Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T12:10:00.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive response navigation algorithm for mobile robots using biological antennas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2013

Jiliang Jiang ,
Dawei Tu ,
Shuo Xu  and
Qijie Zhao
Jiliang Jiang
Affiliation:
School of Mechatronic Engineering and Automation, and Shanghai Key Laboratory of Manufacturing Automation and Robotics, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200072, China
Dawei Tu*
Affiliation:
School of Mechatronic Engineering and Automation, and Shanghai Key Laboratory of Manufacturing Automation and Robotics, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200072, China
Shuo Xu
Affiliation:
School of Mechatronic Engineering and Automation, and Shanghai Key Laboratory of Manufacturing Automation and Robotics, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200072, China
Qijie Zhao
Affiliation:
School of Mechatronic Engineering and Automation, and Shanghai Key Laboratory of Manufacturing Automation and Robotics, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200072, China
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: tdwshu@staff.shu.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

We present BioBug, a bionic cognitive response navigation algorithm for mobile robots based on neuroethology principles. It includes a biological antenna model for environment perception and an improved Bug algorithm for motion planning and control. The biological antenna model delineates the interested sensing areas, and thus decreases the computational burden. Then, this obtained environment stimulation is responded to generate the corresponding walking behavior according to BioBug. Simulations and experiments have been carried out in different conditions of obstacle density and boundary shape through algorithm comparisons. Compared with the competitors, BioBug is characterized by not only a smaller path length, but also shorter time for obstacle escape. The results demonstrate the practicality, environment robustness, and obstacle avoidance efficiency of the algorithm.

Keywords

Bug algorithmAutonomous navigationMobile robotBiological antennaCognitionBionics

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , August 2014 , pp. 743 - 756
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

References

1.Ge, S. S. and Cui, Y. J., “Dynamic motion planning for mobile robots using potential field method,” Auton. Robots 13, 207–222 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Borenstein, J. and Koren, Y., “The vector field histogram: Fast obstacle avoidance for mobile robots,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 7 (3), 278–288 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Ghommam, J., Mehrjerdi, H. and Saad, M., “Leader-Follower Formation Control of Nonholonomic Robots with Fuzzy Logic Based Approach for Obstacle Avoidance,” Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, San Francisco, CA, USA (Sep. 25–30, 2011), pp. 2340–2345.Google Scholar
4.Eduardo, Z., Jaime, G. and Paul, M. and Peran, J., “Adaptive behavior navigation of a mobile robot,” IEEE Trans. Sys. 32 (1), 160–169 (2002).Google Scholar
5.Luo, C. and Yang, S., “A bioinspired neural network for real-time concurrent map building and complete coverage robot navigation in unknown environments,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 19 (7), 1279–1298 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Manikas, T. W., Ashenayi, K. and Wainwright, R. L., “Genetic algorithms for autonomous robot navigation,” IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag. 10 (6), 26–31 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Lumelsky, V. J. and Stepanov, A. A., “Path-planning strategies for a point mobile automaton moving amidst obstacles of arbitrary shape,” Algorithmica 2, 403–430 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Lumelsky, V. J., “Algorithmic and complexity issues of robot motion in an uncertain environment,” J. Complexity 3 (2), 146–182 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Lumelsky, V. J. and Stepanov, A. A., “Dynamic path planning for a mobile automaton with limited information on the environment,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 31, 1058–1063 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Lumelsky, V. J. and Skewis, T., “Incorporating range sensing in the robot navigation function,” IEEE Trans.Syst. Man. Cybern. 20 (5), 1058–1069 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Kamon, I. and Rivlin, E., “Sensory-based motion planning with global proofs,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 13 (6), 1058–1068 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Kamon, I., Rimon, E. and Rivlin, E., “TangentBug: A range-sensor-based navigation algorithm,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 17 (9), 934–953 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Noborio, H., Fujimura, K. and Horiuchi, Y., “A comparative study of sensor-based path-planning algorithms in an unknown maze,” Proc. IEEE/RSI Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. 2, 909–916 (2000).Google Scholar
14.Magid, E. and Rivlin, E., “Cautiousbug: A Competitive Algorithm for Sensory-Based Robot Navigation,” Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Japan (Sep. 28–Oct. 2, 2004), pp. 2757–2762.Google Scholar
15.Sarid, S., Shapiro, A. and Gabriely, Y., “MRBUG: A Competitive Multi-Robot Path Finding Algorithm,” Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Roma, Italy (Apr. 10–14, 2007) pp. 877–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Javier, A., Alberto, O. and Javier, M., “ABUG: A Fast Bug-derivative Anytime Path Planner with Provable Suboptimality Bounds,” Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Advanced Robotics, Palma, Spain (Jun. 22–26, 2009) pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
17.Choset, H. and Lynch, K. M., Principles of Robot Motion (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005).Google Scholar
18.Lambrinos, D., Möller, R., Labhart, T., Pfeifer, R. and Wehner, R., “A mobile robot employing insect strategies for navigation,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 30 (1), 39–64 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Franz, M. O. and Mallot, H. A., “Biomimetic robot navigation,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 30 (1), 133–153 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Zenon, M., Miguel, L., and Calvo, J. M. Blanco, Dhir, A., Duff, A., i Badia, S. Bermúdez and Verschure, Paul F. M. J., “Insect-Like Mapless Navigation Based on Head Direction Cells and Contextual Learning Using Chemo-Visual Sensors,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (RSJ), St. Louis, MO, USA (Oct. 10–15, 2009) pp. 2243–2250.Google Scholar
21.Zenon, M., Verschure, Paul F. M. J., and Sergi, B. B., “An Insect-Based Method for Learning Landmark Reliability Using Expectation Reinforcement in Dynamic Environments,” Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Anchorage, Anchorage, AK, USA (May 3–7, 2010) pp. 3805–3812.Google Scholar
22.Kimura, H., Fukuoka, Y. and Cohen, A. H., “Adaptive dynamic walking of a quadruped robot on natural ground based on biological concepts,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 26, 1–25 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Kuwana, Y., Shimoyama, I. and Miura, H., “Steering control of a mobile robot using insect antennae,” Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (RSJ), Tokyo, Japan (Aug. 5–9, 1995), pp. 530–535.Google Scholar
24.Cowan, N. J., Ma, E. J. and Cutkosky, M. and Full, R. J., “A biologically inspired passive antenna for steering control of a running robot,” Robot. Res. Springer Tracts in Adv. Robot. 15, 541–550 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar