Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Quadrupedal Spine Control Strategies: Exploring Correlations Between System Dynamic Responses and Human Perspectives

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Giving a quadruped robot an actively controlled spine can make its gait look more natural to human viewers, but none of the tested spine strategies improved energy efficiency over a fixed spine.

desk verdict First head-to-head perception comparison of quadruped spine strategies, but the naturalness ranking rests on mean scores with no inferential statistics and a tuning-effort confound. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02414 v1 pith:XNL3RUXT submitted 2025-05-05 cs.RO cs.HCcs.SYeess.SY

Nicholas Hafner , Chaoran Liu , Carlos Ishi , Hiroshi Ishiguro This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.HCcs.SYeess.SY
keywords quadrupedrobotactivespinegaitnaturalnesshuman-robotinteractionmodelpredictivecontrolcostoftransportcentralpatterngeneratorbio-inspiredrobotics
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 asks whether adding an actively controlled spine to a quadruped robot can make its gait appear more natural to people, and whether any such gain comes at an energy cost. Using a simulated toy-poodle-sized robot with two pitch and two yaw spine joints, the authors test four spine trajectory strategies against a fixed-spine baseline across walking, trotting, and turning. In a forced-choice video study with 49 participants, the optimised time-varying and foot-tracking strategies were rated more natural than the baseline, while the real-dog time-varying and stiffness strategies scored worse. At the same time, the fixed spine had the lowest cost of transport at every tested speed, even when spine motor power was excluded. The authors conclude that perceived naturalness and energy efficiency can diverge, and that for social-robot applications like elder care, natural motion may matter more than efficiency.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing components are the four spine trajectory strategies and the model predictive control (MPC) system they plug into. The spine is a four-degree-of-freedom active joint set (two pitch, two yaw) on a simulated poodle-sized robot; a central pattern generator (CPG) produces a phase variable $\phi$ that synchronises leg swing and stance cycles with spine commands. The strategies are: a stiffness strategy that sinusoidally varies the PD gain $K_p$ while holding a fixed setpoint; a foot-tracking strategy that derives spine pitch from the average fore-aft foot displacement from neutral and spine yaw from the angle between paired feet; a real-dog time-varying strategy using a bi-periodic sine in pitch and a mono-periodic sine in yaw with coefficients taken from canine motion data; and an optimised time strategy using the same sinusoidal law with coefficients found by grid search over a weighted cost function of energy, tracking error, foot-force variance, and spine range of motion. Ground-reaction forces are computed by a representation-free MPC that treats the robot as a single rigid body, so spine motion enters as a disturbance the controller must accommodate. This pairing of an actively moved spine with an MPC that ignores spine inertia is what makes the comparison possible, and it shapes the energy results.

What would settle it

Run a new human study that fixes tuning effort: give the real-dog law the same number of optimisation evaluations as the optimised-time law, then check whether the naturalness ranking inverts. Alternatively, measure the spine kinematics of toy-poodle-sized dogs directly; if the real-dog coefficients actually match small-dog motion and viewers still rate it least natural, the premise that real canine data looks natural on a small robot is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that spine motion in a quadruped robot is judged more natural when it is subtle and coordinated with the legs, and that copying real canine motion does not automatically look natural on a small robot. Concretely, in a randomised comparison with 49 participants, the optimised time-varying strategy and the foot-tracking strategy scored higher than the fixed-spine baseline, while the real-dog time-varying strategy and the stiffness strategy scored lower. The same participants chose the same gait as most natural and most appealing to interact with in 97.7% of votes. Dynamic measurements show the fixed spine has the lowest cost of transport at all tested velocities, and spine strategies increase the work done by the legs; the two strategies judged most natural also showed the most consistent trotting footfalls, suggesting a possible link between perceived naturalness and gait regularity rather than energy cost.

