See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224587353

Cognitive Robotics: New Insights into Robot and Human Intelligence by

Reverse Engineering Brain Functions

Article  in  IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine · October 2009

DOI: 10.1109/MRA.2009.933617 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

6 265

5 authors, including:

Will Neil Browne Kazuhiko Kawamura

Victoria University of Wellington Vanderbilt University
154 PUBLICATIONS   2,023 CITATIONS    202 PUBLICATIONS   2,873 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jeff Krichmar William Harwin

University of California, Irvine University of Reading
142 PUBLICATIONS   2,430 CITATIONS    171 PUBLICATIONS   3,140 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

mobile robotics education, human-robot interfaces View project

CARLsim: A GPU-accelerated spiking neural network simulator View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hiroaki Wagatsuma on 19 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on September 24, 2009 at 01:32 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 F R O M
Cognitive Robotics: New Insights into Robot and Human Intelligence
by Reverse Engineering Brain Functions
William Browne, Kazuhiko Kawamura, Jeffrey Krichmar, William Harwin, and Hiroaki Wagatsuma
C
ognitive robotics is a fascinating field as it seeks to cap-
ture humanlike behaviors in artificial creations for the
benefit of society. The advent of advances in mecha-
tronic systems, low-cost computational power, and understand-
ing of natural processes has coincided with the need for
autonomous systems to undertake complex, nuanced, and semi-
structured tasks. Using cognitive inspiration facilitates robust-
ness and flexibility for real-world applications of robotics.
The term cognition can be applied to a collection of proc-
esses that are involved in perception and thinking. Not only do
cognitive robots attempt to replicate useful behaviors, but they
are inspired by the underlying processes in natural cognition to
achieve efficiency and effectiveness benefits such as robustness
to subtly changing problem conditions.
There is a long history in robotics of trying to emulate the
performance of humans. This may be at a macroscale, such as
robots copy waling or arm functions, or at subsystem level, such
as using compliance, to design robotic arms that attempt to
mimic the way the muscles, tendons, and neurons control the
movement of an individual joint. Similarly, the biological inspi-
ration may be derived from different levels of abstraction, e.g.,
from psychological behavior analysis to neuronal functionality.
There has also been a long history of trying to mimic the
processes within the brain. Early work in cognitive robotics was
done by the American neuroscientist Grey Walter, who, in
1948, produced a number of very simple light-reactive mobile
robots. The brains of the robots, which Grey Walter labeled
Machina spectulatrix (M. spectulatrix), had essentially two
neurons, each built around a vacuum tube (thermionic valve).
One excitatory neuron caused the robot to move forward in
response to light. A second inhibitory neuron suppressed the
behavior that M. spectulatrix used to scan for a light source,
and thus in combination the Grey Walter’s robots displayed a
general affinity for light [1].
Cognitive robotics has now emerged as a strong interdisci-
plinary research field that seeks to exploit and expand knowl-
edge of both neuroscience and robotics. The majority of
cognitive robotic work considers replicating human and ani-
mal behaviors in robots, but there is a growing interest in using
robotic analogs of the brain to provide insight into the neuro-
science. This special issue has articles that represent both the
approaches. A unique advantage of cognitive models is the
ability to track information flow through the brain in ways that
cannot be done with real brains. This makes cognitive robotics
a powerful tool for understanding brain function and human
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MRA.2009.933617
SEPTEMBER 2009
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hiroaki Wagatsuma. Downloaded on September 22, 2009 at 07:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
T H E G U E S T E D I T O R S
behavior. Cognitive robotics reinforces the concept that the
best way to understand something is by building it.
The brain is a very capable parallel-processing machine. In
an approximately 1,300 g of neurons and glial cells of the brain,
there are about 1011 neurons and 1015 synapses. Although imag-
ing techniques are improving, it is impossible to measure how
spike trains, the fundamental units of neuron communication,
and flow in this network in response to stimuli. Cognitive
robotics offers a two-fold benefit: first, by being embedded in
the physical world, the sensory stimuli are guaranteed to be
representative of the stimuli received by animals, and second,
track the flow of information is simply a matter of providing
storage for the computational representation of the brain. Thus,
it becomes possible to infer what is happening at the individual
cell or synapse of a particular cell.
At the moment, the benefits of cognitive robotic techni-
ques, although important, are only a small component of neu-
roscience. On the other hand, the benefit of neuroscience to
the design of cognitive robotics is in providing a rich source of
inspiration. This enables cognitive robots to integrate with
humans in nuanced, changeable, and complex environments,
leading them to work more independently.
In this special issue on cognitive robotics, we begin with an
article that uses neuroscience to inspire new methods for robot
mapping and navigation (Wyeth and Milford) and end with the
article where the raison d’^etre for the robot is an instrument to
study the processes in the brain (Cox and Krichmar). The issue
also has a representation of processing in animals (Prescott et al.
and Srinivasan et al.) and observations on the processes in humans
(Fleischer and Edelman, and Barakova and Chonnaparamut).
One key area of the brain is the hippocampus, and a seminal
work by Maguire [2] showed its strong relationship to naviga-
tion in humans by showing that the size of the region is
enlarged in London taxi drivers who must have the knowl-
edge, the ability to plan any route in London, before they are
licensed. Wyeth and Milford have based their work on specific
cells in the hippocampus, place cells, that fire in response to a
specific location. By observing the response of the place cells
in rats and linking these to similar grid cells and head-direction
cells, the authors have formulated a flexible program for simul-
taneous location and mapping that they have called RatSLAM.
It would be impossible to do a faithful reproduction of the
