Journal of
Marine Science
and Engineering
Article
Similarity Evaluation Rule and Motion Posture Optimization
for a Manta Ray Robot
Yonghui Cao 1,2,3 , Shumin Ma 1,2,3 , Yingzhuo Cao 1,2,3 , Guang Pan 1,2,3 , Qiaogao Huang 1,2,3 and Yong Cao 1,2,3, *
Citation: Cao, Y.; Ma, S.; Cao, Y.; Pan,
G.; Huang, Q.; Cao, Y. Similarity
Evaluation Rule and Motion Posture
Optimization for a Manta Ray Robot.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10070908
Academic Editors: Xianbo Xiang
and Rafael Morales
Received: 4 May 2022
Accepted: 28 June 2022
Published: 30 June 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10070908
1 School of Marine Science and Technology, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China;
caoyonghui@nwpu.edu.cn (Y.C.); msm@mail.nwpu.edu.cn (S.M.); cyz@mail.nwpu.edu.cn (Y.C.);
panguang@nwpu.edu.cn (G.P.); huangqiaogao@nwpu.edu.cn (Q.H.)
2 Unmanned Vehicle Innovation Center, Ningbo Institute of NPU, Ningbo 315103, China
3 Key Laboratory of Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Technology of Ministry of Industry and Information
Technology, Xi’an 710072, China
* Correspondence: cao_yong@nwpu.edu.cn
Abstract: The current development of manta ray robots is usually based on functional bionics, and
there is a lack of bionic research to enhance the similarity of motion posture. To better exploit the
characteristics of bionic, a similarity evaluation rule is constructed herein by a Dynamic Time Warping
(DTW) algorithm to guide the optimization of the control parameters of a manta ray robot. The
Central Pattern Generator (CPG) network with time and space asymmetry oscillation characteristics
is improved to generate coordinated motion control signals for the robot. To optimize similarity, the
CPG network is optimized with the genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization (GAPSO) to
solve the problems of multiple parameters, high non-linearity, and uncertain parameter coupling in
the CPG network. The experimental results indicate that the similarity between the forward motion
pose of the optimized manta ray robot and the manta ray is improved to 88.53%.
Keywords: manta ray robot; similarity evaluation rule; CPG; GAPSO
1. Introduction
To further improve the stability, mobility, and bioaffinity of robots, the development
of underwater vehicles using bionic means has become an international scientific research
hotspot [1,2]. Through the long-term observation and study of the shape, structure, and
movement characteristics of various organisms, researchers have found that natural selec-
tion and evolution have enabled fish to exhibit extraordinary swimming abilities in the
water, with strong explosive power and flexible mobility [3,4]. The adaptability of organ-
isms to their natural environment is the result of gradual evolution over millions of years.
Among fish, manta rays exhibit high propulsion efficiency, stability, and maneuverability
due to their streamlined, flattened bodies and large span-to-chord ratio pectoral fins [5,6].
Manta rays are excellent bionic objects for underwater robots.
A variety of robots that mimic the morphology and movement of manta rays have
emerged [7], and a fundamental problem that needs to be solved is how to control the
movement of the pectoral and caudal fins to achieve better locomotor capabilities. Neurobi-
ologists believe that the rhythmic behavior of animals is controlled by the central pattern
generator (CPG) network, which is a local oscillatory network composed of intermediate
neurons [8]. It achieves self-excited oscillations through mutual inhibition between neurons,
generating stable periodic signals that lead to the rhythmic movements of limbs and trunk
positions. A few studies have examined the biologically inspired swimming control of
robotic fish using CPG [9,10]. A CPG network based on the Hopf oscillator was used to
control the robot fish Roman-ii, and the modes of forward, backward, turn, and switch
between the modes were realized [11,12]. The CPG-based bionic motion control method
avoids the establishment of a complex dynamics model of a robot, can realize the control of
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 2 of 17

basic motion modes, and has good adaptability to the environment [13]. The determination
of CPG model parameters is mainly based on experience. Each control parameter plays an
important role in the realization of motion mode, and parameter optimization is crucial in
bionic control based on CPGs. Cui, X [14] realized the motion planning of hexapod robots
through a multi-objective genetic algorithm based on the CPG model. Wang, M [15,16]
used a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to optimize CPG parameters, which
enables the caudal swinging robot fish to achieve a higher swimming speed.
From the above studies, scholars on CPG optimization have focused on improving the
speed and efficiency of robots, ignoring the bionic robot’s motion posture optimization. In
contrast, the extraordinary locomotor ability shown by the locomotion and gestures formed
by organisms in the evolutionary process is of great guidance for the optimization direction
of the locomotion control of bionic robots.Zhu, J [17] designed and built a robotic fish
that mimics yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus),
demonstrating the ability of the organisms to swim at high frequencies by measuring body
kinematics, speed, and power. Romano, D. [18] designed a female-mimicking robotic that
mimics the behavior and appearance of female fish color patterns, successfully achieving a
response from real male fish to the robotic fish, providing an advanced strategy for feature-
based ecological studies. Liu, S [19] designed a fluid-driven soft robotic fish that mimics the
red muscular system of fish. Wu, J [20] presented a new approach to the implementation of
active flapping wing motion by imitating the movement of manta rays, and they verified
that the trajectory of the bionic robot is consistent with the fluttering shape of the manta
ray. According to the above research, the development of biomimetic robotic fish research
has been facilitated by a large number of studies on fish behavior. However, there is no
clear quantitative standard for the degree of similarity of mimicry.
As for how to evaluate the simulation degree of bionic robots, researchers have defined
a similarity evaluation method for 7-linked bipedal walking robots. They are based on
spatial-time control from forward and inverse kinematic solving and motion model simpli-
fication and reorientation design methods [21]. From the perspective of motion rhythm
control, researchers have proposed a similarity calculation rule for humanoid robots based
on base segmentation [22,23]. Motor performance aspects such as maximum pitch angle
(MPA), maximum reach height (MRH), maximum bending angle (MBA), and minimum
bending distance (MBD) are used to establish the motor similarity evaluation model of
mouse-like robots [24]. For underwater robots with obvious active and passive deforma-
tion of the motion mechanism, no scholars have yet established a complete evaluation
system, which limits optimization research in the direction of the bionic similarity of manta
ray robots.
In order for a manta ray robot to attain better bionic characteristics that are able to
simulate real manta rays, the motion posture of the manta ray robot should be similar
to that of a manta ray. To solve the problem of how to directionally improve the bionic
similarity of robot motion posture, the similarity evaluation rules of the manta ray robot are
established in this paper. The similarity evaluation rules of motion posture were established
by feature point trajectory extraction and a dynamic time warping (DTW) algorithm. By
introducing the bias equations and time asymmetry coefficients, a phase oscillator model
characterizing the time and space asymmetry of the pectoral fin motion of a manta ray
was established. A CPG topology network based on a phase oscillator was constructed to
give a multi-drive structure to the pectoral fin of the manta ray robot. Based on this, an
adaptation function for the similarity of the motion posture was established to improve
the similarity of the motion posture of the manta ray robot, and a genetic algorithm and
particle swarm optimization (GAPSO) method for CPG network parameters is proposed.
The similarity evaluation rule and the parameter optimization results were verified by the
pool experiments.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18

