Evaluating Robots Like Human Infants: A Case Study of Learned Bipedal Locomotion

Alan Fern; Christina M. Hospodar; Devin Crowley; Karen E. Adolph; Ruiting Shen; Whitney G. Cole

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Evaluating Robots Like Human Infants: A Case Study of Learned Bipedal Locomotion

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This case study finds that training the simulated Cassie robot specifically on each obstacle beats mixed-terrain training in success and prospective foot placement, but Cassie still lacks the prospective speed control and generalization…

desk verdict The paper's central comparison is structurally rigged: the 'single-test regimen' is four specialists with test-time oracle selection, so its limited-generalization conclusion doesn't follow; the real confound is not training duration but asymmetric comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06426 v1 pith:43VWY6OA submitted 2025-07-08 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Devin Crowley , Whitney G. Cole , Christina M. Hospodar , Ruiting Shen , Karen E. Adolph , Alan Fern This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY

keywords reinforcementlearningbipedallocomotionCassierobotinfantmotordevelopmentprospectivecontroltrainingregimensevaluationsimulation

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 sets out to show that learned robot controllers should be evaluated the way developmental psychologists study walking infants: through systematically varied training regimens and fine-grained behavioral measures, not just average reward. Using the simulated bipedal robot Cassie, it trains reinforcement-learning controllers on four kinds of regimens—standard mixed terrain, multi-test obstacle terrain, combined terrain, and single-test obstacle terrain—and tests them on infant-style obstacles: slopes, drop-offs, gaps, and bridges. It reports that single-test training beats every mixed regimen in success rate and in prospective foot placement before the obstacle, while no regimen produces the prospective speed adjustments seen in experienced infants. The paper concludes that reward-driven RL, at least with this architecture and fixed speed command, yields far less generalizable motor behavior than human infants, who appear to be 'learning to learn' rather than merely optimizing rewards.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two pieces of machinery. First, the controller: a frozen blind gait policy trained on flat ground provides the base motion, while a visually-guided LSTM residual network takes a grid of terrain heights plus the blind controller's state and outputs PD-control target residuals, clock-speed modulations, and phase offsets, so it can alter foot placement and cadence without rebuilding the basic gait. Second, the evaluation protocol: test trials begin 3–3.5 m before each obstacle, difficulty is swept continuously from 0 to 1 across 101 levels with 50 trials each, and behavior is measured by success rate, average speed on or over the obstacle, average speed over the last two steps before the obstacle, and placement of the last step relative to the obstacle's edge. These fine-grained measures, borrowed from infant motor research, are what let the paper distinguish prospective adjustments made before the obstacle from reactive or passive changes made while crossing it.

What would settle it

Train the single-test controller for the full 110k iterations and the multi-test and combined controllers for 110k as before, or hold all regimens to the same iteration count, then re-measure success rates and foot placement on slopes, drop-offs, gaps, and bridges. If the single-test advantage disappears or reverses, the paper's central conclusion about training to the test is an artifact of training duration rather than a property of the training content.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central finding is that training a visually-guided locomotion controller specifically on the obstacle it will later be tested on—the single-test regimen—produces higher success rates on slopes, drop-offs, gaps, and bridges than training on the standard mixed terrain, on all four test obstacles together, or on a combination of both. The single-test controllers also show more prospective gait modification: as difficulty increases, Cassie places its last pre-obstacle step closer to the edge, especially on slopes, drop-offs, and gaps. At the same time, none of the controllers show convincing prospective speed changes before reaching an obstacle; speed in the preceding two steps stays nearly constant, which the paper attributes to the fixed forward speed command built into the reward. The paper interprets the gap between single-test and mixed training as limited generalization across even qualitatively similar terrains, and the contrast with infant behavior as evidence that flexible, generalizable motor learning may require mechanisms beyond reward-driven RL.

