Realization and swimming performance of the breaststroke by a swimming humanoid robot

Nakashima, Motomu; Kuwahara, Kohei

doi:10.1186/s40648-016-0049-z

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most experimental testing protocols were conducted with robotic arms or legs mimicking the arm-pull or kicking, respectively 8,10 . These studies came in the wake of researches on propulsion in aquatic animals that also used bio-robots mimicking the motion, for instance, by fish 11 or frogs 12 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Arm-pull thrust in human swimming and the effect of post-activation potentiation

Barbosa

Yam

Lum

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to analyse the front-crawl arm-pull kinetics and kinematics, comparing it before and after post-activation potentiation (PAP), and the associations between variables describing of the arm-pull kinetics. Twelve male competitive swimmers were randomly assigned to perform two different warm-ups in a crossover manner: (i) non-PAP (control condition); and (ii) PAP (experimental condition). PAP consisted of 2 × 5 arm-pulls with resistance bands by both upper-limbs. Eight minutes later, participants underwent a 25 m all-out trial in front-crawl arm-pull. Kinetics (i.e., peak thrust, mean thrust and thrust-time integral) and kinematics (i.e., speed and speed fluctuation) were collected by an in-house customised system composed of differential pressure sensors, speedometer and underwater camera. There was a significant and large improvement of the arm-pull kinetics after completing the warm-up with PAP sets (0.010 < P < 0.054, 0.50 < d < 0.74). There were non-significant and small effects of PAP on speed (P = 0.307, d = 0.18) and speed fluctuation (P = 0.498, d = 0.04). Correlation coefficients among kinetic variables were significant with large associations (0.51 < R < 0.90, 0.001 < P < 0.088). In conclusion, warm-ups including PAP conditioning sets elicit a large improvement in the thrust, but with small improvement in performance. Variables used to characterise thrust are strongly correlated and hence can be used interchangeably.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Arm-pull thrust in human swimming and the effect of post-activation potentiation

Barbosa

Yam

Lum

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With an estimated crawling speed of 0.03 m/s (i. HumanoidRobot, 2010) it is relatively slow with a body height of 1 m compared to humans crawling up to 1.47 m/s (Gallagher et al, 2011). The very specialized humanoid robot Swumanoid (Plastic Pals, 2022) can perform a crawl swim at 0.12 m/s (Nakashima and Kuwahara, 2016), while average human swimmers reach 0.96 m/s (Seifert et al, 2010). The bipedal rolling robot Handle can jump up to 1.2 m (Boston Dynamics, 2017;IEEE Spectrum Robots, 2021).…”

Section: Other Movement Functions: Negotiating Rough Terrain Crawling...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do robots outperform humans in human-centered domains?

Riener,

Rabezzana,

Zimmermann

2023

Front. Robot. AI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incessant progress of robotic technology and rationalization of human manpower induces high expectations in society, but also resentment and even fear. In this paper, we present a quantitative normalized comparison of performance, to shine a light onto the pressing question, “How close is the current state of humanoid robotics to outperforming humans in their typical functions (e.g., locomotion, manipulation), and their underlying structures (e.g., actuators/muscles) in human-centered domains?” This is the most comprehensive comparison of the literature so far. Most state-of-the-art robotic structures required for visual, tactile, or vestibular perception outperform human structures at the cost of slightly higher mass and volume. Electromagnetic and fluidic actuation outperform human muscles w.r.t. speed, endurance, force density, and power density, excluding components for energy storage and conversion. Artificial joints and links can compete with the human skeleton. In contrast, the comparison of locomotion functions shows that robots are trailing behind in energy efficiency, operational time, and transportation costs. Robots are capable of obstacle negotiation, object manipulation, swimming, playing soccer, or vehicle operation. Despite the impressive advances of humanoid robots in the last two decades, current robots are not yet reaching the dexterity and versatility to cope with more complex manipulation and locomotion tasks (e.g., in confined spaces). We conclude that state-of-the-art humanoid robotics is far from matching the dexterity and versatility of human beings. Despite the outperforming technical structures, robot functions are inferior to human ones, even with tethered robots that could place heavy auxiliary components off-board. The persistent advances in robotics let us anticipate the diminishing of the gap.

show abstract

“…The robot also has 24 degrees-of-freedom (DOF) with 24 actuators installed to realize the complex motion of human swimming. To date, the front crawl [15,16], the breaststroke [17], and the butterfly stroke [18] have been realized by the robot. However, the backstroke has not yet been realized.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Realization and Swimming Performance of Backstroke by the Swimming Humanoid Robot

Razi

Nakashima

2019

J. Abmech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to realize the backstroke with the swimming humanoid robot. By realizing the backstroke, the backstroke performance of the robot was assessed regarding the speed and the swimming behavior. The motion for the robot was generated based on the motion of an actual swimmer. However, since the robot did not have sufficient degreesof-freedom to realize the motion, the actual motion was modified. The motion was investigated by simulation and later by the experiment. In the experiment, the robot successfully realized the backstroke at the stroke cycle 2.3 s with a swimming speed of 0.28 m/s.

show abstract

Realization and swimming performance of the breaststroke by a swimming humanoid robot

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Arm-pull thrust in human swimming and the effect of post-activation potentiation

Arm-pull thrust in human swimming and the effect of post-activation potentiation

Do robots outperform humans in human-centered domains?

Realization and Swimming Performance of Backstroke by the Swimming Humanoid Robot

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About