arXiv:1506.03599v1 [cs.NE] 11 Jun 2015

Distributed Recurrent Neural Forward Models with Synaptic
Adaptation for Complex Behaviors of Walking Robots
Sakyasingha Dasgupta

∗1,2, 4

, Dennis Goldschmidt2 , Florentin Wörgötter1,2 , and Poramate
Manoonpong2,3

1

2

Institute for Physics - Biophysics, George-Agust-University, Göttingen, Germany
Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, George-Agust-University, Göttingen, Germany
3
Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
4
Riken Brain Science Institute, 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama, Japan

Thursday 2nd April, 2015

Abstract
Walking animals, like stick insects, cockroaches or ants, demonstrate a fascinating
range of locomotive abilities and complex behaviors. The locomotive behaviors can consist
of a variety of walking patterns along with adaptation that allow the animals to deal with
changes in environmental conditions, like uneven terrains, gaps, obstacles etc. Biological
study has revealed that such complex behaviors are a result of a combination of biomechanics and neural mechanism thus representing the true nature of embodied interactions.
While the biomechanics helps maintain flexibility and sustain a variety of movements, the
neural mechanisms generate movements while making appropriate predictions crucial for
achieving adaptation. Such predictions or planning ahead can be achieved by way of internal models that are grounded in the overall behavior of the animal. Inspired by these
findings, we present here, an artificial bio-inspired walking system which effectively combines biomechanics (in terms of the body and leg structures) with the underlying neural
mechanisms. The neural mechanisms consist of 1) central pattern generator based control
for generating basic rhythmic patterns and coordinated movements, 2) distributed (at
each leg) recurrent neural network based adaptive forward models with efference copies
as internal models for sensory predictions and instantaneous state estimations, and 3)
searching and elevation control for adapting the movement of an individual leg to deal
with different environmental conditions. Using simulations we show that this bio-inspired
approach with adaptive internal models allows the walking robot to perform complex locomotive behaviors as observed in insects, including walking on undulated terrains, crossing
large gaps as well as climbing over high obstacles. Furthermore we demonstrate that the
newly developed recurrent network based approach to online forward models outperforms
the adaptive neuron forward models, which have hitherto been the state of the art, to
model a subset of similar walking behaviors in walking robots.
∗

Correspondence: sakyasingha.dasgupta@riken.jp Current address: Riken Brain Science Institute, 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama, Japan

1

1

Introduction

Walking animals show diverse locomotor skills to deal with a wide range of terrains and environments. These involve intricate motor control mechanisms with internal prediction systems
and learning (Huston and Jayaraman 2011), allowing them to effectively cross gaps (Blaesing
and Cruse 2004), climb over obstacles (Watson et al. 2002), and even walk on uneven terrain
(Pearson and Franklin 1984), (Cruse 1976). These capabilities are realized by a combination of biomechanics of their body and neural mechanisms. The main components of these
neural mechanisms include central pattern generators (CPGs), internal forward models, and
limb-reflex control systems. The CPGs generate basic rhythmic motor patterns for locomotion, while the reflex control employs direct sensory feedback (Pearson and Franklin 1984).
However, it is argued that biological systems need to be able to predict the sensory consequences of their actions in order to be capable of rapid, robust, and adaptive behavior. As a
result, similar to the observations in vertebrate brains (Kawato 1999), insects can also employ
internal forward models as a mechanism to predict their future state (predictive feedbacks)
given the current state or sensory context (sensory feedback) and the control signals (efference
copies), in order to shape the motor patterns for adaptation (Webb 2004),(Mischiati et al.
2015). Essentially, such a forward model acts as an internal feedback loop, that uses a copy
of the motor command, in order to predict the expected sensory input. Comparing this to
the actual input, appropriate modulations of this signal or adaptive behaviors can be carried
out.
In order to make such accurate predictions of future actions to satisfy changing environmental demands, the internal forward models require some degree of memory of the previous
sensory-motor information. However, given that, such motor control happens on a very fast
timescale, keeping track of temporal information is integral to such very short-term memory
processes. Reservoir-based recurrent neural networks (RNNs) (Maass et al. 2002), (Jaeger
and Haas 2004), (Sussillo and Abbott 2009), with their inherent ability to deal with temporal
information and fading memory of sensory stimuli, thus provide a suitable platform to model
such internal predictive mechanisms. Taking this perspective, here, we utilize a newly developed model of self-adaptive reservoir networks (SARN) (Dasgupta et al. 2013), (Dasgupta
2015), to act as the forward models for sensorimotor prediction. This works in conjunction
with other neural mechanisms for motor control and generates complex adaptive locomotion
in an artificial walking robotic system. Specifically, by exploiting the adaptive recurrent layer
of our model it is possible to achieve complex motor transformations at different walking
gaits, which is significantly difficult to achieve by currently existing adaptive forward models employed with walking robots (Manoonpong et al. 2013), (Dearden and Demiris 2005),
(Schröder-Schetelig et al. 2010).
We present for the first time a distributed forward model architecture using six SARNbased forward models on a hexapod robot, each of which is for sensory prediction and state
estimation of an individual robot leg. The outputs of the models are compared with foot
contact sensory signals (actual sensory feedback) and the differences between them are used
for motor adaptation, in an online manner. This is integrated as part of the neural mechanism
framework consisting of 1) single central pattern generator-based control for generating basic
rhythmic patterns and coordinated movements, 2) distributed reservoir forward models and
3) searching and elevation action control for adapting the movement of an individual leg based
on the forward model predictions, in order to deal with changing environmental conditions.
In the following section we describe the architectural setup of the neural mechanisms used
2