Load-bearing premise

The headline comparison assumes that unequal training durations do not explain the result: the single-test controllers were trained for 20,000 iterations while the standard, multi-test, and combined controllers were trained for 110,000, and the paper does not control for this difference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Training specifically to the test obstacle yields higher success rates than any mixed or multi-test regimen on all four obstacle types, indicating limited generalization between terrains that are qualitatively similar.
On gaps and bridges, standard, multi-test, and combined regimens perform no better than the blind controller, while single-test training succeeds, showing that these obstacles are learnable but mixed regimens do not discover the needed strategy.
Cassie reliably places its last pre-obstacle step closer to the edge as difficulty increases, demonstrating a form of prospective foot-placement control.
The fixed forward-speed command in the reward function likely suppresses prospective speed adjustments, because slowing or speeding would cost reward; relaxing that command is a direct next step.
Infants' ability to generalize from everyday experience to novel obstacles, which no training regimen here reproduces, suggests that reward-driven optimization alone may be insufficient for flexible motor development.

Reading between the lines

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

If the single-test controllers had been trained for the same 110k iterations as the other regimens instead of only 20k, the reported single-test advantage could shrink or disappear, so the duration difference is a testable confound rather than a settled result.
Relaxing or removing the fixed speed command might allow the controller to discover prospective speed modulation; the paper only suggests this as future work, so it remains an open prediction.
The same infant-inspired evaluation could be applied to other robot skills, such as manipulation or obstacle avoidance, to test whether the limited generalization is specific to locomotion or reflects a general property of reward-driven learning.
Comparing interleaved versus blocked schedules at matched training budgets could separate the effect of physical terrain variety from the effect of learning dynamics such as forgetting or optimization difficulty.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Thanks for the report. The stress-test note is right, and the reader's main worry is off target. The training-duration confound the reader flags (20k vs 110k iterations) actually cuts the other way: the multi-test controller got 27.5k iterations per obstacle, more than the single-test specialists' 20k. So the single-test advantage is not explained by more practice. The real problem is structural: the 'single-test obstacle regimen' is four separate controllers with test-time selection. Each green curve in Fig. 4 comes from the specialist trained on that exact obstacle. Comparing that to one multi-task policy trained on all four tells you about oracle model selection, not about generalization. The paper's conclusion that single-test superiority 'indicates limited generalizability between these terrains' does not follow.

What is genuinely new is the adaptation of infant-testing methodology to robot evaluation. The fine-grained measures (approach speed, foot placement before the obstacle, mid-obstacle speed) are a useful step beyond average reward. The finding that Cassie does not prospectively modulate speed but does adjust foot placement is interesting and looks robust within the experimental setup. The writing is clear, and the limitations section is honest about several issues.

The soft spot is load-bearing. The paper never reports the 4x4 cross-test matrix of each specialist on the other obstacle types, which would measure generalization directly. Without that, the central claim is inferred rather than measured. The lack of seeds and confidence intervals is a minor additional issue, but not the main thing. The comparison also mixes a capacity difference (four networks vs one) into the regimen effect.

This is a well-intentioned, interdisciplinary case study with a real methodological flaw in its main argument. It deserves a serious referee, but a revision needs to report the cross-test results and either compare like with like (one policy trained on all obstacles vs one policy trained on a single obstacle) or explicitly reframe the comparison as oracle selection. I would bring it to a reading group to discuss evaluation design. I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a behavioral case study of learned bipedal locomotion for the simulated Cassie robot, borrowing experimental paradigms from developmental infant research. The authors train visually-guided residual controllers under four training regimens—standard terrain (flat, hills, ridges, blocks, stairs), multi-test obstacle (slopes, drop-offs, gaps, bridges), combined standard and multi-test, and single-test obstacle (a separate controller per obstacle). They evaluate the controllers on the four obstacle terrains at a continuous range of difficulty levels, using fine-grained measures: success rate, mid-obstacle walking speed, approach speed over the last two steps, and placement of the last step relative to the obstacle edge. The central findings are that the single-test specialist controllers outperform all other regimens in success rate and show more prospective foot-placement adjustments, while none of the controllers exhibit strong prospective speed modulation. The authors interpret these results as evidence of limited generalizability between terrains and discuss differences between robot and infant learning.