Load-bearing premise

The strategies are compared under equally well-tuned parameters: the optimised-time strategy received a grid search plus manual review by the researchers, while the real-dog strategy used manually chosen, unoptimised coefficients, so the naturalness ranking could reflect tuning effort rather than the control law itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For human-robot interaction applications such as elder-care companions, a spine that moves subtly and tracks the feet can make a quadruped seem more natural and more worth interacting with, even if it does not save energy.
  • Gait naturalness and energy efficiency are not coupled: the most efficient gait (fixed spine) was not the most natural, and no spine strategy improved cost of transport over the baseline.
  • Robot designers should select the spine strategy per gait: the stiffness strategy jumped to most natural in trotting, while the optimised-time strategy was best in walking and turning, implying that HRI-focused robots should be able to switch strategy.
  • The 97.7% match between 'most natural' and 'most likely to interact with' suggests that perceived naturalness is a reliable proxy for user acceptance in this context.
  • Because the fixed spine was most efficient even with spine motor power excluded, active spine motion increases leg work, so an energy-neutral natural spine would likely need passive or hybrid components.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's explanation for the real-dog strategy's low naturalness (viewers compared the small simulated robot to larger dogs) is testable: re-render the same gaits with a familiar size reference object in view, and the naturalness ranking may shift.
  • The observed correlation between naturalness and footfall consistency in trotting could be isolated experimentally: if the spine is hidden and only footfall timing is varied, one could test whether regularity alone drives perceived naturalness.
  • The MPC treats spine inertia as negligible, so the energy verdict may be specific to this controller; modelling spine dynamics inside the MPC, as the paper suggests, could change both cost of transport and perceived naturalness.
  • The naturalness-versus-efficiency trade-off may not hold on larger robots; on a platform closer in scale to the dogs in the motion-capture data, the real-dog coefficients might score higher and the conclusions could invert.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper investigates spine control strategies for a simulated quadruped robot with a four-degree-of-freedom active spine. Four trajectory-generation strategies are compared with a fixed-spine baseline: a varying-stiffness strategy, a foot-tracking strategy, a real-dog time-varying strategy, and an optimised time-varying strategy. The authors evaluate cost of transport (CoT) for walking, trotting, and turning gaits, and they run a forced-choice online video study (49 participants) in which viewers rank naturalness and inclination to interact. The paper reports that no spine strategy improves CoT over the fixed-spine baseline, and that the optimised-time and foot-tracking strategies are perceived as more natural than the baseline. The authors conclude that spine-enabled robots may be promising for HRI applications where naturalness outweighs energy efficiency.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine gap in the quadruped-spine literature, which has largely focused on efficiency and stability, by making human perception the outcome of interest. Its strengths include a transparent description of the four control strategies, a within-simulation comparison on multiple gaits, and especially the public release of code, videos, and raw data on GitHub, which allows the main analysis to be reproduced and extended. The honest reporting of a null CoT result is also valuable: it sets a boundary condition for claims that active spines improve efficiency. However, the central naturalness finding is not currently established. The reported mean scores are not accompanied by inferential statistics, and the parameter-selection procedure appears to incorporate the researchers' own judgment of naturalness, so the comparison risks confounding strategy with tuning effort. Because these two issues bear directly on the paper's main contribution, they must be addressed before the perceptual claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, Figure 13] The paper's central positive claim, that the optimised-time and foot-tracking spine strategies are perceived as more natural than the fixed-spine baseline, is supported only by point estimates. Section 5.2 reports mean naturalness scores in Figure 13, with no confidence intervals, standard errors, significance tests, or effect sizes. The experiment has a repeated-measures structure (49 participants, pairwise forced choices among five strategies), so the ranking could plausibly lie within sampling noise, especially because multiple pairwise comparisons are implicitly being made. Please provide inferential statistics for the baseline comparisons, for example a mixed-effects logistic regression on the forced-choice responses or paired nonparametric tests with multiplicity correction, and report effect sizes. The raw data are public, so these analyses should be straightforward.
  2. [Section 4.5] The naturalness ranking is confounded by unequal tuning effort across conditions. The grid search for the optimised strategies minimises the cost function in Equation (15), which does not contain a naturalness term, but the authors then state that candidates with good scores were reviewed manually and chosen based on how natural they appeared to the researchers. Thus the optimised-time strategy, and by the same procedure the foot-tracking and stiffness strategies, were selected partly for natural appearance, whereas the real-dog strategy was not optimised and the fixed-spine baseline received no naturalness-based selection. Any observed advantage for the optimised strategies could therefore reflect the manual selection and increased tuning effort rather than the control law itself. To make the claim strategy-level, the authors should either use a pre-registered, naturalness-blind selection criterion, or show that the ranking is stable across the set of near-optimal parameter candidates, or explicitly restrict their conclusion to the particular tuned instances studied.
  3. [Section 6.1] Hypothesis #1 is evaluated by counting how often a participant's most natural and most likely to interact with choices agree (862 of 882 votes, 97.7%), but this is not strong evidence of a correlation between the two constructs. The two questions are answered on the same videos within the same forced-choice task, so agreement is inflated by shared response tendencies and task framing, and no chance baseline or appropriate statistical model is reported. Please analyse the two responses jointly, for example with a contingency-table or multilevel model that accounts for the forced-choice design, and temper the greater likeability wording in the abstract accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5.2] The abstract states that the randomised trial used 50 participants, while Section 5.2 reports 50 recruited with one dropped, leaving 49 total results; please make the participant count consistent throughout.
  2. [Table 6] The entry 4rd appears in the time-real row of the table; it should be 4th.
  3. [Section 4.9, Figure 8] The naturalness scoring algorithm is described only in the caption of Figure 8. Please move the full algorithm into the main text so that the normalisation and the baseline-halving rule are reproducible without reading the figure.
  4. [Section 4.6 and Section 7] The perception study uses videos of the simulation, and Section 4.6 explains that the MPC approximates the robot as a single rigid body with small spine movements. Please state explicitly in the limitations that the naturalness results have not been validated on hardware with true spine dynamics, since this could affect the HRI conclusions.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Naturalness ranking is partly circular because the optimised spine strategies were manually selected for natural appearance before being tested for perceived naturalness.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.5 (Spine Control Strategies) and Section 5.2 (Subjective Results)]
    "Finally, candidates with good scores were reviewed manually and chosen based on how natural they appeared to the researchers. ... Note that the real-dog time-varying strategy is not optimised, the values are chosen manually."