for the design of adaptive locomotion control in a walking robot, along with a description of
the simulated hexapod robot AMOS II and the modular robot control environment used as the
development platform for our proposed control system. In section 3, we present the materials
and methods used in this study. Specifically, we introduce the setup and implementation of
the distributed reservoir-based adaptive forward model, with details of the learning procedure.
Section 4 presents experimental results of the learning mechanism and the resulting behaviors
of the simulated hexapod AMOS II on different complex locomotion scenarios likes crossing
a large gap, walking on uneven (rough) terrains, and overcoming obstacles. The results
obtained from the reservoir based forward models are juxtaposed with the previous state of
the art adaptive neuron forward models setup. Finally, in section 5, we discuss our results
and provide an outlook of further future directions.

2

Neural Mechanisms for Complex Locomotion

The neural mechanisms (Figure 1 a) for locomotion control, are designed based on a modular
architecture, such that, they comprise of, i) central pattern generator (CPG)-based control, ii)
reservoir-based adaptive forward models, and iii) searching and elevation action control. The
CPG-based control and the searching and elevation control have been previously discussed in
detail in (Manoonpong et al. 2013), thus here we will only provide a brief overview of these
mechanisms, while the reservoir-based adaptive forward models, which forms the main topic
of this work, will be presented in detail in the following section.
The CPG-based control primarily generates a variety of rhythmic patterns and coordinates
all leg joints of a simulated hexapod robot AMOSII (Figure 1 (b)), thereby, leading to a
multitude of different behavioral patterns and insect-like leg movements. The patterns include
omnidirectional walking and insect-like gaits (Manoonpong et al. 2013). All these patterns
can be set manually, or autonomously driven by exteroceptive sensors, like a camera (Zenker
et al. 2013), a laser scanner (Kesper et al. 2013), or range sensors. While the CPG-based
control provides versatile autonomous behaviors, the searching and elevation control at each
leg uses the accumulated error signals provided by the reservoir-based adaptive forward models
in order to adapt the movement of an individual leg of the robot and deal with changes in
environmental conditions.
The CPG-based control (see supplementary Figure 1 for detailed description) itself is
designed as a modular neural network that consists mainly of the following four elements:
1. CPG mechanism with neuromodulation for generating different rhythmic signals. Inspired by biological findings, here the CPG circuit is designed as a two-neuron fully
connected recurrent network (Pasemann et al. 2003), such that using different external
neuromodulatory inputs different walking gaits can be achieved.
2. CPG post-processing units (PCPG) for shaping CPG output signals.
3. Phase switching network (PSN) and velocity regulating networks (VRNs) for walking
directional control.
4. Motor neurons with embedded fixed delay lines for transmitting motor commands to
all leg joints of AMOS II. These delay lines are utilized to realize the inter-limb coordination, in which they introduce phase differences between the transmitted signals to
all leg joints. As a result, the desired walking gait can be achieved.
3

(a)

(b)

Simulation Enviornment

Sensors

CPG-based control
Efference
copies

Distributed RNN
adaptive forward models

Motor signals

II)

Enhvironment

I)

Modular Robot Control
Environment (MoRoCo)