Significance. The paper's interdisciplinary approach is a strength: it imports controlled, fine-grained behavioral measurements from developmental psychology into robot-learning evaluation, and it shows that such measurements can reveal strategy differences that coarse reward-based metrics would obscure. The difficulty sweeps, the use of infant-inspired test apparatuses, and the systematic comparison of training content are all valuable contributions. The paper is also candid about several limitations. However, the central quantitative claims are weakened by methodological confounds—most notably unequal training budgets, the structural asymmetry between the single-test 'regimen' (four specialist policies) and the single-policy alternatives, and the absence of multiple seeds or confidence intervals. If these issues are addressed, the paper could provide a meaningful proof-of-concept for infant-style evaluation of robot controllers, but as it stands the headline conclusions are not yet fully supported.

major comments (3)

[Section V-A, Table I] The comparison between the single-test regimen and the other regimens is confounded by unequal training iterations. Single-test controllers were trained for 20k iterations, while standard, multi-test, and combined controllers were trained for 110k iterations. The authors acknowledge this in Section V-A, but the interpretation that 'the variety of experience is hindering' learning is still presented as the main explanation. Because total optimization budget and per-terrain exposure differ across regimens, the observed ranking could reflect amount of total training, optimization dynamics, or interference, rather than training-regimen content per se. A matched-iteration comparison, or at least a plot of performance versus training iterations, is needed before the 'limited generalizability' interpretation can be accepted.
[Section III-A and Fig. 4] The comparison is structurally asymmetric. The 'single-test obstacle regimen' is actually an ensemble of four independent specialist policies, one per obstacle, and each green curve in Fig. 4 is produced by the specialist trained on that same obstacle. In contrast, the standard, multi-test, and combined regimens are each a single policy evaluated on all four obstacles. The observation that the green curve exceeds the others does not by itself establish 'limited generalizability between these terrains' (Section V-A), because the single-test condition uses a test-time oracle that selects the correct specialist, while the multi-test condition must solve all tasks with one recurrent policy. The missing evidence is the 4x4 cross-test matrix: each specialist evaluated on all four obstacle types. Without reporting how the slope-trained specialist behaves on gaps, drop-offs, and bridges, the limited-generalizability conclusion is inferred rather than measured.
[Section IV-A and Fig. 4] The paper reports a single training run per regimen and provides no confidence intervals, error bars, or significance tests for the behavioral curves. Success rates are computed from 50 trials per difficulty level, and with binomial noise, many visible differences between regimens may not be statistically reliable. Claims such as 'scarcely improved' and 'markedly superior performance' (Section V-A) are load-bearing for the paper's conclusions. Reporting multiple training seeds and showing error regions, or at least confidence intervals for the success-rate curves, is necessary to support the quantitative comparisons.

minor comments (4)

[Section IV-C, first paragraph] The sentence 'For drop-offs, the standard, multi-test, and combined regimen's last step landed ...' should use the plural possessive 'regimens'. Please also check the same phrase elsewhere.
[Table I] The four 'Single-test' rows are easy to misread as repeated entries of the same regimen. Consider a note or a merged-cell layout clarifying that each row is a separate controller trained on the indicated single terrain.
[Fig. 4] The five curves are difficult to distinguish in grayscale and may be hard to read when printed. Using distinct line styles or adding error bands would improve readability.
[Section II-A] The term 'prospective control' is used repeatedly but is not defined at first use; a one-sentence definition of the distinction between prospective and reactive gait modifications would help readers unfamiliar with the infant-development literature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the training-regimen comparison is an empirical study with no fitted parameters or derivation chain that reduces to its inputs; noted confounds are experimental-design concerns, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical case study comparing RL training regimens for a simulated Cassie robot; it does not derive a result from assumptions that secretly contain the conclusion. There are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no equations in which an output is defined in terms of itself, and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation used to force a conclusion. The central comparison—single-test versus standard, multi-test, and combined regimens—is a measured outcome (success rates and gait metrics) from separate training runs, not a quantity that is equal to its input by construction. The paper does cite prior work by the same authors for the learning framework, reward function, and infant-development background, but these citations are methodological or external empirical support rather than the basis of the paper's claimed findings. The reader-identified issues (unequal training iterations and the single-test condition being an oracle of four specialists versus one multi-task policy) are legitimate threats to the internal validity of the generalization claim, but they are experimental confounds, not circular reasoning. The paper even acknowledges the iteration difference when interpreting the multi-test result. Therefore, no specific circular step can be quoted or reduced to a definitional identity, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters in a mathematical derivation sense; the free parameters listed below are experimental design choices that directly affect the central comparison. The axioms are the domain assumptions needed to map the simulated robot results to the infant literature.

free parameters (2)

training iterations = single-test: 20k; other regimens: 110k
The main comparison between regimens is not controlled for total training iterations, which could explain performance differences. This is chosen by the authors and affects the central claim.
command speed = 0.8 m/s
The fixed commanded speed limits the controller's ability to slow down prospectively, which the authors list as a possible reason Cassie does not show the infant-like speed adjustment.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption MuJoCo simulation of Cassie is a valid analog for the physical robot for studying learned locomotion behavior
The paper tests only in simulation and explicitly sets aside sim-to-real transfer, so the behavioral conclusions presuppose this validity.
domain assumption The residual controller architecture from [14] is appropriate for the training regimens used
The learning framework is inherited from prior work and is not re-validated under the new training distributions.
domain assumption Infant testing paradigms (slopes, drop-offs, gaps, bridges) can be meaningfully transferred to robots
The whole evaluation methodology is based on this cross-species mapping, and the paper does not justify its equivalence.
domain assumption Success rate, speed, and foot placement are sufficient behavioral measures to characterize prospective control
The conclusions about whether Cassie plans ahead rest entirely on these metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluating Robots Like Human Infants: A Case Study of Learned Bipedal Locomotion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/43VWY6OA

@misc{pith2026250706426,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluating Robots Like Human Infants: A Case Study of Learned Bipedal Locomotion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/43VWY6OA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06426}
}

read the original abstract

Typically, learned robot controllers are trained via relatively unsystematic regimens and evaluated with coarse-grained outcome measures such as average cumulative reward. The typical approach is useful to compare learning algorithms but provides limited insight into the effects of different training regimens and little understanding about the richness and complexity of learned behaviors. Likewise, human infants and other animals are "trained" via unsystematic regimens, but in contrast, developmental psychologists evaluate their performance in highly-controlled experiments with fine-grained measures such as success, speed of walking, and prospective adjustments. However, the study of learned behavior in human infants is limited by the practical constraints of training and testing babies. Here, we present a case study that applies methods from developmental psychology to study the learned behavior of the simulated bipedal robot Cassie. Following research on infant walking, we systematically designed reinforcement learning training regimens and tested the resulting controllers in simulated environments analogous to those used for babies--but without the practical constraints. Results reveal new insights into the behavioral impact of different training regimens and the development of Cassie's learned behaviors relative to infants who are learning to walk. This interdisciplinary baby-robot approach provides inspiration for future research designed to systematically test effects of training on the development of complex learned robot behaviors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06426 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Test environments with infants in the real world and the bipedal robot Cassie in simulation. Left-to-right: slopes, drop-offs, gaps, and bridges. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Controller schematic. The controller consists of a visually-guided component, trained on varied terrain, which modulates the output of a blind [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Standard terrains. Left-to-right: flat, hills, ridges, blocks, and stairs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Evaluation on slopes, drop-offs, gaps, and bridges. Each column shows behavioral results for each test obstacle across continual, systematic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Motor development: Embodied, embedded, enculturated, and enabling,

K. E. Adolph and J. E. Hoch, “Motor development: Embodied, embedded, enculturated, and enabling,” Annual review of psychology , vol. 70, pp. 141–164, 2019

work page 2019
[2]

Infants on the edge: Beyond the visual cliff,

K. Adolph, B. Kaplan, and K. Kretch, “Infants on the edge: Beyond the visual cliff,” in Revisiting the classic studies: Developmental psychology. Sage Publications, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Development (of walking): 15 suggestions,

K. E. Adolph, J. E. Hoch, and W. G. Cole, “Development (of walking): 15 suggestions,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 699– 711, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

The development of gait and mo- bility: Form and function in infant locomotion,

C. M. Hospodar and K. E. Adolph, “The development of gait and mo- bility: Form and function in infant locomotion,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , p. e1677, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Bouts of steps: The organization of infant exploration,

