The relation should be I = τ / Kτ unless Kτ is explicitly redefined as a reciprocal constant, which the text does not do. Since all current, power, and COT values in Table 2 propagate from this expression, the dimensional error invalidates the quantitative results as reported.
  3. [§3.3 versus §4.3 and Table 2] The experimental protocol is inconsistent between sections: §3.3 states TROT ran three meters at 0.3 m/s, while §4.3 and Table 2 report data taken at 1 m/s for 2 seconds. The COT denominator in Eq. (6) contains the velocity V directly, so this discrepancy changes the reported COT values by a factor of more than three. The authors must state the exact protocol and ensure that the velocity used in Eq. (6) matches the actual trial.
  4. [Table 2 and §4.3] The reported mean electrical powers (roughly 5.1, 9.4, and 9.6 kW for a 10 kg robot at about 1 m/s) and COT values (126–195) are physically implausible for a small quadruped; typical quadrupedal COT values are of order unity or below. Even after correcting Eqs. (3) and (5), if the recalculated powers remain in the kilowatt range, the authors should investigate potential unit, sign, or logging errors. As presented, the flagship biological hypothesis test is quantitatively unsupported.
  5. [§2.6 and §4.1] The paper acknowledges that modeling the 4-bar linkage as a serial chain introduces a linear scaling error that can be manually calibrated for each axis, but no calibrated values or dynamic validation during trotting are provided. Table 1 shows RMSE values up to 11.15 N in the vertical direction, which is non-negligible relative to the measured GRF magnitudes. This limitation weakens the onboard-sensing demonstration and should be addressed, at least by providing the calibration procedure and a dynamic validation trial.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2] The text says the three limb configurations each have a total length of 400 cm; for a 10 kg quadruped the intended value is presumably 400 mm, and the manuscript should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  2. [§3.3 and Eq. (6)] The symbol V is used both for motor voltage in Eq. (5) and for robot velocity in Eq. (6), which invites confusion and may have contributed to the protocol inconsistency; a distinct symbol such as v for velocity would improve clarity.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The caption refers to the "X-axis" and "y-axis" with inconsistent capitalization; the axes should be defined consistently and the marker offset explained in the caption itself.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The rendering of the Jacobian in Eq. (1) has spacing and subscript formatting issues that make it hard to read; a cleaner typeset version would help readers verify the derivation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: TROT's claims are platform demonstrations validated against external benchmarks; self-cited actuator constants are independent bench measurements.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are descriptive and experimental rather than derived from fitted parameters. The GRF estimates (Eq. 2) come from the measured actuator torques, a Jacobian, and a serial-link simplification that is explicitly acknowledged as approximate and then compared against an external force platform; no calibration of the target comparison is used before reporting the RMSE. The COT experiment computes current from torque using a torque constant and computes voltages from angular velocity and resistance using a back-EMF constant, both taken from separate prior bench characterizations [22, 24]. These self-citations are load-bearing in the sense that they supply motor constants, but they are externally falsifiable component-level measurements that do not contain or presuppose the paper's COT or morphology results. Even the admitted limitation in Section 2.6 (a linear scaling error that could be manually calibrated per axis) is a statement about accuracy, not a fitted input that is later relabeled as a prediction, because no calibrated GRF result is presented as a test of a hypothesis. The morphological demonstration in Section 4.2 is validated against motion-capture marker trajectories, and the moment-of-inertia measurements use a standard pendulum method. No derivation in the paper reduces by construction to its inputs, no result is forced by a self-citation chain, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The dimensionally questionable COT equations and the mismatch in reported speeds are correctness risks, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in the paper. The central quantitative claims rest instead on domain assumptions about quasi-static torque sensing, serial-link simplification of the 4-bar linkage, a correct motor electrical model, and the validity of actuator parameters from prior work. No new theoretical entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Ground reaction force can be obtained quasistatically from joint torques via GRF = (J^T)^{-1} * tau (Eq. 2), neglecting limb inertial and Coriolis effects.
    Section 3.1 applies this to slow torso rotations; Sections 3.3 and 4.3 use the same torque signals during trotting, where dynamic terms are not negligible and are never quantified.
  • domain assumption The 4-bar linkage leg can be treated as a serial 3-link chain with actuators at the joints, with only a linear scaling error.
    Section 2.6 states this simplification; the error is acknowledged but not calibrated in the reported GRF results.
  • standard math Motor electrical model V = omega*K_B + I*R (the paper prints a product in Eq. 5) and I = tau*K_tau correctly convert torque and velocity into electrical power.
    Section 3.3; as printed, Eq. 5 is dimensionally wrong, so the COT numbers rest on an invalid model.
  • domain assumption Electrical power consumption of the actuators is a valid proxy for cost of transport.
    Section 3.3; no validation against mechanical work or locomotion energetics is provided.
  • domain assumption The actuator torque limits and motor constants from prior papers [22,24] accurately predict TROT's feasible morphology space.
    Section 2.2; the range of animal families in Fig. 2 depends on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Robot of Theseus: A modular robotic testbed for legged locomotion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CEJXKBMV