Feedback

Sensory
signals

Error signals
Fti

III) Searching & elevation
reﬂex control

Simulated Robot
TC-joint

Physical Robot
BJ

BJ

FTi-joint

FC6

FC2

Joint Angles

Motors

-20° FTi

FC 3

FC3

FC6

TC-joint
FC2

TC

FC5

FC1

-135°
0°

-75°

FC

Leg-structure

FC 4

Biomechanical setup of AMOS II

CTr

FC5
FC1
CTr-joint
FTi-joint

CTr-joint

0°
-20°

AMOSII

FC4

Figure 1: (a) The closed-loop architectural diagram of an artificial bio-inspired walking system consisting of the sensors (i.e., proprioceptive and exteroceptive sensors) that receive environmental inputs
and feedback, the neural mechanisms (i,ii,iii) for adaptive locmotion control, and the biomechanical
setup of the hexapod robot AMOSII (i.e., six 3-jointed legs, a segmented body structure with one
active backbone joint (BJ), actuators, and passive compliant components (Manoonpong et al. 2013)).
(b) Modular Robot Control Environment embedded in the LPZRobots simulation toolkit (Der and
Martius 2012), (Hesse et al. 2012). The simulation environment provides the main testbed for developing the controller, testing it on the simulated hexapod robot, and finally transferring it to the
physical agent. Here we evaluate our model and results primarily on the simulated robot (bottom
left), which accurately embodies the characteristics of its physical equivalent, AMOS II robot (bottom
right). Here, F C1 , F C2 , F C3 , F C4 , F C5 , and F C6 are foot contact sensors installed in the robot legs,
which are used as the main sensory stimuli compared against the predicted signal from the RNN-based
(reservoir) forward models. Each leg (right inset) consists of three joints: the innermost thoraco-coxal
(TC-) joint enables forward and backward movements, the middle coxa-trochanteral (CTr-) joint enables elevation and depression of the leg, and the outermost femur-tibia (FTi-) joint enables extension
and flexion of the tibia. The morphology of these multi-jointed legs were designed based on a cockroach leg (Zill et al. 2004). The front and back parts of the body are connected with a backbone joint
(BJ) which primarily allows upwards and downwards tilting of the front body segment. Thus this is
used for climbing and gap crossing purposes. More details on BJ control for climbing can be found in
(Goldschmidt et al. 2014).

4

The searching and elevation control at each leg, consist of single recurrent neurons that
receive the difference (instantaneous error) between the predicted forward model signal and
the actual sensory feedback. Due to the recurrent self-connection, this error is accumulated
over time. The accumulated error can then be used to either extend specific leg joints in
order to get better foothold (searching action) during the stance phase, or elevate further
to overcome obstacles during the swing phase (see Figure 6 (e) in section 4.1). All neurons
in the CPG-based control and the searching and elevation control are modeled as discretetime rate-coded neurons with tan-hyperbolic and piece-wise linear activation functions (see
(Manoonpong et al. 2013) for details), respectively. They were updated with a frequency
of ≈ 27 Hz.

3

Materials & Method

3.1

Reservoir-based Distributed Adaptive Forward Models

We design, six identical adaptive RNN-based forward models (RF1,2,3,...,6 ), one for each leg of
the walking robot (Figure 2(a)). These serve the purpose of online sensorimotor prediction
as well as state estimation. Specifically, each forward model learns to correctly transform
the efference copy of the actual motor signal for each leg joint (i.e., here the CTr-joint motor
signal1 ), into an expected or predicted sensory signal. This predicted signal is then compared
with the actual incoming sensory feedback signals (i.e., here the foot contact signal - Figure 2
(b), of each leg) and, based on the error accumulated over time, it triggers the appropriate
action (searching or elevation) and modulate the locomotive behavior of the robot. Each
forward model is based on a random RNN architecture of the self-adaptive reservoir network
type (Dasgupta et al. 2013), (Dasgupta 2015). Due to the presence of rich recurrent feedback connections, the dynamic reservoir and intrinsic homeostatic adaptations, the network
exhibits a wide repertoire of nonlinear activity and long fading memory. This can be primarily exploited for the purpose of specific leg joint-motor signal transformation, act as motor
memory and for the prediction of sensorimotor patterns arising in the current context.

Network Setup
The basic setup of each reservoir forward model can be divided into three layers: input, hidden
(or internal), and readout layers (Figure 2 (b)). The internal layer consists of a large recurrent
neural network driven by time-varying stimuli (CPG motor signals). These driving signals
are projected via the input layer. The internal layer is constructed as a random RNN with
fixed randomly initialized synaptic connectivity (in this setup we only modify the reservoirto-readout neuron weights). Using a discrete time version of SARN, with a step size of ∆t,
the discrete time state dynamics of each reservoir neuron is given by the following equations:


xi (t + 1) =

1−

∆t
τi




xi (t) +

∆t 
g
τi

N
X


rec
in
Wi,j
rj (t) + Wi,1
u(t) + Bi  , i = 1, . . . , N.