W. G. Cole, S. R. Robinson, and K. E. Adolph, “Bouts of steps: The organization of infant exploration,” Developmental psychobiology, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 341–354, 2016

work page 2016
[6]

The cost of simplifying complex developmental phenomena: A new perspective on learning to walk,

D. K. Lee, W. G. Cole, L. Golenia, and K. E. Adolph, “The cost of simplifying complex developmental phenomena: A new perspective on learning to walk,” Developmental science , vol. 21, no. 4, p. e12615, 2018

work page 2018
[7]

Practice and proficiency: Factors that facilitate infant walking skill,

C. M. Hospodar, J. E. Hoch, D. K. Lee, P. E. Shrout, and K. E. Adolph, “Practice and proficiency: Factors that facilitate infant walking skill,” Developmental psychobiology, vol. 63, no. 7, p. e22187, 2021

work page 2021
[8]

How do you learn to walk? thousands of steps and dozens of falls per day,

K. E. Adolph, W. G. Cole, M. Komati, J. S. Garciaguirre, D. Badaly, J. M. Lingeman, G. L. Chan, and R. B. Sotsky, “How do you learn to walk? thousands of steps and dozens of falls per day,” Psychological science, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1387–1394, 2012

work page 2012

Show all 28 references

[9]

Learning in the development of infant locomotion,

K. E. Adolph, B. I. Bertenthal, S. M. Boker, E. C. Goldfield, and E. J. Gibson, “Learning in the development of infant locomotion,” Monographs of the society for research in child development , pp. i– 162, 1997

1997
[10]

Change in action: How infants learn to walk down slopes,

S. V . Gill, K. E. Adolph, and B. Vereijken, “Change in action: How infants learn to walk down slopes,” Developmental science , vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 888–902, 2009

2009
[11]

Cliff or step? posture-specific learning at the edge of a drop-off,

K. S. Kretch and K. E. Adolph, “Cliff or step? posture-specific learning at the edge of a drop-off,” Child development, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 226– 240, 2013

2013
[12]

No bridge too high: Infants decide whether to cross based on the probability of falling not the severity of the potential fall,

——, “No bridge too high: Infants decide whether to cross based on the probability of falling not the severity of the potential fall,” Developmental science, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 336–351, 2013

2013
[13]

The organization of exploratory behaviors in infant locomotor planning,

——, “The organization of exploratory behaviors in infant locomotor planning,” Developmental science, vol. 20, no. 4, p. e12421, 2017

2017
[14]

Learning vision-based bipedal locomotion for challenging terrain,

H. Duan, B. Pandit, M. S. Gadde, B. van Marum, J. Dao, C. Kim, and A. Fern, “Learning vision-based bipedal locomotion for challenging terrain,” 2023

2023
[15]

Learning locomotion skills using deeprl: Does the choice of action space matter?

X. B. Peng and M. van de Panne, “Learning locomotion skills using deeprl: Does the choice of action space matter?” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation . ACM, 2017, p. 12

2017
[16]

Feedback control for cassie with deep reinforcement learning,

Z. Xie, G. Berseth, P. Clary, J. Hurst, and M. van de Panne, “Feedback control for cassie with deep reinforcement learning,” in2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1241–1246

2018
[17]

Sim-to-real: Learning agile locomotion for quadruped robots,

J. Tan, T. Zhang, E. Coumans, A. Iscen, Y . Bai, D. Hafner, S. Bohez, and V . Vanhoucke, “Sim-to-real: Learning agile locomotion for quadruped robots,” in Proc. of Robotics: Science and Systems XIV . Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Robotics: Science and Systems Foundation, 6 2018. [...

2018
[18]

Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots,

J. Hwangbo, J. Lee, A. Dosovitskiy, D. Bellicoso, V . Tsounis, V . Koltun, and M. Hutter, “Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots,” Science Robotics , vol. 4, no. 26, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://robotics.sciencemag.org/content/4/26/eaau5872

2019
[19]

Deepgait: Planning and control of quadrupedal gaits using deep reinforcement learning,

V . Tsounis, M. Alge, J. Lee, F. Farshidian, and M. Hutter, “Deepgait: Planning and control of quadrupedal gaits using deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 3699–3706, 2020

2020
[20]