    The central perception result (Section 5.2) reports that the optimised-time and foot-tracking strategies are perceived as more natural than the fixed-spine baseline. But those strategies' parameters were not selected solely by the published energy/error cost function: after grid search, candidates were manually filtered on how natural they appeared to the researchers. Thus the target quantity of the later experiment (perceived naturalness) was already used as a selection criterion during strategy construction.

full rationale

The paper is mostly a self-contained empirical study: the CoT comparison is direct simulation output, and the perception data come from an external MTurk experiment. The main circularity is the parameter-selection step in Section 4.5, where candidates from the grid search were reviewed manually and chosen based on how natural they appeared to the researchers. Because the same naturalness construct is then measured in the subjective experiment, the claim that the optimised-time and foot-tracking strategies are more natural is partly by construction rather than a fully independent test. This does not make the whole derivation circular: the strategies are still defined by concrete equations, the CoT results are independent of human judgment, and the perception experiment itself is a real measurement. However, the asymmetry between naturalness-tuned and non-tuned strategies means the central naturalness ranking is only partially supported as a property of the control laws. No self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is load-bearing; the sinusoidal forms are cited to external dog-motion data.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central evaluation depends on the free parameters of the spine trajectories (found by optimisation or manual choice), the hand-set cost weights, and the hand-set gait and video parameters. There are no new physical entities. The most important assumptions are the single-rigid-body MPC approximation, the validity of simulation and video-based naturalness measurement, and the transferability of dog data across sizes.