J. Mar.J. Mar.
Sci. Eng. 10, 908
2022,2022,
Sci. Eng. 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of3 of
18 17

2. Method
2.1.2.Forward
Method
2. MethodSwimming Posture of Manta Ray
2.1.Forward
Forward
2.1. ForwardSwimming
SwimmingPosture
swimming isPosture
one ofofofthe
Manta most
Manta Rayimportant movement postures of manta rays.
Ray
In the forward
Forward swimming
swimming posture, the pectoral fins onmovement
both sidespostures
of the manta ray rays.
are
Forward swimmingisisoneoneof of themostmost important
important movement postures ofofmanta
manta rays.
flapping
In In symmetrically,
thethe
forward generating
swimming posture, fluctuation
the pectoraltransmission
fins on bothin both
sides
forward swimming posture, the pectoral fins on both sides of the manta ray are ofthe
thespreading
manta rayand
are
chordal
flappingdirections, thus
symmetrically, generating
generating forward thrust
fluctuation and upward
transmission lift,
in
flapping symmetrically, generating fluctuation transmission in both the spreading and as
both seen
the in Figure
spreading 1b.
and
The motion
chordal
chordal of the posterior
directions, thus
directions, edge of the
thusgenerating
generating pectoral
forward
forward finand
thrust
thrust lagsupward
and behindlift,
upward theasas
lift, anterior edge.
seenininFigure
seen FigureThe
1b.1b.
The
maximum motion
The of of
amplitude
motion the posterior
ofposterior
the edge
edgeofof
the upstroke isthe
thepectoral
much largerfin
pectoral lags
than
fin behind
that
lags the
of thethe
behind anterioredge.
downstroke,
anterior edge.
andTheThe
the
maximum
time spent
maximumonamplitude
amplitudeof
upstrokes the
theupstroke
isofgreater than that
upstroke isismuch
spentlarger
much than
on downstrokes,
larger that of
than that ofthe
the downstroke,
showing obvious
downstroke, and
and the
space
the
andtime
timespent
time onon upstrokes
asymmetry.
spent upstrokesisisgreater
greaterthan
thanthat that spent downstrokes,showing
spent on downstrokes, showingobvious
obviousspace
space
and time
and asymmetry.
time asymmetry.

FigureFigure
1. (a)
Figure 1.
1. (a)(a) Coordinate
Coordinate system
system
Coordinate system establishment.
establishment. (b)
(b)(b)
establishment. Forward
Forward motion
motion
Forward sequence.
motionsequence.
sequence.

ToTo To further
further
further analyze
analyze
analyze thethe
the kinematics
kinematics
kinematics ofof
of the
the
the forward
forward
forward swimmingof
swimming
swimming ofmanta
of mantarays
manta raysinin
rays the
inthe lat-
lateral
the lat-
eral
view, view,
three three
typical typical
points points
on on
the the pectoral
pectoral fin fin
of of manta
manta rays
rays were
were
eral view, three typical points on the pectoral fin of manta rays were selected for kinematic selected
selected for
for kinematic
kinematic
analysis.
analysis. The The coordinatesystem
coordinate system isestablished
established withwith the symmetrical center ofofthe
themanta’s
analysis. The coordinate system is isestablished with symmetricalcenter
the symmetrical centerof the manta’s
manta’s
head as the origin ofthe
thecoordinate
coordinatesystem.
system. The The X-axis
X-axis is the longitudinal direction of the
head as the origin of the coordinate system. The X-axis is the longitudinal direction ofofthe
head as the origin of is the longitudinal direction the
pectoral
pectoral fin,fin,
thethe Y-axis
Y-axis is is the
the chordal
chordal direction
direction of of
thethetrunk,
trunk,and
andthetheZ-axis
Z-axisperpendicular
perpendicularto
pectoral fin, the Y-axis is the chordal direction of the trunk, and the Z-axis perpendicular
thetotrunk
the trunk
planeplane
can becan be obtained
obtained according
according to the torule.
the rule.
When When observed
observed fromfrom the side
the side view
to theview
trunk plane
angle, thecan be obtained
chordal motion ofaccording
the feature topoint
the rule.
is When
mainly observed
reflected in from
the the mo-
Z-axis side
angle, the chordal motion of the feature point is mainly reflected in the Z-axis motion, and
view tion,
angle, andthethechordal motion of theoffeature
displacement point is mainly The reflected intrajectory
the Z-axis mo-
the displacement change of change
the X-axisthe X-axis
is negligible.is negligible.
The motion motion
trajectory of the of the
feature
tion, and
featurethepoint
displacement
is representedchangeFigure
of the2.X-axis is negligible. The motion trajectory of the
point is represented in Figure in 2.
feature point is represented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Pectoral fin feature point motion trajectory.

Figure 2. Pectoral fin feature point motion trajectory.
As can be seen in Figure 2, the curves of the motion characteristics of points P1 , P2 , and
Figure 2. Pectoral
P3 over time arefinsinusoidal-like.
feature point motion trajectory.
P1 differs in the amplitude and time taken to beat up and
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 4 of 17

down, and P1 , P2 and P3 differ in the time taken to reach the extremes. These differences
indicate that the typical characteristic point movements on the pectoral fins of manta rays
when they flutter forward are sinusoidal-like with temporal asymmetry, spatial asymmetry,
and phase difference properties. The quantitative analysis of Pi is shown in Equation (1).
In order to better guide the manta robot to realize a motion posture similar to that of a
manta ray, we conduct the parameter design of the motion posture of the manta robot in
this paper. The parameters of feature points in Equation (1) are quantitatively analyzed.
The kinematic equation is summarized in Equation (2).

zi = R xi + Ri sin(2πvi t + ∆ϕij ) (1)



 R1 : R2 : R3 = 1.6 : 0.6 : 0.3

 R x1 : R x2 : R x3 = 0.3 : 0.1 : −0.5

(2)

 v1 = v2 = v3 = 0.4Hz

 ∆ϕ = 9.5◦ , ∆ϕ = 52.3◦

12 13

Here, R xi is the bias value caused by the different amplitudes of up and down and
can be calculated according to ( Ri_up + Ri_down )/2 − Ri_down . Ri is the desired amplitude,
which represents the maximum value that flaps with the bias value as the center and
can be calculated according to ( Ri_up + Ri_down )/2. vi is the flapping frequency, which is
calculated based on the time it takes to beat up and down, vi = 1/( Ti_up + Ti_down ). ∆ϕij is
the phase difference between Pi and Pj , calculated from the time difference between Pi and
Pj when they reach their extreme points.

