Cargando…

On neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation

Biological and robotic grasp and manipulation are undeniably similar at the level of mechanical task performance. However, their underlying fundamental biological vs. engineering mechanisms are, by definition, dramatically different and can even be antithetical. Even our approach to each is diametri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Valero-Cuevas, Francisco J., Santello, Marco
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5635506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29017508
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-017-0305-3
_version_ 1783270300486467584
author Valero-Cuevas, Francisco J.
Santello, Marco
author_facet Valero-Cuevas, Francisco J.
Santello, Marco
author_sort Valero-Cuevas, Francisco J.
collection PubMed
description Biological and robotic grasp and manipulation are undeniably similar at the level of mechanical task performance. However, their underlying fundamental biological vs. engineering mechanisms are, by definition, dramatically different and can even be antithetical. Even our approach to each is diametrically opposite: inductive science for the study of biological systems vs. engineering synthesis for the design and construction of robotic systems. The past 20 years have seen several conceptual advances in both fields and the quest to unify them. Chief among them is the reluctant recognition that their underlying fundamental mechanisms may actually share limited common ground, while exhibiting many fundamental differences. This recognition is particularly liberating because it allows us to resolve and move beyond multiple paradoxes and contradictions that arose from the initial reasonable assumption of a large common ground. Here, we begin by introducing the perspective of neuromechanics, which emphasizes that real-world behavior emerges from the intimate interactions among the physical structure of the system, the mechanical requirements of a task, the feasible neural control actions to produce it, and the ability of the neuromuscular system to adapt through interactions with the environment. This allows us to articulate a succinct overview of a few salient conceptual paradoxes and contradictions regarding under-determined vs. over-determined mechanics, under- vs. over-actuated control, prescribed vs. emergent function, learning vs. implementation vs. adaptation, prescriptive vs. descriptive synergies, and optimal vs. habitual performance. We conclude by presenting open questions and suggesting directions for future research. We hope this frank and open-minded assessment of the state-of-the-art will encourage and guide these communities to continue to interact and make progress in these important areas at the interface of neuromechanics, neuroscience, rehabilitation and robotics.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5635506
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56355062017-10-18 On neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation Valero-Cuevas, Francisco J. Santello, Marco J Neuroeng Rehabil Review Biological and robotic grasp and manipulation are undeniably similar at the level of mechanical task performance. However, their underlying fundamental biological vs. engineering mechanisms are, by definition, dramatically different and can even be antithetical. Even our approach to each is diametrically opposite: inductive science for the study of biological systems vs. engineering synthesis for the design and construction of robotic systems. The past 20 years have seen several conceptual advances in both fields and the quest to unify them. Chief among them is the reluctant recognition that their underlying fundamental mechanisms may actually share limited common ground, while exhibiting many fundamental differences. This recognition is particularly liberating because it allows us to resolve and move beyond multiple paradoxes and contradictions that arose from the initial reasonable assumption of a large common ground. Here, we begin by introducing the perspective of neuromechanics, which emphasizes that real-world behavior emerges from the intimate interactions among the physical structure of the system, the mechanical requirements of a task, the feasible neural control actions to produce it, and the ability of the neuromuscular system to adapt through interactions with the environment. This allows us to articulate a succinct overview of a few salient conceptual paradoxes and contradictions regarding under-determined vs. over-determined mechanics, under- vs. over-actuated control, prescribed vs. emergent function, learning vs. implementation vs. adaptation, prescriptive vs. descriptive synergies, and optimal vs. habitual performance. We conclude by presenting open questions and suggesting directions for future research. We hope this frank and open-minded assessment of the state-of-the-art will encourage and guide these communities to continue to interact and make progress in these important areas at the interface of neuromechanics, neuroscience, rehabilitation and robotics. BioMed Central 2017-10-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5635506/ /pubmed/29017508 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-017-0305-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Valero-Cuevas, Francisco J.
Santello, Marco
On neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation
title On neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation
title_full On neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation
title_fullStr On neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation
title_full_unstemmed On neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation
title_short On neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation
title_sort on neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5635506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29017508
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-017-0305-3
work_keys_str_mv AT valerocuevasfranciscoj onneuromechanicalapproachesforthestudyofbiologicalandroboticgraspandmanipulation
AT santellomarco onneuromechanicalapproachesforthestudyofbiologicalandroboticgraspandmanipulation