free parameters (4)
  • Spine trajectory parameters C1..C4 for each strategy and gait = not stated in paper; available online (GitHub)
    These parameters define the spine motion (amplitude, phase, stiffness, damping). They were found by grid search for stiffness, foot-tracking, and time-optimised strategies, and chosen manually for the real-dog strategy. They directly determine the gaits evaluated in the human study.
  • Cost function weights W1..W11 = W1=50, W2=50, W3=50, W4=10, W5=4, W6=4, W7=0.1, W8=1800, W9=10, W10=0, W11=0.002 (per Table 3, with one entry…
    The weights are chosen by hand to balance units and priorities in the grid search objective (Equation 15). They influence which parameters the optimiser selects and therefore the resulting naturalness.
  • Gait parameters tstance, tswing, and phase offsets psi = Walk/Turn: 0.3/0.1, Trot: 0.2/0.1; phases as in Table 2
    These are 'chosen by hand to generate stable gait parameters' (Section 4.4). They determine the footfall patterns and are not derived from data or prior work.
  • Command velocities for video recording = Walking 0.3 m/s, Turning 0.3 m/s and -0.5 rad/s, Trotting 0.6 m/s (Table 4)
    The velocities are 'chosen empirically to give gaits with sufficient velocity and gait clarity' (Section 4.8). They affect the dynamics and the appearance of each strategy in the subjective experiment.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The MPC can treat the robot as a single rigid body, ignoring the internal dynamics, inertia changes, and COM shifts of the moving spine.
    Section 4.6 states 'No modifications are made to RF-MPC, as the spine movements are relatively small... not large enough to cause divergence'. If this assumption fails, the simulated locomotion and CoT numbers could be inaccurate. It is a load-bearing modelling choice.
  • domain assumption The simulated robot in DART with default friction and restitution coefficients is a valid proxy for a physical toy-poodle-sized quadruped.
    Section 2 sets up the simulation environment with 'default friction and restitution coefficients'. The robot dynamics and contact model are not validated against hardware, which is acknowledged in the future work section.
  • domain assumption Human naturalness ratings of simulated videos with no physical size reference transfer to how people would perceive a real robot.
    The subjective experiment uses rendered videos and the authors themselves note (Section 6.3) that 'experimentees had no direct size reference'. Perceived naturalness in video may not match real-world interaction.
  • domain assumption The real-dog spine motion from Beagle data in [9] is applicable to a robot approximating a toy poodle.
    Section 6.3 explains the real-dog strategy scored lowest partly because 'our robot is closer in size to a Toy Poodle rather than a large dog', so the Beagle-based trajectory may be inappropriate. This is an acknowledged size-scaling assumption.
  • standard math Standard robotics math: SO(3) composition, Jacobian transpose inverse dynamics, and PD control are sufficient for the simulated platform.
    Section 3 and Section 4.2 use Lie group notation and Jacobian-based inverse dynamics. These are standard mathematical tools, not contested by the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quadrupedal Spine Control Strategies: Exploring Correlations Between System Dynamic Responses and Human Perspectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XNL3RUXT

@misc{pith2026250502414,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quadrupedal Spine Control Strategies: Exploring Correlations Between System Dynamic Responses and Human Perspectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XNL3RUXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02414}
}
read the original abstract