2.2. Manta Ray Robot Design and Control

2.2.1. Robot Design and Its Pectoral Fin Flexible Deformation Analysis
To achieve a manta ray robot with a similar posture to the manta ray, the main
morphological features of the manta ray robot should be the same as those of a manta ray.
In this paper, the design of the manta ray robot is modeled on the biological appearance
of the manta ray and the structural features of the pectoral and caudal fins. In order to
resemble the manta ray as closely as possible, a 2D front, side, and top view of the manta
ray was taken and used as a prototype to design and produce an accurate 3D model of the
manta ray robot. The manta ray robot is mainly composed of the main structure, pectoral
fin structure, and tail fin structure. The overall dimensions are 934 × 570 ×100 mm and the
total weight is 10 kg, as shown in Figure 3.
The body of the manta ray robot has a flattened base and a raised back made of nylon;
inside the body, there are basic electronics such as the main control board, attitude sensor,
battery, and communication equipment. The pectoral fins are made of a three-stage flutter
fin structure that mimics the pectoral fin skeleton of a manta ray robot, with each stage
driven by a waterproof servo. The pectoral fins are connected to each other using silicone
to mimic the musculature and structure of the pectoral fins. The caudal fin section is driven
by a waterproof servo with a caudal fin plate, the outer side of which is silicone to mimic
the shape of the biological caudal fin. Both the pectoral and caudal fins are made of silicone
with a gradual change in thickness to mimic the flexibility of a biological caudal fin.
The forward swimming posture of the manta ray is mainly achieved via pectoral fin
flapping, and its motion performance determines the swimming performance of the robot.
The pectoral fins on both sides of the manta ray robot are completely symmetrical; therefore,
the analysis of the motion performance of the pectoral fins is only performed on one side of
the pectoral fins. If the flexible deformation of the fins is ignored, the displacement of the
endpoint of the fins along the Z-axis direction hi is related to the rudder output angle θi
as follows:
hi = li sin(θi ) (3)
J. J.Mar.
Mar.Sci.
Sci.Eng.
Eng.2022, 10,x 908
2022,10, FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of
5 of 1817

Mantaray
Figure3.3.Manta
Figure rayrobot
robotdesign
designandandbuild:
build:(a)(a)Three-view
Three-viewcomparison
comparison of
of the
the manta
manta ray robot and a
a manta
manta ray;
ray; (b)
(b) The
The structure
structure of
of the
the robot;
robot; (c)
(c) A
A physical
physicalphoto
photoof
ofthe
themanta
mantaray
rayrobot
robotin
inthe
thepool.
pool.

However,
The body ofunder the condition
the manta ray robotthat hasthe current and
a flattened basethe
andflexibility of themade
a raised back fins themselves
of nylon;
exist, the
inside thebody,
fins exhibit
there arenotbasic
only electronics
active deformation
such as thecontrolled by theboard,
main control rudderattitude
outputsensor,
but also
passive flexibility along the spreading direction [25]. The actual flap
battery, and communication equipment. The pectoral fins are made of a three-stage flutter of the fins underwater
is structure
fin smaller thanthatthat under
mimics theactive control.
pectoral Taking the
fin skeleton of aupstroke
manta ray flapping
robot, of pectoral
with fins as
each stage
an example, the gray part represents the actual motion deformation
driven by a waterproof servo. The pectoral fins are connected to each other using silicone of strings due to fluid
load, as shown in Figure 4a.
to mimic the musculature and structure of the pectoral fins. The caudal fin section is
drivenThe by aflexible deformation
waterproof servo with of the fins varies
a caudal approximately
fin plate, the outer sideaccording
of which to is
the parabolic
silicone to
law along the wingspan direction [26,27]. The magnitude of flexural
mimic the shape of the biological caudal fin. Both the pectoral and caudal fins are made deformation varies
ofcontinuously
silicone withwith torque.
a gradual Take the
change torque attothe
in thickness tip asthe
mimic anflexibility
example, of when the flap caudal
a biological starts to
flap
fin. down from the highest point, the torque increases gradually. Then, the torque is at its
maximum when it passes the horizontal position, following which
The forward swimming posture of the manta ray is mainly achieved via pectoral fin it starts to decrease, and
it reaches the minimum value when the flap flaps up and passes
flapping, and its motion performance determines the swimming performance of the robot. the horizontal position
again.
The Therefore,
pectoral fins onthe expression
both sides of oftheflexible
manta deformation
ray robot areiscompletely
shown in Equation
symmetrical; (4). there-
fore, the analysis of the motion performance of the pectoral x 2 y 2 fins is only performed on one
side of the pectoral fins. If the flexibleθi ( t ) = θi + θtip (t)(of )the
deformation ( fins
) is ignored, the displacement (4)
b c
of the endpoint of the fins along the Z-axis direction hi is related to the rudder output
angle θi as follows:

hi = li sin(θi ) (3)
 However, under the condition that the current and the flexibility of the fins them-
selves exist, the fins exhibit not only active deformation controlled by the rudder output
but also passive flexibility along the spreading direction [25]. The actual flap of the fins
underwater is smaller than that under active control. Taking the upstroke flapping of pec-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 6 of 17
toral fins as an example, the gray part represents the actual motion deformation of strings
due to fluid load, as shown in Figure 4a.

Figure 4.
Figure Analysisof
4. Analysis ofpectoral
pectoralfin
finflexible
flexible deformation.
deformation. (a)(a)Schematic
Schematic diagram
diagram of
ofpassive
passive deformation
deformation
of pectoral
of pectoral fins;
fins; (b)
(b) The
The graph of hh
graph of i versus time;
versus (c)(c)
time; TheThegraph ofof
graph h versus
hi versus output angle.
output angle.
i i

Here, b is half the span length, c is the chord length of the fin root, θi is the angle
The flexible deformation of the fins varies approximately according to the parabolic
of active deformation, and θtip is the wing tip torsion angle, both of which are shown in
law along the wingspan direction [26,27]. The magnitude of flexural deformation varies
Equations (5) and (6):
continuously with torque. Take the torque θi = sinat(2πv
the tip as an example, when the flap starts
i t) (5)
to flap down from the highest point, the torque increases gradually. Then, the torque is at
π
its maximum when it passes θthe tip (horizontal
t) = θtip_max position,
sin(2πvfollowing
it − ) which it starts to decrease,
(6)
2
and it reaches the minimum value when the flap flaps up and passes the horizontal posi-
Substituting
tion again. Equations
Therefore, (5) and (6)
the expression into Equation
of flexible (4), theisexpression
deformation for the displace-
shown in Equation (4).
ment hi of the endpoint of the root fin along the Z-axis direction is shown in Equation (7).
The simulation results for hi are shown in Figure 4b,c. x y
θi (t ) = θi + θtip (t )( )2 ( )2 (4)
c b
π x 2 y 2
hi = li sin(θi + θtip_max sin(2πvi t − )( ) ( ) ) (7)
Here, b is half the span length, c is the chord length2 b of the
c fin root, θi is the an-
2.2.2.
gle of Construction of CPGand
active deformation, θtipOscillator
Phase is the wing tip torsion angle, both of which are shown
The manta ray’s swimming
in Equations (5) and (6): posture is controlled by the CPG. The manta ray’s fin rays
are driven by the corresponding muscle groups, which are controlled by CPG neural units.
All units form CPG neural networks throughθi = sin(2complex
π vi t ) connections to control the phase(5)
difference, swing frequency, swing amplitude, and other parameters between the fin rays,
thus forming the manta ray’s complex kinematic characteristics. π If an artificial CPG neural
θ (t ) = θ tip _ max sin(2π vi t − ) (6)
control network can be establishedtipto simulate the real CPG 2 neural network, the manta ray
robot will achieve bionics from morphology to motion posture. The artificial CPG control
method needs to meet the kinematic characteristics of manta rays so that the pectoral fin
can have the sinusoidal motion characteristics of time and space asymmetry, and the swing
amplitude, frequency, and phase difference between fins can be controlled. Commonly
used CPG non-linear oscillator models include the phase oscillator model, the recursive
oscillator model, and the Hopf oscillator model. The phase oscillator model has meaningful
parameters such as amplitude, phase difference, and frequency, and is more suitable for the
kinematic bionic control of manta ray robots [8]. Therefore, the phase oscillator model is
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 7 of 17

chosen to construct the CPG neural network in this paper. The traditional phase oscillator
model is shown in Equation (8):
 .. . 
ri = ai a4i ( Ri − ri ) − ri



 .

φi = 2πvi + ∑ ωij sin φj − φi − ∆ϕij


(8)

 j

θi = ri [1 + cos(φi )]


Here, the first equation is the amplitude equation. ri is the amplitude, ai is the
amplitude convergence coefficient, which can control the amplitude convergence rate, and
Ri is the expected amplitude. The second equation is the phase equation. φi is the phase in
the current state; ωij is the coupling weight, which represents the coupling weight of unit j
to unit i; and ∆ϕij is the expected phase difference between oscillators i and j. The third
equation is the output equation, and θi is the output of oscillator i, which is determined by
both φi and ri .
The forward motion of manta rays has the characteristics of space asymmetry and time
asymmetry, while the phase oscillator equation can only output a cosine signal greater than
0. To better achieve the purpose of imitating real manta ray motion, this paper improves
the initial phase oscillator model by introducing an amplitude bias to realize the space
asymmetric flutter characteristics and setting different up and down strike frequencies to
realize the time asymmetric characteristics.
The bias equation for the amplitude is constructed from the amplitude equation shown
in Equation (9): hm
.. .
i
r xi = mi i ( R xi − r xi ) − r xi (9)
4
where r xi is the bias, mi is the bias convergence coefficient, and R xi is the desired bias.
At the same time, it is defined as the pectoral fin flapping mode when the space
asymmetry coefficient αi line Ri is not equal to 0, and λi represents the ratio of the maximum
Z-axis displacement of the fin in the whole down (or up) stroke. The space asymmetry
coefficient λi is shown in Equation (10).

Ri + R xi
λi = , Ri 6 = 0 (10)
2Ri

By combining Equations (5) and (6), the amplitude bias equation is shown in Equation (11):
..
hm .
i
r xi = mi i ((2λi − 1) Ri − r xi ) − r xi , Ri 6= 0 (11)
4
The difference between the upstroke travel time and the downstroke travel time can
be expressed in terms of frequency vi . When the pectoral fin of the manta ray is flapping
up vi = vi_up , and when the pectoral fin of the manta ray is flapping down vi = vi_down .
To determine whether the pectoral fin is in an upstroke or a downstroke, the positive or
·
negative value of θi can be used. At the same time, this paper introduces a time asymmetric
flapping coefficient ηi , defined as the ratio of the fin up-tempo travel time to the flapping
period, so that the frequency equation can be expressed as Equation (12):
 .
 v =v 1
i i_up = 2ηi Ti , θ i > 0
1
. (12)
vi = vi_down =
2(1−ηi ) Ti
, θi ≤ 0

Substituting Equations (11) and (12) into the original phase oscillator model, the im-
proved phase oscillator model is shown in Equation (13), the meanings of model parameters
are shown in Table 1.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 8 of 17

Table 1. Parameters of the phase oscillator model.

Parameter Meaning Parameter Meaning

vi flapping frequency ηi time asymmetric coefficient
Ti flapping period ri amplitude
ai amplitude convergence coefficient Ri expected amplitude
r xi bias mi bias convergence coefficient
λi pace asymmetry coefficient φi phase
ωij coupling weight ∆ϕij expected phase

In the manta ray robot, the CPG unit corresponding to the first level of fins on one side
plays a more prominent role, and the pectoral fin units on one side are closely linked, while
the pectoral fin units on the left and right sides are relatively weakly linked, so this paper
chooses the simplest form of connection to build the CPG network, as shown in Figure 5a.
  .
  vi = vi_up = 2η1T , θ i > 0
i i
 
.


 1


  v i = v i_down = 2 ( 1 − η ) T
, θi ≤ 0

  i i

 ..  ai . 

 r i = ai 4 ( Ri − ri ) − r i
.. .  (13)
r xi = mi m4i ((2λi − 1) Ri − r xi ) − r xi , Ri 6= 0



J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18

.


φi = 2πvi + ∑ ωij sin φj − φi − ∆ϕij





j





θi = r xi + ri sin(φi )

Figure
Figure 5. Motion
5. Motion control
control simulation
simulation of aofmanta
a manta
rayray robot
robot based
based on on
thethe
CPGCPG network.
network. (a) (a) A graph
A graph of of
the topology network connection form; (b) A graph of the CPG network output.
the topology network connection form; (b) A graph of the CPG network output.

Table 1. Parameters
It can of the
be seen from phase
the oscillatorresult
simulation model.that the oscillator successfully realizes the
signal output of space asymmetry and time asymmetry, as shown in Figure 5b. The
Parameter Meaning Parameter Meaning
characteristics of the output waveform of the improved phase oscillator model have been
vi flappingconsistent
preliminarily
η
frequency with that of a real manta i time asymmetric
ray. To maintain similaritycoefficient
with the
Ti motion flapping
trajectoryperiod r
of the pectoral fin of a manta ray
i amplitude
when it swims forward, the parameters
ai in the oscillator
amplitude be further optimized. Ri
need tocoefficient
convergence expected amplitude
rxi bias Evaluation Rule Establishment
2.3. Bionic Similarity mi bias convergence coefficient
λi pace asymmetry
The manta raycoefficient φi movements of a manta ray,
robot can visually imitate the phase
but the visual
ωij similarity is not a scientific
coupling weight method of Δ ϕ
determining whether
ij
or not the imitation is accurate.
expected phase

It can be seen from the simulation result that the oscillator successfully realizes the
signal output of space asymmetry and time asymmetry, as shown in Figure 5b. The char-
acteristics of the output waveform of the improved phase oscillator model have been pre-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 9 of 17

The lack of a quantitative method to evaluate this similarity makes it difficult to improve
the imitation of motion and limits the application of optimal control strategies for manta
ray robots. The trajectory in space can often be directly expressed as the posture of the
robot in the process of motion. Therefore, this paper establishes a similarity evaluation rule
for quantitative motion states.
Due to poor controllability and reproducibility in animal experiments, it is difficult to
obtain good reproducibility of the observed manta ray motion behavior. However, in order
to reduce the variability between manta ray behaviors, we observed a lot of manta ray
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEERbehavioral
REVIEW activities. For the quantitative analysis of the similarity of the motion 10 of 18 posture,
this paper will use the trajectory relationship between the angles of the pectoral fins to
evaluate the similarity of the motion posture of the manta ray robot and the manta ray.
Forthe
For theselection
selection of of feature
feature points,
points, thisthis
paper paper
takestakes the endpoints
the endpoints of the of the pectoral
pectoral fins fins as
the feature points from the perspective of the manta
as the feature points from the perspective of the manta ray robot, and the correspondingray robot, and the corresponding fea-
ture points
feature pointsofofthe
thepectoral
pectoral fins fins of the manta
of the mantaray rayare
areselected
selected according
according to their
to their propor-proportional
relationship,
tional as shown
relationship, as shown in Figure in Figure 6. Then,
6. Then,the the
trajectory coordinate
trajectory coordinate points
pointsofofthe themanta ray
featureray
manta points
featurecan be represented
points can be represented by a vector Mi =M{i q=i1{,qqi1i2, q, iq2 ,i3q,i 3.,...,
by a vector } (}(
. . ,qqinin i =i 1,=2, 3)
1, .2, 3). The
trajectory
The coordinate
trajectory coordinate points
pointsofofthe the manta
manta ray rayrobot
robotfeature
feature points
points cancan be represented by a
be represented
vector
by Qi =Qi{=w{i1w,i1w
a vector , wi2i 2, ,w
wi3i 3 ,..., win } (in
, . . . , w i =}(1,i 2,=3)1,. The
2, 3)difficulty
. The difficulty of photographing
of photographing underwater underwater
moving objects leads to differences in synchronization when sampling feature points of points of
moving objects leads to differences in synchronization when sampling feature
the manta
the mantaray raymimicking
mimicking robot robotandand manta mantarays. rays.
The timeTheseries
time of series feature of points
featureexist points exist
roughly similarly in terms of time but are not in one-to-one
roughly similarly in terms of time but are not in one-to-one correspondence in the time correspondence in the time
series.Calculation
series. Calculation with with a traditional
a traditional distancedistance algorithm
algorithm without without
considering considering
the dynamic the dynamic
changes
changesinintimetime will
willcause cause bigbig errors.
errors.

Figure
Figure6.6.Experimental
Experimentalsystem for similarity
system evaluation
for similarity of manta ray
evaluation ofrobot.
manta (a)ray
The robot.
graph of(a)
feature
The graph of
point selection; (b) Feature point processing software interface; (c) Schematic diagram of the exper-
feature point selection; (b) Feature point processing software interface; (c) Schematic diagram of
imental setup; (d) Physical diagram of the experimental setup; (e) Schematic diagram of underwater
the experimental
camera connection. setup; (d) Physical diagram of the experimental setup; (e) Schematic diagram of
underwater camera connection.
DTW is a dynamic programming algorithm for calculating the similarity of two se-
quences, especially those of different lengths, and is mainly applied to time-series data
[28,29]. DTW matches the data points of a time-series by bending the time domain of the
time-series, not only to obtain a better morphological measure but also to measure two
sequences of unequal length. This paper assumes that two-time series A and B are repre-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 10 of 17

DTW is a dynamic programming algorithm for calculating the similarity of two

sequences, especially those of different lengths, and is mainly applied to time-series
data [28,29]. DTW matches the data points of a time-series by bending the time domain
of the time-series, not only to obtain a better morphological measure but also to measure
two sequences of unequal length. This paper assumes that two-time series A and B are
represented as A : { a1 , a2 , · · · , ai , · · · , an } and B : {b1 , b2 , · · · , bi , · · · , bm }. DTW can be
expressed as the following objective function:


 g(i, j) = d ai , b j + min{ g(i − 1, j − 1), g(i − 1, j), g(i, j − 1)}

DTW ( A, B) = g(m, n) (14)

i = 2, 3, · · · n; j = 2, 3, · · · m;


where d(ik , jk ) = | a(i ) − b( j)| denotes the absolute error between a(i ) and b( j), and g(i, j)
is the cumulative distance of local distances on the path from ( a(1), b(1)) to ( a(i ), b(i )).
The analysis of the DTW algorithm above shows that it can calculate the similarity
of two time series of different lengths. In this section, the DTW algorithm is used to
evaluate the similarity Sma ( Mi , Qi ) between the motion pose of the manta ray robot and
the manta ray.
1
Sma ( Mi , Qi ) = DTW ( M,Q)
(15)
1+ k
Here, k is the number of feature points.

2.4. Optimization Study on the Similarity of Forward Swimming Posture

Forward swimming is the main motion posture of manta rays, which is the basic mode
for manta rays to complete multimodal motion and the prerequisite for the manta ray robot
to be more like manta rays. The improved CPG control model can mimic the multimodal
motion control of real manta rays with good stability and adjustability. However, there are
many parameters in the CPG network, and it is very difficult to adjust them by manual trial
or experimental method. To improve the similarity of the forward swimming posture of the
manta ray robot faster and more accurately, this paper establishes the adaptation function
of the posture similarity and combines the optimization algorithm for the CPG network
parameters. The forward swimming posture of the manta ray only requires both pectoral
fins. The caudal fin is hardly involved. Pectoral fins flutter symmetrically when the manta
ray swims forward, so this paper only optimizes the CPG model parameters for one side of
the pectoral fins to complete the similarity optimization of the forward swimming posture.
The standard PSO algorithm accomplishes the optimal search by tracking the individ-
ual optimum and the population optimum, which is simple and converges quickly [30,31].
However, as the number of iterations increases, each particle becomes more and more simi-
lar, and it is easy to fall into a local optimum that cannot be jumped out of. GAPSO is used
in this paper. In this algorithm, GA is introduced into particle swarm optimization [32,33]
and then the crossover and mutation steps in the genetic algorithm are used to obtain a
better next-generation population after the PSO algorithm finds the optimal individual and
population. The GAPSO algorithm not only retains the original location transfer of the PSO
algorithm but also integrates the powerful global search ability of the genetic algorithm,
making the optimization process more efficient. It makes the search process more efficient
and less likely to fall into a local optimum, and the obtained solution is thus more accurate.
In this paper, the trajectory relationship between the corresponding feature points is
used to evaluate the similarity between the motion posture of the manta ray robot and
the real manta ray. The trajectory coordinate points of manta ray feature points over time
that can be represented by a vector Si = {qi1 , qi2 , qi3 , . . . , qin }, where qij is the coordinate
position of the manta ray’s pectoral fin feature points along the Z-axis over time.
The coordinate points of the trajectory of the pectoral fins of the manta ray robot can be
represented by the vector Mi = {wi1 , wi2 , wi3 , . . . , win }, and wij is the coordinate position of
the pectoral fins of the manta ray robot along the Z-axis over time. Considering the flexible
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 11 of 17

deformation of the pectoral fins of the manta ray robot when it flaps in the water, wij can
be calculated by Equation (16):

π x 2 y 2
wij = li sin(θi + θtip sin(2πvt − )( ) ( ) ) (16)
2 b c
Since a simulation does not exist to compare two data points with different lengths of
time series, the Euclidean distance algorithm is chosen to calculate the similarity value of
the two models during the motion pose similarity simulation [34], and then the similarity
function can be expressed by Equation (17). The fitness function established in this way is
Equation (18): s
n
d ( S i , Mi ) = ∑ ( q i − wi )2 (17)
i =1

f itness = min(d(Si , Mi )) (18)

Due to the mechanical constraints of the manta ray robot, the maximum amplitude
of pectoral fin flapping cannot exceed its mechanical limit. The stretching of the silicone
pectoral fins cannot be too large, and to avoid damage to the silicone pectoral fins the phase
difference between the two fins should be guaranteed to be within the safe stretching range,
so the constraint is shown in Equations (19) and (20):

− wimax ≤ wi ≤ wimax , wimax = 60◦ (19)

∆ϕij ≤ 35◦ (20)

3. Results
3.1. Forward Swimming Posture Test of Manta Ray Robot
The forward swimming posture of a manta ray is often characterized by space asym-
metric flapping and slip-flapping. The above multimodal motions involve the symmetric
flapping of the pectoral fins on both sides. Therefore, this paper only needs to simulate
one side of the pectoral fin flap to simulate the manta flap. Based on the forward travel
parameters obtained in Equation (2) and the relationship between the displacement of the
prototype fins along the Z-axis and the rudder output angle, the parameter initialization
setting of the forward travel attitude is carried out in this paper.