@misc{pith2026250512649,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Robot of Theseus: A modular robotic testbed for legged locomotion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CEJXKBMV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12649}
}
abstract

Robotic models are useful for independently varying specific features, but most quadrupedal robots differ so greatly from animal morphologies that they have minimal biomechanical relevance. Commercially available quadrupedal robots are also prohibitively expensive for biological research programs and difficult to customize. Here, we present a low-cost quadrupedal robot with modular legs that can match a wide range of animal morphologies for biomechanical hypothesis testing. The Robot Of Theseus (TROT) costs approximately $4000 to build out of 3D printed parts and standard off-the-shelf supplies. Each limb consists of 2 or 3 rigid links; the proximal joint can be rotated to become a knee or elbow. Telescoping mechanisms vary the length of each limb link. The open-source software accommodates user-defined gaits and morphology changes. Effective leg length, or crouch, is determined by the four-bar linkage actuating each joint. The backdrivable motors can vary virtual spring stiffness and range of motion. Full descriptions of the TROT hardware and software are freely available online. We demonstrate the use of TROT to compare locomotion among extant, extinct, and theoretical morphologies. In addition to biomechanical hypothesis testing, we envision a variety of different applications for this low-cost, modular, legged robotic platform, including developing novel control strategies, clearing land mines, or remote exploration. All CAD and code is available for download on the TROT project page.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12649 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Description of TROT features. A) TROT in a three-link limb configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A comparison of possible TROT limb length ratios (purple boxes) to animal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Empirical results for onboard sensor validation for the front right limb during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparisons of TROT (a) hind and (b) fore foot trajectory across different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A physical model of mantis shrimp for exploring the dynamics of ultrafast systems,

    E. Steinhardt, N.-s. P. Hyun, J.-s. Koh, G. Freeburn, M. H. Rosen, F. Z. Temel, S. Patek, and R. J. Wood, “A physical model of mantis shrimp for exploring the dynamics of ultrafast systems,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118, no. 33, p. e2026833118, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    An Adaptable Flying Fish Robotic Model for Aero- and Hydrodynamic Experimentation,

    V. Saro-Cortes, Y. Cui, T. Dufficy, A. Boctor, B. E. Flammang, and A. Wissa, “An Adaptable Flying Fish Robotic Model for Aero- and Hydrodynamic Experimentation,”Integrative and Comparative Biology, vol. 62, pp. 1202–1216, 06 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Testing biomimetic structures in bioinspired robots: how vertebrae control the stiffness of the body and the behavior of fish-like swimmers,

    J. H. Long Jr, N. M. Krenitsky, S. F. Roberts, J. Hirokawa, J. de Leeuw, and M. E. Porter, “Testing biomimetic structures in bioinspired robots: how vertebrae control the stiffness of the body and the behavior of fish-like swimmers,” 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Genes, morphology, performance, and fitness: quantifying organismal performance to understand adaptive evolution,