Unlike their biological cousins, the majority of existing quadrupedal robots are constructed with rigid chassis. This results in motion that is either beetle-like or distinctly robotic, lacking the natural fluidity characteristic of mammalian movements. Existing literature on quadrupedal robots with spinal configurations primarily focuses on energy efficiency and does not consider the effects in human-robot interaction scenarios. Our contributions include an initial investigation into various trajectory generation strategies for a quadrupedal robot with a four degree of freedom spine, and an analysis on the effect that such methods have on human perception of gait naturalness compared to a fixed spine baseline. The strategies were evaluated using videos of walking, trotting and turning simulations. Among the four different strategies developed, the optimised time varying and the foot-tracking strategies were perceived to be more natural than the baseline in a randomised trial with 50 participants. Although none of the strategies demonstrated any energy efficiency improvements over the no-spine baseline, some showed greater footfall consistency at higher speeds. Given the greater likeability drawn from the more natural locomotion patterns, this type of robot displays potential for applications in social robot scenarios such as elderly care, where energy efficiency is not a primary concern.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02414 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The three rigid bodies and 4 different joints of the simulated spine enabled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: the full robot being simulated. The head is purely aesthetic and given [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The full control system used to generate robot motion, with the CPG and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The world frame, O, and COM frame, C, are connected via a 6-DoF free joint within the simulation environment. oTi = oTν(i) · ν(i)Ti (8) For inverse kinematics (IK), we do not consider the orientation of the feet, and thus the Cartesian space target has 12 variables. Ho…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: : Footfall patterns for the walking (above) and trotting (middle) gaits. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: It is challenging to fairly rate the naturalness of a single gait or video in isolation, as there is no reference point for the audience to compare against. Additionally, compar￾ing all 5 gaits next to each other is very challenging. As such, each strategy is compared …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: : Perspective view of the robot in simulation. The robot travels from right to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: : Two frames of a video participants were asked to watch, side-by-side. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: : Algorithm to score strategy naturalness relative to a fixed spine baseline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: : CoT for all strategies across a range of velocities. The leftmost curves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: : CoT for all strategies, ignoring the cost of actuating spine joints. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: : Hildebrand plots of walking gaits at 0.3 ms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: : Hildebrand plots of trotting gaits at 0.6 ms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: : Subjective results across 49 participants. The baseline fixed-spine category [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Available from: https://www.unitree.com/en/a1/

    Unitree a1 ; Accessed: 2023-10-19. Available from: https://www.unitree.com/en/a1/

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Available from: https: //bostondynamics.com/products/spot/

    Boston dynamics’ spot ; Accessed: 2023-10-19. Available from: https: //bostondynamics.com/products/spot/

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Anymal - a highly mobile and dynamic quadrupedal robot

    Hutter M, Gehring C, Jud D, et al. Anymal - a highly mobile and dynamic quadrupedal robot. 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Further studies on locomotion of the cheetah

    Hildebrand M. Further studies on locomotion of the cheetah. Journal of Mammalogy. 1961;42(1):84–91. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1377246

    work page arXiv 1961

  5. [5]

    Gait and the energetics of locomotion in horses

    Hoyt DF, Taylor CR. Gait and the energetics of locomotion in horses. Nature. 1981; 292(5820):239–240

    work page 1981

  6. [6]

    Motions of the running horse and cheetah revisited: Fundamen- tal mechanics of the transverse and rotary gallop

    Bertram JE, Gutmann A. Motions of the running horse and cheetah revisited: Fundamen- tal mechanics of the transverse and rotary gallop. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 2008;6(35):549–559

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Three-dimensional motion pattern of the caudal lumbar and lumbosacral portions of the vertebral column of dogs

    Benninger MI, Seiler GS, Robinson LE, et al. Three-dimensional motion pattern of the caudal lumbar and lumbosacral portions of the vertebral column of dogs. American Jour- nal of Veterinary Research. 2004;65(5):544–551

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Physically-based simulation of the spine in dog walking

    Aleotti J, Caselli S, Bracchi P, et al. Physically-based simulation of the spine in dog walking. 09; 2008. p. 2283–2288

    work page 2008

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Three-dimensional movements of the pelvis and the lumbar intervertebral joints in walking and trotting dogs