 R1 = 1.9Rl , R2 = R3 = Rl
◦

 R4 = 1.9Rr , R5 = R6 = Rr , Rr = Rl = 10



vi = v = 0.4Hz (21)
 ∆ϕ12 = ∆ϕ45 = 9.5◦ , ∆ϕ23 = ∆ϕ56 = 42.8◦ , ∆ϕ14 = 0◦





ω=2


Firstly, the initial state of the CPG network is set as the space asymmetric coefficients
λ1 = λ2 = 0.67, λ3 = 0.4, and the time asymmetric coefficients ηi = 0.4. The time taken
from the starting state to the steady state is about 1 s, realizing the asymmetric cruise state
forward in time and space. Six seconds later, the above bias state is realized as the gliding
state, and 10 s later the acceleration frequency is 0.67, the amplitude increases to 1.3Rl , and
the space asymmetric coefficients λ1 = λ2 = 0.5. The whole process simulates the common
manta ray forward cruise. The effectiveness of the CPG bionic control established in this
paper is verified, as shown in Figure 7.
r. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 12 of 17

Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18

Figure 7. Forward swimming posture simulation diagram.

Figure 7. Forward swimming posture simulation diagram.
Figure 7. Forward swimming posture simulation diagram.
To verify theTovalidity
verify theof validity
the simulation, this paper
of the simulation, thisconducts a forward
paper conducts swimming
a forward swimming ex-
experiment with a manta ray robot. The manta ray robot was flapped with
periment with a manta ray robot. The manta ray robot was flapped with a space a space asym-asymmetry
To0.7,verify
metry factor factor
of ofthe
the validity
0.7,amplitude was set
the amplitude
of 40°,
the
wastoset
simulation,
to and the frequency
40◦ , and
this
and
the frequency
paper
phase
and
conducts
difference
phase
a forward s
difference were
experiment
were kept the
keptsame aswith
the same a manta
theassimulation
the raysettings.
robot.
settings.
simulation The
TheThemotionmanta
motionframe ray robotisiswas
diagram
frame diagram shown
shownflapped with
in Figure 8 a sp
Figure 8metry
andand
thefactor
basic
the performance
basic 0.7, theisamplitude
ofperformance shown
is shown inin Figure
was9.set
Figure 9. to 40°, and the frequency and phase
were kept the same as the simulation settings. The motion frame diagram is
Figure 8 and the basic performance is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 8. Forward swimming

Figure motion
8. Forward sequence
swimming frame
motion diagram
sequence in diagram
frame the swimming experiment.
in the swimming experiment.
22, 10,2022,
i. Eng. x FOR10,PEER
x FOR REVIEW
PEER REVIEW 14 of 1814 of 18

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 13 of 17

(a) (b)

Figure 9. Experimental results of forward swimming. (a) Motion sequence diagram of manta robot
with the pectoral(a)
fin feature points of a manta ray; (b) Performance of forward(b)
swimming.
9. Experimental
Figureresults
Figure 9. Experimental of forwardresults of forward swimming.
swimming. (a) Motion (a)sequence
Motion sequence
diagram diagram of manta
ofinmanta robot
robot
To verifywith
thethe
effectiveness
pectoral fin
of thepoints
feature
bionic of
motion
a manta
control
ray; (b)
method constructed
Performance of forward
this
swimming.
with the pectoral
paper, fin feature
the similarity points of rule
calculation a manta ray; (b) Performance
constructed in Section 2.3ofisforward
used to swimming.
calculate the
To verifyforward
similarity of the fluttering the effectiveness
swimming of posture.
the bionicInmotion control
this paper, themethod
similarityconstructed
value in this
To verify
between thethe effectiveness
paper,
manta ray of calculation
the similarity
robot and the
real bionic motion
mantarule
ray control
constructed
forward method
in Section
swimming 2.3constructed
is used
posture in thisthe
to calculate
is 19.49%
paper,
through similarity
the similarity
the similarity of the
calculation fluttering
evaluationrule forward
constructed
of motion swimming posture.
in Section
posture. The In
2.3
similarity this paper,
is used
value is stilltothe similarity
calculate
small, but value
the
the motion between the manta ray robot and real manta ray forward swimming posture is 19.49%
similarity of thetrend is consistent
fluttering withswimming
forward that of the manta ray, which
posture. In thisverifies
paper,the effectiveness
the similarity value
through the similarity evaluation of motion posture. The similarity value is still small, but
of the bionic control.
between the manta ray robot and real manta ray forward swimming posture is 19.49%
the motion trend is consistent with that of the manta ray, which verifies the effectiveness of
through the similarity evaluation
the bionic control. of motion posture. The similarity value is still small, but
3.2. Forward Swimming Posture Optimization Based on Similarity
the motion trend is consistent with that of the manta ray, which verifies the effectiveness
The trajectory of the Swimming
3.2. Forward manta rayPosture
robot Optimization
was extracted andonthe
Based similarity to the manta
Similarity
of the bionic control.
ray motion was calculated to be of
The trajectory only
the19.49%.
manta ray According
robot was toextracted
the manually and thecalculated
similarity CPG
to the manta
control parameters that still
ray motion wasneed to be to
calculated improved, this paper
be only 19.49%. uses the
According GAPSO
to the algorithm
manually calculated CPG
3.2. Forward Swimming
to optimize them
control Posture
while
parameters Optimization
comparing thatthe
stillGA
need Based
and PAO
to be on algorithms.
Similarity
improved, Manyuses
this paper parameters
the GAPSO needalgorithm to
to
The optimize
be trajectory
optimized. To
of avoidthem
the manta while comparing
the optimization the
ray robot algorithm GA and
was extracted PAO
falling and algorithms.
into local Many
optimization
the similarity parameters
tointhe need to
the manta
process was be optimized.
of solving the objectiveTo avoid the optimization algorithm falling into local optimization in the
ray motion calculated to be function,
only 19.49%. this paper firstly optimized
According a single CPG
to the manually unit to CPG
calculated
obtain
control
process
the optimal
parameters
of solving
solution
that still range
need
theofobjective
to each unit
be improved, ηi , λi ,this
function, andpaper firstlycoupling
Ri . Then, optimized a single CPG unit to
parameters
obtain the optimal solution range of eachthis unitpaper usesR the
ηi , λi , and GAPSO algorithm
i . Then, coupling parameters
are added to
to optimize themare optimize
while the CPG
comparing network. The iteration speed and optimal values of the need
added to optimize the GA and
the CPG PAOThe
network. algorithms.
iteration speed Many andparameters
optimal values of the
simulation aresimulation
shown in are Figure 10a.inThe optimized
10a. Theparameters are shown are in Table
shown2.in Table 2.
to be optimized. To avoid the optimization algorithm falling into local optimization in the
shown Figure optimized parameters
process of solving the objective function, this paper firstly optimized a single CPG unit to
obtain the optimal solution range of each unit ηi , λi , and Ri . Then, coupling parameters
are added to optimize the CPG network. The iteration speed and optimal values of the
simulation are shown in Figure 10a. The optimized parameters are shown in Table 2.

(a) (b)

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Simulation Simulation
results of CPGresults of CPG
network networkafter
parameters parameters after optimization.
optimization. (a) Iterative(a) Iterative
results of results of
GA, PSO, and GAPSO
GA, PSO,optimal individual
and GAPSO fitness
optimal valuesfitness
individual graph;values
(b) CPG optimized
graph; (b) CPGresult graph.
optimized result graph.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 14 of 17

Table 2. Parameters after optimization.