processes associated with rat navigation, because it is impossi-
ble to know how this information arrives at the cells in the hip-
pocampus, nor how the cells create viable solutions that enable
rats to map and navigate. However, by reproducing the general
concepts and by making no distinction between learning and
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 17
recall, the authors have created a mapping and navigation system
that is adaptable to both short- and long-term changes in the
environment. They demonstrated their work on a delivery
robot in the laboratory environment. To evaluate the technique
for a more complex problem, they then demonstrate RatSLAM
by creating a map of a Brisbane suburb, using a camera in a note-
book computer mounted on the roof of the car.
The second article is by Fleischer and Edelman. Edelman
won the 1972 Nobel prize in medicine and established a repu-
tation for excellence in neuroscience research that led to a
series of test bed cognitive robots (the Darwin series) to test
hypotheses on specific processes in the brain. The article reit-
erates the fact that neurophysiologists have great difficulty
looking at the topology and timings of an animal brain,
whereas a brain-based device controlling a robot platform can
be analyzed in great detail. The authors note that the brain is a
good model for intelligence and discuss the progress of two
robots in the Darwin series (X and XI) designed to test a
hypothesis of how brain structures relate to the formation of
spatial and episodic memory. The authors also provide an
excellent demonstration of the benefits of using the brain as a
model for intelligence by reporting on the control structures
of a soccer-playing robot based on a Segway base. This robot
proved the prowess of a cognitive approach by winning all five
of its demonstration games in the 2005 RoboCup.
Touch is an ignored sense in most robots. If a bump sensor
on a mobile robot is activated, it is usually an indication of an
unexpected event and closely tied to the safety. Although
many animals use whiskers, feelers, antennae, etc., the sophisti-
cation of a rat’s whisking system makes it particularly interest-
ing for a neurological study and as a model for active touch in
robotics. Prescott and coauthors have studied in some detail
the structure of rat whiskers along with the typical exploratory
behaviors used by the rats and the associated neurological
structures in the brain and sensors. They describe two of the
biomimetic models they are using to study robot whiskering:
whiskerbot, and scratchbot.
Disorders in humans are often a window to the working of
the mind. Early topographical maps such as Penfield’s Homoncu-
lus are based on knowledge of brain damage caused by traumatic
brain injury [3]. Autism is a spectrum disorder primarily mani-
fested in males, where one of the symptoms is a difficulty in
movement preparation and execution. Barakova and Chonnapar-
amut test the hypothesis that this symptom may be a consequence
of differences in the overall delay in processing sensory data caus-
ing a discordance in stimuli. The authors test this hypothesis on
two platforms. The first is the Webot simulated environment and
the second a physical robot, the e-puck. In both cases, they look
at the consequences of the delay in proprioceptive and visual
information using a continuous approximation to the individual
neurons—the dynamic neural field model. The hypothesis
appears to be borne out, but more work is needed.
18 IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
Authorized
View publication stats licensed use limited to: Hiroaki Wagatsuma. Downloaded on September 22, 2009 at 07:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The bee forms the inspiration for the article by Srinivasan
et al. Bees have fixed eyes, with fixed focus, and because of
their small size, minimal binocular stereo, yet, are able to
return to the hive from several miles away and land safely. Bees
appear to use a combination of two simple rules to achieve suc-
cessful landing. The first is that the visual flow velocity is kept
constant when landing and the second is that the forward and
descent velocity are kept in proportion. Having provided evi-
dence of these two rules, Srinivasan et al. test the rules on a
number of R/C models as well as a laboratory test bed. The
article then continues with details of an optical design for a
sensor for visual flow-based landings that can accommodate
data contamination from yaw and roll and supports the idea
that, by understanding the processes involved in human and
animal cognition, we may be able to abstract the key aspects
and use these in furthering the design of competent robots.
The final article by Cox and Krichmar provides a strong
reminder that advances in neuroscience are possible using
robot-based models. The theory underpinning this study is on
the role of neuromodulators in learning in the brain. Neuromo-
dulation refers to the role of a set of neurotransmitters that have
a strong and lasting effect on behaviors. This contrasts with most
neurotransmitters that have a local effect across a single synapse
between the axon of a transmitting neuron and dendrites on the
receiving neuron. The role of the neuromodulating transmitters
appears to be to influence aspects such as reward, response to
risks, levels of attention, novelty, and the anticipation of reward.
CARL-1 is a test-bed robot that sets out to explore the role of
these neuromodulators on behavior. CARL-1 has neural areas
to control Flee and Find behaviors and then explores the proc-
esses modulating these behaviors and attributes these to levels of
the associated neuromodulating transmitter.
Advances in computing, neuroscience, and robotics have
combined to make research in cognitive robotics fruitful with
valuable reward for success, because we need to develop robots
that can integrate with humans in a nuanced, changeable, and
complex-world. Cognitive robotics provide a synergy between
empirical and simulated data and may provide platforms that
can be directly tested against animal models. The importance
of this area of research is highlighted by the U.S. National
Academy of Engineering 21st Century Grand Challenge to
reverse-engineer the brain. The European Union has a similar
agenda with calls in the latest framework program for cognitive
systems, interaction, and robotics in FP7.
References
[1] W. G. Walter, The Living Brain. London: Duckworth, 1953.
[2] E. A. Maguire, D. G. Gadian, I. S. Johnsrude, C. D. Good, J. Ash-
burner, R. S. Frackowiak, and C. D. Frith, ‘‘Navigation-related
structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers,’’ Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, vol. 97, no. 8, pp. 4398–4403, 2000.
[3] W. Penfield and T. Rasmussen, The Cerebral Cortex of Man. New York:
Macmillan, 1950.
SEPTEMBER 2009