    Wachs K, Fischer M, Schilling N. Three-dimensional movements of the pelvis and the lumbar intervertebral joints in walking and trotting dogs. The Veterinary Journal. 2016; 210:46–55. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1090023315005407

    2016

  2. [10]

    Comparing the effect of different spine and leg designs for a small bounding quadruped robot

    Eckert P, Spr¨ owitz A, Witte H, et al. Comparing the effect of different spine and leg designs for a small bounding quadruped robot. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA); 2015. p. 3128–3133

    2015

  3. [11]

    Study on quadruped bounding with a passive compliant spine

    Phan LT, Lee YH, Lee YH, et al. Study on quadruped bounding with a passive compliant spine. In: 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS); 2017. p. 2409–2414

    2017

  4. [12]

    Passive quadrupedal bounding with a segmented flexible torso

    Cao Q, Poulakakis I. Passive quadrupedal bounding with a segmented flexible torso. In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; 2012. p. 2484–2489

    2012

  5. [13]

    A bio-inspired quadruped robot with a global compliant spine

    Zhang X, Yu H, Liu B, et al. A bio-inspired quadruped robot with a global compliant spine. 12; 2013. p. 1312–1316

    2013

  6. [14]

    Demonstration and analysis of quadrupedal passive dynamic walking

    Nakatani K, Sugimoto Y, Osuka K. Demonstration and analysis of quadrupedal passive dynamic walking. Advanced Robotics. 2009 04;23(5):483–501

    2009

  7. [15]

    On passive quadrupedal bounding with translational spinal joint

    Koutsoukis K, Papadopoulos E. On passive quadrupedal bounding with translational spinal joint. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Sys- tems (IROS); 2016. p. 3406–3411

    2016

  8. [16]

    Realization of stable quadruped gait transition by chang- ing body stiffness (japanese)

    Sakai Y, Sato T, Owaki D, et al. Realization of stable quadruped gait transition by chang- ing body stiffness (japanese). The Proceedings of JSME annual Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (Robomec). 2007;2007(0)

    2007

  9. [17]

    A study on trunk stiffness and gait stability in quadrupedal locomotion using musculoskeletal robot

    Tsujita K, Miki K. A study on trunk stiffness and gait stability in quadrupedal locomotion using musculoskeletal robot. In: 2011 15th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR); 2011. p. 316–321. 25

    2011

  10. [18]

    Design of quadruped bionic robot with variable stiffness spine

    Lu G. Design of quadruped bionic robot with variable stiffness spine. In: Proceedings of the 2022 4th International Conference on Robotics, Intelligent Control and Artificial In- telligence; New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery; 2023. p. 255–259; RICAI ’22. A...

    2022

  11. [19]

    High speed trot-running: Implementation of a hierarchical controller using proprioceptive impedance control on the mit cheetah

    Hyun DJ, Seok S, Lee J, et al. High speed trot-running: Implementation of a hierarchical controller using proprioceptive impedance control on the mit cheetah. The International Journal of Robotics Research. 2014;33(11):1417–1445

    2014

  12. [20]

    Design and development of biomimetic quadruped robot for behavior studies of rats and mice

    Ishii H, Masuda Y, Miyagishima S, et al. Design and development of biomimetic quadruped robot for behavior studies of rats and mice. 2009 Annual International Con- ference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    Development of a biped walking robot compensating for three-axis moment by trunk motion

    Yamaguchi J, Takanishi A, Kato I. Development of a biped walking robot compensating for three-axis moment by trunk motion. Proceedings of 1993 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS ’93). 1993;1:561–566 vol.1. Available from: https://api.sema...