λ1 η1 R1 λ2 η2 R2 λ3 η3 R3 ∆ϕ12 ∆ϕ23
0.73 0.47 0.56 0.61 0.38 0.29 0.77 0.49 0.17 −0.77 −2

Comparing the three methods by the graph of iterative results, the GA has a slower
convergence speed due to cross-variance and other operations, but it has a strong global
search capability and a longer running period for the whole iteration. PSO has a strong
search capability at the beginning of the iteration, converges faster, and reaches the optimum
quickly but is prone to fall into a local optimum. The GAPSO algorithm shows a strong
search capability and shows a global search capability at the end of the iteration. The search
process is more efficient, less likely to fall into a local optimum, and the running speed
is also improved over that of the GA algorithm. The three methods were run 10 times
each, and the parameters with the best iterative results were selected and brought into the
CPG network for simulation. The output waveforms of the optimized CPG network were
compared with the corresponding trajectories of the real manta ray pectoral fin feature
points, as shown in Figure 10b. The comparison shows that the waveform output from the
CPG network is similar to the trajectory of the manta ray feature point, and the error occurs
mainly at the transition between the upper and lower states (1.5 s).
In order to verify the effectiveness of the optimization simulation, the optimized
CPG parameters were applied to the manta ray robot to perform forward swimming
experiments and obtain the posture and performance data of the robot. The forward
swimming motion sequence frame diagram is shown in Figure 11. The motion trajectory
of the fin tip point of the manta ray robot is similar to the real manta ray trajectory,
which verifies the effectiveness of CPG asymmetric characteristic network construction
and GAPSO optimization, as shown in Figure 12a. The error is mainly generated at the
point P1 . This point is the end of the first stage fin tip, and its flexible deformation is the
largest at the beginning of the flutter. Thus, its error is the largest in the starting state. The
specific motion pose similarity value is calculated; the similarity value of the improved
motion pose at point P1 is 80.96%, the similarity value at point P2 is 85.33%, the similarity
value at point P3 is 99.30%, and the similarity value of the overall motion pose is 88.53%.
Compared with the method of using manual settings of CPG parameters, the posture has
been greatly improved, which verifies the effectiveness of this optimization, as shown in
Table 3. Yet, the stability and maneuverability of the optimized robot were not significantly
affected during forward swimming.

Table 3. Comparison of similarity values before and after optimization.

P1 P2 P3 Average
Before
19.57% 28.47% 10.43% 19.49%
optimization
After optimization 80.96% 85.33% 99.30% 88.53%
Improved 61.39% 56.86% 88.87% 69.04%
ar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 18
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 15 of 17

Figure 11. Experiment results of forward swimming motion sequence frame diagram (after optimi-
zation).
Experiment
Figure 11.results
Figure 11. Experiment resultsswimming
of forward of forward swimming motion frame
motion sequence sequence frame diagram
diagram (after optimization).
(after optimi-
zation).

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

Figure 12. (a) Motion sequence diagram of manta robot with the pectoral fin feature points of manta
FigureFigure
12. (a)12.
Motion
(a) ray; sequence
Motion sequencediagram
diagram of
ofmanta
manta robotwith
robot with thethe pectoral
pectoral fin feature
fin feature pointspoints of manta
of manta
(b) Performance of forward swimming (after optimization).
ray; (b) Performance
ray; (b) Performance of forward
of forward swimming
swimming (after optimization).
(after optimization).
4. Conclusions
Table 3. Comparison
Table 3. Comparison of The of manta
similarity
similarity values
values
ray before
before
robot’s and
andafter
kinematic afteroptimization.
optimization.
posture is closer to that of the manta ray, which
𝑷𝟏 allows the manta 𝑷𝟐 ray robot to better express
𝑷𝟑 the bionic characteristics
Average of a bionic robot,
𝑷𝟏 such as higher𝑷biophilic
𝟐 affinity and better𝑷stealth.
𝟑 To improve theAverage
bionic similarity of the
efore optimization 19.57% 28.47% 10.43% 19.49%
imization 19.57% manta ray robot,
28.47% this paper establishes a10.43%bionic similarity evaluation19.49% rule for the manta ray
After optimization 80.96% 85.33% 99.30% 88.53%
mization 80.96% robot. The traditional
85.33% phase oscillator model
99.30% is improved with space and time asymmetry,
88.53%
Improved 61.39% 56.86% 88.87% 69.04%
and a CPG network is constructed to realize the motion bionic of the manta ray robot.
oved 61.39% 56.86% 88.87%
This paper proposes a GAPSO-based optimization method for CPG network parameters to
69.04%
4. Conclusions improve the forward swimming posture imitation. Compared with the 19.49% similarity of
4. Conclusions
The manta ray robot’s
the forward kinematic
swimming posture
posture is closer
of the mantatoray that of the
robot undermanta ray, which
manual control parameter
allows the manta raythe
settings, robot to bettersimilarity
optimized express the bionic characteristics
is improved to 88.53%, which of a bionic
verifiesrobot,
the effectiveness
The manta ray robot’s kinematic posture is closer to that of the manta ray, which
such as higher of the optimization method. This paper constructs a new and systematic the
biophilic affinity and better stealth. To improve the bionic similarity of high similarity
allowsmanta
the manta
ray robot,ray
bionicthis
robot
paper
control
to better
establishes
method,
express
whicha can
bionic the bionic
similarity
effectively
characteristics
evaluation
improve
of a bionic
rule similarity
the bionic for the manta robot,
of the manta ray
such as higher biophilic affinity and better stealth. To improve the bionic similarity of the
manta ray robot, this paper establishes a bionic similarity evaluation rule for the manta
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 16 of 17

robot and is of great significance for the future application of the manta ray robot in marine
museums’ stealthy approach reconnaissance and other fields.
In the future, we will consider the characteristics of underwater robots to establish a
more comprehensive similarity evaluation rule for bionic underwater robots in order to
facilitate the creation of robots with the same or better performance as living things.

