Adaptive body schema for robotic tool-use

Advanced Robotics

Volumn 20, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 1105-1126

  Nabeshima, Cota ^a   Kuniyoshi, Yasuo ^a   Lungarella, M A X ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

Adaptation; Body image; Developmental robotics; Tool use; Visuo tactile integration

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS; COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; FUNCTIONS; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PLASTICITY; SENSORY PERCEPTION;

BODY IMAGES; DEVELOPMENTAL ROBOTICS; TOOL-USE; VISUO-TACTILE INTEGRATION;

ROBOTICS;

EID: 33750549476     PISSN: 01691864     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/156855306778522550     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. M. Merleau-Ponty, Phénoménologie de la Perception. Gallimard, Paris (1945).
2. V. Fogassi, G. Rizzolatti. L. Fadiga and V. Gallese, The space around us. Science 277 (5323), 190-191 (1997).
3. B. B. Beck, Animal Tool Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals. Garland Press, New York (1980).
4. G. Berlucchi and S. Aglioti, The body in the brain: neural bases of corporeal awareness, Trends Neurosci. 20, 560-564 (1997).
5. A. Iriki, M. Tanaka and Y. Iwamura, Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones, Cognitive Neurosci. Neuropsychol. 7, 2325-2330 (1996).
6. S. H. Johnson-Frey, The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends Cognitive Sci. 8, 71-78 (2004).
7. A. Maravita and A. Iriki, Tools for the body (schema), Trends Cognitive Sci. 8, 79-86 (2004).
8. S. Gallagher, Body image and body schema: a conceptual clarification, J. Mind Behav. 7, 541-554 (1986).
9. S. Gallagher. How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005).
10. H. Head and G. Holmes, Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions, Brain 34, 102-245 (1911).
11. A. Maravita, C. Spence and J. Driver, Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach, Curr. Biol. 13, R531-R539 (2003).
12. N. P. Holmes and C. Spence, The body schema and multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space. Cognitive Process. 5, 94-105 (2004).
13. P. Schilder, The Image and Appearance of the Human Body: Studies in the Constructive Energies of the Psyche. Kegan Paul, London (1935).
14. S. Gallagher and A. Meltzoff, The earliest sense of self and others: Merleau-ponty and recent developmental studies, Philos. Psychol. 9, 213-236 (1996).
15. M. Lungarella, G. Metta, R. Pfeifer and G. Sandini, Developmental robotics: a survey, Connect. Sci. 15, 151-190 (2003).
16. M. L. Simmel, The conditions of occurrence of phantom limbs, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 102, 492-500 (1958).
17. M. L. Simmel, The absence of phantoms for congenitally missing limbs. Am. J. Psychol. 74, 467-470 (1961).
18. V. S. Ramachandran and D. Rogers-Ramachandran, Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 263, 377-386 (1996).
19. V. S. Ramachandran and S. Blakeslee, Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind. Harper Collins, London (1998).
20. M. Spong and M. Vidyasagar, Robot Dynamics and Control. Wiley, New York (1989).
21. S. Ganapathy, Decomposition of transformation matrices for robot vision, in: Proc. Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Atlanta, GA, Vol. 1, pp. 130-139 (1984).
22. Y. Nakagawa, H. G. Okuno and H. Kitano, Using vision to improve sound source separation, in: Proc. Natl. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Orlando, FL, pp. 768-775 (1999).
23. H. Ritter, T. Martinetz and K. Shulten, Neural Computation and Self-Organizing Maps. Addison-Wesley, New York (1992).
24. J. J. Craig, Adaptive Control of Mechanical Manipulators. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1988).
25. R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge. MA (1998).
26. M. Kawato, Internal models of motor control and trajectory planning, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 9, 718-727 (1999).
27. D. M. Wolpert, Z. Gharhramani and J. R. Flanagan, Perspectives and problems in motor learning, Trends Cognitive Sci. 5, 487-494 (2001).
28. Y. Yoshikawa, K. Hosoda and M. Asada, Does the invariance in multi-modalities represent the body scheme? A case study with vision and proprioception, in: Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Adaptive Motion of Animals and Machines, Vol. SaP-II-1 (2003).
29. A. Stoytchev, Computational model for an extendable robot body schema, Technical Report GIT-CC-03-44, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology (2003).
30. A. Stoytchev, Behavior-grounded representation of tool affordances, in: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, pp. 3071-3076 (2005).
31. G. Metta and P. Fitzpatrick, Early integration of vision and manipulation, Adaptive Behav. 11, 109-128 (2003).
32. M. Morita, Memory and learning of sequential patterns by nonmonotone neural networks, Neural Networks 9, 1477-1489 (1996).
33. E. Oja, A simplified neuron model as a principal component analyzer, J. Math. Biol. 15, 267-273 (1982).
34. L. Itti and C. Koch, Computational modelling of visual attention, Nat. Rev. Neurosc. 2, 1-11 (2001).
35. S. Shimojo and L. Shams, Sensory modalities are not separate modalities: plasticity and interactions, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 11, 505-509 (2001).
36. P. Haggard and D. M. Wolpert, in: Higher-order Motor Disorders: From Neuroanatomy and Neurobiology to Clinical Neurology, H. J. Freund, M. Jeannerod, M. Hallett and R. Leiguarda (Eds), pp. 261-271. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005).