    1993

  14. [22]

    Zero-moment point - thirty five years of its life

    Vukobratovic M, Borovac B. Zero-moment point - thirty five years of its life. I J Humanoid Robotics. 2004 03;1:157–173

    2004

  15. [23]

    Analysis of using an active artificial spine in a quadruped robot

    Kuehn D, Dettmann A, Kirchner F, et al. Analysis of using an active artificial spine in a quadruped robot. 2018 4th International Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics (ICCAR). 2018 Apr

    2018

  16. [24]

    A platform with six degrees of freedom

    Stewart D. A platform with six degrees of freedom. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology. 1966 Apr;38(4):30–35

    1966

  17. [25]

    Bionic design of multi-toe quadruped robot for planetary surface exploration

    Chen G, Qiao L, Wang B, et al. Bionic design of multi-toe quadruped robot for planetary surface exploration. Machines. 2022 09;10:827

    2022

  18. [26]

    Spine controller for a sprawling posture robot

    Horvat T, Melo K, Ijspeert AJ. Spine controller for a sprawling posture robot. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. 2017;2(2):1195–1202

    2017

  19. [27]

    Representation-free model predictive control for dynamic motions in quadrupeds

    Ding Y, Pandala A, Li C, et al. Representation-free model predictive control for dynamic motions in quadrupeds. IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 2021;37(4):1154–1171

    2021

  20. [28]

    Dynamic locomotion of a quadruped robot with active spine via model predictive control

    Li W, Zhou Z, Cheng H. Dynamic locomotion of a quadruped robot with active spine via model predictive control. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA); 2023. p. 1185–1191

    2023

  21. [29]

    High-speed running quadruped robot with a multi-joint spine adopting a 1dof closed-loop linkage

    Matsumoto O, Tanaka H, Kawasetsu T, et al. High-speed running quadruped robot with a multi-joint spine adopting a 1dof closed-loop linkage. Frontiers in Robotics and AI. 2023;10. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/robotics-and-ai/ articles/10.3389/frobt.2023.1148816

    2023

  22. [30]

    Analysis and generation of laughter motions, and evalu- ation in an android robot

    Ishi CT, Minato T, Ishiguro H. Analysis and generation of laughter motions, and evalu- ation in an android robot. APSIPA Transactions on Signal and Information Processing. 2019;8:e6

    2019

  23. [31]

    A speech-driven hand gesture generation method and evaluation in android robots

    Ishi CT, Machiyashiki D, Mikata R, et al. A speech-driven hand gesture generation method and evaluation in android robots. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. 2018; 3(4):3757–3764

    2018

  24. [32]

    Impression analysis of various humanlike gait patterns

    Miura K, Ohtaki Y, Inooka H. Impression analysis of various humanlike gait patterns. In: Proceedings 10th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. ROMAN 2001 (Cat. No.01TH8591); 2001. p. 568–573

    2001

  25. [33]

    The uncanny valley [from the field]

    Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine. 2012;19(2):98–100

    2012

  26. [34]

    DART: Dynamic animation and robotics toolkit

    Lee J, Grey MX, Ha S, et al. DART: Dynamic animation and robotics toolkit. The Journal of Open Source Software. 2018 Feb;3(22):500. Available from: https://doi. org/10.21105/joss.00500

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    An open torque-controlled modular robot architecture for legged locomotion research

    Grimminger F, Meduri A, Khadiv M, et al. An open torque-controlled modular robot architecture for legged locomotion research. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. 2020; 5(2):3650–3657

    2020

  28. [36]

    Implementation of a reactive walking con- troller for the new open-hardware quadruped solo-12

    Leziart PA, Flayols T, Grimminger F, et al. Implementation of a reactive walking con- troller for the new open-hardware quadruped solo-12. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 2021;. 26

    2021

  29. [37]

    Resolved motion rate control of manipulators and human prostheses

    Whitney D. Resolved motion rate control of manipulators and human prostheses. IEEE Transactions on Man Machine Systems. 1969;10(2):47–53

    1969

  30. [38]

    Robust control of robotic manipulators

    Balestrino A, De Maria G, Sciavicco L. Robust control of robotic manipulators. IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 1984;17(2):2435–2440. 9th IFAC World Congress: A Bridge Be- tween Control Science and Technology, Budapest, Hungary, 2-6 July 1984; Available from: https://www.sciencedirec...