Author Contributions: Supervision, Y.C. (Yong Cao), Y.C. (Yonghui Cao), G.P. and Q.H.; data cura-
tion, S.M. and Y.C. (Yingzhuo Cao); writing—original draft, S.M.; writing—review and editing, S.M.
and Y.C. (Yong Cao). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 52001260 and 51879220) and the National Key Research and Development Program of China
(Grant No. 2020YFB1313200).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Roper, D.T.; Sharma, S.; Sutton, R.; Culverhouse, P. A review of developments towards biologically inspired propulsion systems
for autonomous underwater vehicles. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part M J. Eng. Marit. Environ. 2011, 225, 77–96. [CrossRef]
2. Wei, M. Hydrodynamics Analysis and Motion Control of Robotic Fish with Two Degrees of Freedom Pectoral-Fin; Lanzhou Jiaotong
University: Lanzhou, China, 2017.
3. Webb, P.W. Form and Function in Fish Swimming. Sci. Am. 1984, 251, 72–82. [CrossRef]
4. Triantafyllou, M.S.; Triantafyllou, G.S.; Yue, D.K.P. Hydrodynamics of Fishlike Swimming. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2000, 32, 33–53.
[CrossRef]
5. Zhang, D.; Huang, Q.-G.; Pan, G.; Yang, L.-M.; Huang, W.-X. Vortex dynamics and hydrodynamic performance enhancement
mechanism in batoid fish oscillatory swimming. J. Fluid Mech. 2022, 930. [CrossRef]
6. Zhang, D.; Pan, G.; Chao, L.M.; Huang, Q.G.; Shi, Y. Effect of shape on hydrodynamic performance of bionic fluctuating wings. In
Proceedings of the 29th National Symposium on Hydrodynamics, Zhenjiang, China, 25 August 2018; Volume 1, pp. 227–234.
7. Cai, Y.; Bi, S.; Li, G.; Hildre, H.P.; Zhang, H. From Natural Complexity to Biomimetic Simplification: The Realization of Bionic
Fish Inspired by the Cownose Ray. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2018, 26, 27–38. [CrossRef]
8. Ijspeert, A.J. Central pattern generators for locomotion control in animals and robots: A review. Neural Netw. 2008, 21, 642–653.
[CrossRef]
9. Cao, Y.; Lu, Y.; Cai, Y.; Bi, S.; Pan, G. CPG-fuzzy-based control of a cownose-ray-like fish robot. Ind. Robot Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl.
2019, 46, 779–791. [CrossRef]
10. Hao, Y.; Cao, Y.; Cao, Y.; Huang, Q.; Pan, G. Course Control of a Manta Robot Based on Amplitude and Phase Differences. J. Mar.
Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 285. [CrossRef]
11. Zhou, C.; Low, K.H. Better endurance and load capacity: An improved design of manta ray robot (RoMan-II). J. Bionic Eng. 2010,
7, S137–S144. [CrossRef]
12. Low, K.H.; Zhou, C.; Seet, G.; Bi, S.; Cai, Y. Improvement and testing of a robotic manta ray (RoMan-III). In Proceedings of the
2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, Phuket, Thailand, 7–11 December 2011; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ,
USA, 2011; pp. 1730–1735.
13. Cao, Y.; Xie, Y.; Ma, S.; Zhang, D.; Hao, Y.; He, Y.; Cao, Y. Control of Robotic Manta Based on TS Fuzzy Neural Network. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Unmanned Systems, Changsha, China, 24–26 September 2021;
Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 2813–2822.
14. Wang, B.; Cui, X.; Sun, J.; Gao, Y. Parameters optimization of central pattern generators for hexapod robot based on multi-objective
genetic algorithm. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2021, 18, 17298814211044934. [CrossRef]
15. Wang, M.; Li, X.; Dong, H.; Yang, S. A PSO-based CPG model parameter optimization method for biomimetic robotic fish. In
Proceedings of the 2017 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC), Jinan, China, 20–22 October 2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017;
pp. 3445–3449.
16. Wang, M.; Dong, H.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, J. Control and Optimization of a Bionic Robotic Fish Through a Combination of CPG
model and PSO. Neurocomputing 2019, 337, 144–152. [CrossRef]
17. Zhu, J.; White, C.; Wainwright, D.K.; Di Santo, V.; Lauder, G.V.; Bart-Smith, H. Tuna robotics: A high-frequency experimental
platform exploring the performance space of swimming fishes. Sci. Robot. 2019, 4, eaax4615. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Romano, D.; Benelli, G.; Hwang, J.-S.; Stefanini, C. Fighting fish love robots: Mate discrimination in males of a highly territorial
fish by using female-mimicking robotic cues. Hydrobiologia 2019, 833, 185–196. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 908 17 of 17

19. Liu, S.; Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Jin, M.; Ren, L.; Liu, C. A fluid-driven soft robotic fish inspired by fish muscle architecture. Bioinspir.
Biomimetics 2022, 17, 026009. [CrossRef]
20. Wu, J.; Wu, G.; Guo, Y.; Zhu, C.; Xu, B.; Sheng, C.; Feng, R.; Xie, X.; Wang, Z.; Huang, H. Overall Design and Flutter Motion
Analysis of a Semi-active Manta Ray Robot. In Proceedings of the OCEANS 2019 MTS/IEEE SEATTLE, Seattle, WA, USA, 27–31
October 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–6.
21. Ke, W.; Peng, Z.; Hong, B.; Xu, X. Locomotion similarity-based humanoid robot’s stepping upstairs. Huazhong Keji Daxue Xuebao
(Ziran Kexue Ban) J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2012, 40. [CrossRef]
22. Li-Ge, Z.; Shu-Sheng, B.; Jin-Lei, G. Human motion data acquiring and analyzing method for humanoid robot motion designing.
Acta Autom. Sin. 2010, 36, 107–112.
23. Zhang, L.; Huang, Q.; Yang, J.; Shi, Y.; Wang, Z.; Jafri, A.R. Design of humanoid complicated dynamic motion with similarity
considered. Acta Autom. Sin. 2007, 33, 522.
24. Li, C.; Shi, Q.; Li, K.; Zou, M.; Ishii, H.; Takanishi, A.; Huang, Q.; Fukuda, T. Motion evaluation of a modified multi-link robotic
rat. In Proceedings of the2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Vancouver, BC,
Canada, 24–28 September 2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 2397–2402.
25. Xing, C.; Cao, Y.; Cao, Y.; Pan, G.; Huang, Q. Asymmetrical Oscillating Morphology Hydrodynamic Performance of a Novel
Bionic Pectoral Fin. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 289. [CrossRef]
26. Li, S.-L.; Hou, Y.; Hua, Z.M.; Tu, K. The Design of Space Flexibility and Modal Characteristics of Insect-Like Flexible Wings. Mach.
Des. Manuf. 2019, 5, 143–146. [CrossRef]
27. Wu, P.; Ifju, P.; Stanford, B. Flapping wing structural deformation and thrust correlation study with flexible membrane wings.
AIAA J. 2010, 48, 2111–2122. [CrossRef]
28. Muda, L.; Begam, M.; Elamvazuthi, I. Voice recognition algorithms using mel frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC) and dynamic
time warping (DTW) techniques. arXiv 2010. [CrossRef]
29. Zhu, M.; Zhang, Z. Research and improvement of DTW algorithm. Microcomput. Appl. 2010, 26, 2.
30. Wang, C.; Xie, G.; Wang, L.; Cao, M. CPG-based locomotion control of a robotic fish: Using linear oscillators and reducing control
parameters via PSO. Int. J. Innov. Comput. Inf. Control 2011, 7, 4237–4249.
31. Jeong, I.B.; Park, C.S.; Na, K.I.; Han, S.; Kim, J.H. Particle swarm optimization-based central patter generator for robotic fish
locomotion. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Congress of Evolutionary Computation (CEC), New Orleans, LA, USA, 5–8 June
2011; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 152–157.
32. Wen, P.; Linsen, X.; Baolin, F.; Zhong, W. Cpg control model of snake-like robot parameters of optimization based on ga. In
Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Zhuhai, China, 6–9 December
2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1944–1949.
33. Sharma, D.; Gaur, P.; Mittal, A.P. Comparative Analysis of Hybrid GAPSO Optimization Technique With GA and PSO Methods
for Cost Optimization of an Off-Grid Hybrid Energy System. Energy Technol. Policy 2014, 1, 106–114. [CrossRef]
34. Cao, Y.; Ma, S.; Xie, Y.; Hao, Y.; Zhang, D.; He, Y.; Cao, Y. Parameter Optimization of CPG Network Based on PSO for Manta Ray
Robot. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Unmanned Systems, Changsha, China, 24–26 September
2021; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 3062–3072.