Learning memory-based control for human-scale bipedal locomotion,

J. Siekmann, S. Valluri, J. Dao, L. Bermillo, H. Duan, A. Fern, and J. Hurst, “Learning memory-based control for human-scale bipedal locomotion,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, 7 2020

2020
[21]

Sim-to-Real Learning of All Common Bipedal Gaits via Periodic Reward Composition,

J. Siekmann, Y . Godse, A. Fern, and J. Hurst, “Sim-to-Real Learning of All Common Bipedal Gaits via Periodic Reward Composition,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2021

2021
[22]

Blind Bipedal Stair Traversal via Sim-to-Real Reinforcement Learning,

J. Siekmann, K. Green, J. Warila, A. Fern, and J. Hurst, “Blind Bipedal Stair Traversal via Sim-to-Real Reinforcement Learning,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems , vol. abs/2105.08328, Virtual, 7 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.08328

2021 arXiv
[23]

Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms,

J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347

2017 arXiv
[24]

MuJoCo: A physics engine for model-based control,

E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y . Tassa, “MuJoCo: A physics engine for model-based control,” in 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2012, pp. 5026–5033

2012
[25]

Dynamic bipedal maneuvers through sim-to-real reinforcement learning,

F. Yu, R. Batke, J. Dao, J. Hurst, K. Green, and A. Fern, “Dynamic bipedal maneuvers through sim-to-real reinforcement learning,” 2022

2022
[26]

Sim-to-real learning for humanoid box loco-manipulation,

J. Dao, H. Duan, and A. Fern, “Sim-to-real learning for humanoid box loco-manipulation,” 2023

2023
[27]

Optimizing bipedal locomotion for the 100m dash with comparison to human running,

D. Crowley, J. Dao, H. Duan, K. Green, J. Hurst, and A. Fern, “Optimizing bipedal locomotion for the 100m dash with comparison to human running,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 12 205–12 211

2023
[28]

The impact of errors in infant development: Falling like a baby,

D. Han and K. E. Adolph, “The impact of errors in infant development: Falling like a baby,” Developmental science, vol. 24, no. 5, p. e13069, 2021

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Motor development: Embodied, embedded, enculturated, and enabling,

K. E. Adolph and J. E. Hoch, “Motor development: Embodied, embedded, enculturated, and enabling,” Annual review of psychology , vol. 70, pp. 141–164, 2019

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Infants on the edge: Beyond the visual cliff,

K. Adolph, B. Kaplan, and K. Kretch, “Infants on the edge: Beyond the visual cliff,” in Revisiting the classic studies: Developmental psychology. Sage Publications, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Development (of walking): 15 suggestions,

K. E. Adolph, J. E. Hoch, and W. G. Cole, “Development (of walking): 15 suggestions,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 699– 711, 2018

work page 2018

[4] [4]

The development of gait and mo- bility: Form and function in infant locomotion,

C. M. Hospodar and K. E. Adolph, “The development of gait and mo- bility: Form and function in infant locomotion,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , p. e1677, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Bouts of steps: The organization of infant exploration,

W. G. Cole, S. R. Robinson, and K. E. Adolph, “Bouts of steps: The organization of infant exploration,” Developmental psychobiology, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 341–354, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [6]

The cost of simplifying complex developmental phenomena: A new perspective on learning to walk,

D. K. Lee, W. G. Cole, L. Golenia, and K. E. Adolph, “The cost of simplifying complex developmental phenomena: A new perspective on learning to walk,” Developmental science , vol. 21, no. 4, p. e12615, 2018

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Practice and proficiency: Factors that facilitate infant walking skill,

C. M. Hospodar, J. E. Hoch, D. K. Lee, P. E. Shrout, and K. E. Adolph, “Practice and proficiency: Factors that facilitate infant walking skill,” Developmental psychobiology, vol. 63, no. 7, p. e22187, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

How do you learn to walk? thousands of steps and dozens of falls per day,

K. E. Adolph, W. G. Cole, M. Komati, J. S. Garciaguirre, D. Badaly, J. M. Lingeman, G. L. Chan, and R. B. Sotsky, “How do you learn to walk? thousands of steps and dozens of falls per day,” Psychological science, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1387–1394, 2012

work page 2012