    D. G. Matthews, T. R. Dial, and G. V. Lauder, “Genes, morphology, performance, and fitness: quantifying organismal performance to understand adaptive evolution,”Integrative and Comparative Biology, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 843–859, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    E. O. Campos,Plant-pollinator interactions in an ecological and evolutionary context: the promising role of 3D-printing technology and mathematical modeling. Phd thesis, University of Washington, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Biomimetic evolutionary analysis: testing the adaptive value of vertebrate tail stiffness in autonomous swimming robots,

    J. H. Long Jr, T. J. Koob, K. Irving, K. Combie, V. Engel, N. Livingston, A. Lammert, and J. Schumacher, “Biomimetic evolutionary analysis: testing the adaptive value of vertebrate tail stiffness in autonomous swimming robots,”Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 209, no. 23, pp. 4732–4746, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Shape changing robots: bioinspiration, simulation, and physical realization,

    D. Shah, B. Yang, S. Kriegman, M. Levin, J. Bongard, and R. Kramer-Bottiglio, “Shape changing robots: bioinspiration, simulation, and physical realization,”Advanced Materials, vol. 33, no. 19, p. 2002882, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Inspired by sharks: a biomimetic skeleton for the flapping, propulsive tail of an aquatic robot,

    J. H. Long, T. Koob, J. Schaefer, A. Summers, K. Bantilan, S. Grotmol, and M. Porter, “Inspired by sharks: a biomimetic skeleton for the flapping, propulsive tail of an aquatic robot,”Marine Technology Society Journal, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 119–129, 2011. The Robot of Theseus14

    work page 2011

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Where are we in understanding salamander locomotion: biological and robotic perspectives on kinematics,

    K. Karakasiliotis, N. Schilling, J.-M. Cabelguen, and A. J. Ijspeert, “Where are we in understanding salamander locomotion: biological and robotic perspectives on kinematics,” Biological cybernetics, vol. 107, pp. 529–544, 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    Fish biorobotics: kinematics and hydrodynamics of self-propulsion,

    G. V. Lauder, E. J. Anderson, J. Tangorra, and P. G. Madden, “Fish biorobotics: kinematics and hydrodynamics of self-propulsion,”Journal of experimental biology, vol. 210, no. 16, pp. 2767– 2780, 2007

    2007

  3. [11]

    Biomimetic robotics: self-propelled physical models test hypotheses about the mechanics and evolution of swimming vertebrates,

    J. H. Long Jr, “Biomimetic robotics: self-propelled physical models test hypotheses about the mechanics and evolution of swimming vertebrates,”Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, vol. 221, no. 10, pp. 1193–...

    2007

  4. [12]

    Reverse-engineering the locomotion of a stem amniote,

    J. A. Nyakatura, K. Melo, T. Horvat, K. Karakasiliotis, V. R. Allen, A. Andikfar, E. Andrada, P. Arnold, J. Laustr¨ oer, J. R. Hutchinson,et al., “Reverse-engineering the locomotion of a stem amniote,”Nature, vol. 565, no. 7739, pp. 351–355, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Anymal - a highly mobile and dynamic quadrupedal robot,

    M. Hutter, C. Gehring, D. Jud, A. Lauber, C. D. Bellicoso, V. Tsounis, J. Hwangbo, K. Bodie, P. Fankhauser, M. Bloesch, R. Diethelm, S. Bachmann, A. Melzer, and M. Hoepflinger, “Anymal - a highly mobile and dynamic quadrupedal robot,” in2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference o...