    1984

  31. [39]

    A computational technique for inverse kinematics

    Wolovich WA, Elliott H. A computational technique for inverse kinematics. In: The 23rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control; 1984. p. 1359–1363

    1984

  32. [40]

    Selectively damped least squares for inverse kinematics

    Buss S, Kim JS. Selectively damped least squares for inverse kinematics. J Graphics Tools. 2005 01;10:37–49

    2005

  33. [41]

    A combined optimization method for solving the inverse kinematics problems of mechanical manipulators

    Wang LC, Chen C. A combined optimization method for solving the inverse kinematics problems of mechanical manipulators. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. 1991;7(4):489–499

    1991

  34. [42]

    Fabrik: A fast, iterative solver for the inverse kinematics problem

    Aristidou A, Lasenby J. Fabrik: A fast, iterative solver for the inverse kinematics problem. Graphical Models. 2011 09;73:243–260

    2011

  35. [43]

    Available from: http:// openrave.org/docs/0.8.2/openravepy/ikfast/

    ikfast module — openrave documentation ; 2024-05-27. Available from: http:// openrave.org/docs/0.8.2/openravepy/ikfast/

    2024

  36. [44]

    Mechanism design and performance analysis of bionic quadruped robot with spine

    Chen G, Ma M, Guo S, et al. Mechanism design and performance analysis of bionic quadruped robot with spine. In: 2021 40th Chinese Control Conference (CCC); 2021. p. 6685–6690

    2021

  37. [45]

    Control of dynamic gaits for a quadrupedal robot

    Gehring C, Coros S, Hutter M, et al. Control of dynamic gaits for a quadrupedal robot. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 2013

    2013

  38. [46]

    A whole-body controller based on a sim- plified template for rendering impedances in quadruped manipulators

    Risiglione M, Barasuol V, Caldwell DG, et al. A whole-body controller based on a sim- plified template for rendering impedances in quadruped manipulators. 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Adaptive force-based control for legged robots

    Sombolestan M, Chen Y, Nguyen Q. Adaptive force-based control for legged robots. 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    Model predictive control

    Camacho EF, Bordons C. Model predictive control. Springer; 2007

    2007

  41. [49]

    Controlling the solo12 quadruped robot with deep reinforcement learning

    Aractingi M, L´ eziart PA, Flayols T, et al. Controlling the solo12 quadruped robot with deep reinforcement learning. Scientific Reports. 2023;13(1)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Whole-body nonlinear model predictive con- trol through contacts for quadrupeds

    Neunert M, Stauble M, Giftthaler M, et al. Whole-body nonlinear model predictive con- trol through contacts for quadrupeds. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. 2018; 3(3):1458–1465

    2018

  43. [51]

    Mit cheetah 3: Design and control of a robust, dynamic quadruped robot

    Bledt G, Powell MJ, Katz B, et al. Mit cheetah 3: Design and control of a robust, dynamic quadruped robot. 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    Fast contact-implicit model-predictive con- trol

    Le Cleac’h S, Howell TA, Schwager M, et al. Fast contact-implicit model-predictive con- trol. arXiv preprint arXiv:210705616. 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Nonlinear model predictive control for quadrupedal loco- motion using second-order sensitivity analysis ; 2022

    Kang D, Vincenti FD, Coros S. Nonlinear model predictive control for quadrupedal loco- motion using second-order sensitivity analysis ; 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Symmetrical gaits of dogs in relation to body build

    Hildebrand M. Symmetrical gaits of dogs in relation to body build. Journal of Morphol- ogy. 1968;124(3):353–359. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ abs/10.1002/jmor.1051240308. Appendix A. Accompanying Data Code, videos, and raw data generated within this pro...

    1968 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.