    2016

  6. [14]

    Mini cheetah: A platform for pushing the limits of dynamic quadruped control,

    B. Katz, J. D. Carlo, and S. Kim, “Mini cheetah: A platform for pushing the limits of dynamic quadruped control,” in2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 6295–6301, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Bio-inspired equilibrium point control scheme for quadrupedal locomotion,

    Y. Shi, P. Wang, X. Wang, F. Zha, Z. Jiang, W. Guo, and M. Li, “Bio-inspired equilibrium point control scheme for quadrupedal locomotion,”IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 200–209, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Comparative anatomy of quadruped robots and animals: a review,

    A. Fukuhara, M. Gunji, and Y. Masuda, “Comparative anatomy of quadruped robots and animals: a review,”Advanced Robotics, vol. 36, no. 13, pp. 612–630, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Biorobotics: Using robots to emulate and investigate agile locomotion,

    A. J. Ijspeert, “Biorobotics: Using robots to emulate and investigate agile locomotion,”science, vol. 346, no. 6206, pp. 196–203, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    Running in cheetahs, gazelles, and goats: energy cost and limb configuration,

    C. R. Taylor, A. Shkolnik, R. Dmi’el, D. Baharav, and A. Borut, “Running in cheetahs, gazelles, and goats: energy cost and limb configuration,”American Journal of Physiology-Legacy Content, vol. 227, no. 4, pp. 848–850, 1974

    1974

  11. [19]

    The energetic benefit of robotic gait selection—a case study on the robot ramone,

    N. Smit-Anseeuw, R. Gleason, R. Vasudevan, and C. D. Remy, “The energetic benefit of robotic gait selection—a case study on the robot ramone,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1124–1131, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Effects of Limb Morphology on Transient Locomotion in Quadruped Robots,

    L. Raw, C. Fisher, and A. Patel, “Effects of Limb Morphology on Transient Locomotion in Quadruped Robots,”IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3349–3356, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Efficient online learning of contact force models for connector insertion,

    K. Tracy, Z. Manchester, A. Jain, K. Go, S. Schaal, T. Erez, and Y. Tassa, “Efficient online learning of contact force models for connector insertion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09190, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Design and characterization of 3d printed, open-source actuators for legged locomotion,

    K. Urs, C. E. Adu, E. J. Rouse, and T. Y. Moore, “Design and characterization of 3d printed, open-source actuators for legged locomotion,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 1957–1964, IEEE, 2022

    1957

  15. [23]

    Boston Dynamics, “Spot ®.” [online] Available: https://www.bostondynamics.com/spot

  16. [24]

    Alternative metrics to select motors for quasi-direct drive actuators,

    K. Urs, C. E. Adu, E. J. Rouse, and T. Y. Moore, “Alternative metrics to select motors for quasi-direct drive actuators,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12365, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Basic limb kinematics of small therian mammals,

    M. S. Fischer, N. Schilling, M. Schmidt, D. Haarhaus, and H. Witte, “Basic limb kinematics of small therian mammals,”Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 205, no. 9, pp. 1315–1338, 2002

    2002

  18. [26]

    P. P. Gambaryan,How Mammals Run: Anatomical Adaptations. John Wiley & Sons, 1974

    1974

  19. [27]

    Sensorless field oriented control of brushless permanent magnet synchronous motors,

    J. R. Mevey, “Sensorless field oriented control of brushless permanent magnet synchronous motors,” Master’s thesis, Kansas State University, 2009

    2009

  20. [28]

    Lcm: Lightweight communications and marshalling,

    A. S. Huang, E. Olson, and D. C. Moore, “Lcm: Lightweight communications and marshalling,” in2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 4057–4062, The Robot of Theseus15 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Software and Control Design for the MIT Cheetah Quadruped Robots,

    J. Dicarlo, “Software and Control Design for the MIT Cheetah Quadruped Robots,” Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Overconstrained coaxial design of robotic legs with omni-directional locomotion,

    Y. Gu, S. Feng, Y. Guo, F. Wan, J. S. Dai, J. Pan, and C. Song, “Overconstrained coaxial design of robotic legs with omni-directional locomotion,”Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 176, p. 105018, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Software techniques for two-and three-dimensional kinematic measurements of biological and biomimetic systems,

    T. L. Hedrick, “Software techniques for two-and three-dimensional kinematic measurements of biological and biomimetic systems,”Bioinspiration & biomimetics, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 034001, 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    The uncertainty of the pendulum method for the determination of the moment of inertia,

    J. J. Dowling, J. L. Durkin, and D. M. Andrews, “The uncertainty of the pendulum method for the determination of the moment of inertia,”Medical engineering & physics, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 837–841, 2006

    2006

  25. [33]

    Design principles for a family of direct-drive legged robots,

    G. Kenneally, A. De, and D. E. Koditschek, “Design principles for a family of direct-drive legged robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 900–907, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    A novel design of a quadruped robot for research purposes,

    Y. Geva and A. Shapiro, “A novel design of a quadruped robot for research purposes,”International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 11, no. 7, p. 95, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    J. E. McKenzie,Design of robotic quadruped legs. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2012

    2012

  28. [36]

    Some locomotory adaptations in mammals.,

    J. M. Smith and R. J. G. Savage, “Some locomotory adaptations in mammals.,”Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, vol. 42, no. 288, pp. 603–622, 1956

    1956

  29. [37]

    Proximal humerus morphology indicates divergent patterns of locomotion in extinct giant kangaroos,

    B. Janis, Napoli and Martin-Sierra, “Proximal humerus morphology indicates divergent patterns of locomotion in extinct giant kangaroos,”Journal of Mammalian Evolution, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Polly and B

    P. Polly and B. Hall,Fins into Limbs: Evolution, Development, and Transformation, ch. Chapter 15: Limbs in Mammalian Evolution. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2007

    2007

  31. [39]

    Allometry of quadrupedal locomotion: The scaling of duty factor, bone curvature, and limb orientation to body size,

    A. A. Biewener, “Allometry of quadrupedal locomotion: The scaling of duty factor, bone curvature, and limb orientation to body size,”The Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 105, pp. 147–171, 1983

    1983

  32. [40]

    Using physical models to study the gliding performance of extinct animals,

    M. Koehl, D. Evangelista, and K. Yang, “Using physical models to study the gliding performance of extinct animals,” 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    A wing-assisted running robot and implications for avian flight evolution,

    K. Peterson, P. Birkmeyer, R. Dudley, and R. Fearing, “A wing-assisted running robot and implications for avian flight evolution,”Bioinspiration & biomimetics, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 046008, 2011

    2011

  34. [42]

    The littledog robot,

    M. P. Murphy, A. Saunders, C. Moreira, A. A. Rizzi, and M. Raibert, “The littledog robot,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 145–149, 2011

    2011

  35. [43]

    Anymal-a highly mobile and dynamic quadrupedal robot,

    M. Hutter, C. Gehring, D. Jud, A. Lauber, C. D. Bellicoso, V. Tsounis, J. Hwangbo, K. Bodie, P. Fankhauser, M. Bloesch,et al., “Anymal-a highly mobile and dynamic quadrupedal robot,” in 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp. 38–44,...

    2016

  36. [44]

    Whole-body control and angular momentum regulation using torque sensors for quadrupedal robots,

    Y. H. Lee, Y. H. Lee, H. Lee, H. Kang, J. H. Lee, J. M. Park, Y. B. Kim, H. Moon, J. C. Koo, and H. R. Choi, “Whole-body control and angular momentum regulation using torque sensors for quadrupedal robots,”Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 102, no. 3, p. 66, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Quadrupedal locomotion on uneven terrain with sensorized feet,

    G. Valsecchi, R. Grandia, and M. Hutter, “Quadrupedal locomotion on uneven terrain with sensorized feet,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1548–1555, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Foottile: a rugged foot sensor for force and center of pressure sensing in soft terrain,

    F. Ruppert and A. Badri-Spr¨ owitz, “Foottile: a rugged foot sensor for force and center of pressure sensing in soft terrain,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4810–4816, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    Gait development on minitaur, a direct drive quadrupedal robot,

    D. J. Blackman, J. V. Nicholson, C. Ordonez, B. D. Miller, and J. E. Clark, “Gait development on minitaur, a direct drive quadrupedal robot,” inUnmanned Systems Technology XVIII, vol. 9837, pp. 141–155, SPIE, 2016

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.