(1)

j=1

1

We use the CTr-joint motor signal instead of the TC- and FTi-motor signals since this shows clear swing
(off the ground) and stance (on the ground) phases which can be qualitatively matched to the actual foot
contact signal.

5

(a)

(b)

Self-adaptive Reservoir
Predicted Signal
out

FL1

L1

FR1

CR1

CL1
TL1

RF4

RF1

SE4

R1

TR1

Motor Signal
Efference Copy
CPG

SE1
BJ

FL2

CL2

TL2

L2
CL3
FL3

L3

TL3

RF5

CPG

RF2

TR2

SE5

SE2

RF6

RF3 TR
3

SE6

SE3

W

z1

rec

W

z2
Win

z3

CR2

- -
+

Acc.
error
Integrator
unit

Searching &
Elevation
Reflex control

FR2

R2
Foot contact
signal

CR3

R3

FR3

Synaptic input

Neural output

fixed synapses
Decay
Intrinsic plasticity

plastic synapses

Figure 2: (a) Neural mechanisms implemented on the bio-inspired hexapod robot AMOSII. The yellow
circle (CP G) represents the neural locomotion control mechanism (see appendix. ??). The gray circles
(RF1,2,3,...,6 ) represent the reservoir-based adaptive forward models. The green circles (SE1,2,3,...,6 )
represent searching and elevation control modules. The orange circles represent leg joints where T Ri ,
CRi , F Ri are TC-, CTr- and FTi-joints of the right front leg (i = 1), right middle leg (i = 2), right
hind leg (i = 3) and T Li , CLi , F Li are left front leg (i = 1), left middle leg (i = 2), left hind leg
(i = 3), respectively. BJ is a backbone joint. The orange arrow lines indicate the motor signals which
are converted to joint angles for controlling motor positions. The black arrow lines indicate error
signals. The green arrow lines indicate signals for adapting joint movements to deal with different
circumstances. b) An example of the reservoir-based adaptive forward model. The dashed frame
shows a zoomed in view of a single reservoir neuron. In this setup, the input to each of the reservoir
network comes from the CTr-joint of the respective leg. The reservoir learns to produce the expected
foot contact signal for three different walking gaits (z1 , z2 , z3 ). The signals of the output neurons are
combined and compared to the actual foot contact sensory signal. The error from the comparison is
transmitted to an integrator unit. The unit accumulates the error over time. The accumulated error
is finally used to adapt joint movements through searching and elevation control.

6

ri (t) = tanh(ai xi (t) + bi ),

(2)


T
z(t) = Wout r(t).

(3)

The RNN model consists of N neurons, such that the membrane potential at the soma
(at time t) of the reservoir neurons, resulting from the incoming excitatory and inhibitory
synaptic inputs, is given by a N dimensional vector of neuron state activations. x(t) =
x1 (t), x2 (t), ...., xN (t). The RNN here, does not explicitly model action potentials, but describes neuronal firing rates. Where in, the variable ri (t) describes the instantaneous firing
rate (N dimensional) of the reservoir neurons and is calculated as a non-linear function of
the state activation xi (t) (Equation 1). Each reservoir neuron i, receives inputs from other
neurons in the network with firing rates rj (t) via synaptic connections of strength Wijrec along
with incoming stimuli from the input layer via synapses of strength Wijin . Each reservoir neuron is also provided with an auxiliary bias Bi . The parameter g (Sompolinsky et al. 1988),
(van Vreeswijk and Sompolinsky 1996) acts as the scaling factor for the recurrent connection
weights allowing different dynamic regimes from stable (g < 1) to highly irregular chaotic
(g > 1) (Sussillo and Abbott 2009), being present in the network.
The input to the reservoir u(t), consists of a single CTr-joint motor signal. This acts
as an efference copy of the post-processed CPG motor output. The readout layer consists
of three neurons, with their activity being represented by the three-dimensional vector z(t).
Although typically M < N readout neurons can be connected to the reservoir, here we
restricted it to three neurons, as each readout here learns the predictive signal for one of
the following different walking gaits: wave (z1 ), tetrapod (z2 ), and caterpillar (z3 ) gaits.
The wave, tetrapod, and caterpillar gaits are used for climbing over an obstacle, walking
on uneven terrain, and crossing a large gap, respectively2 . Subsequent to the supervised
training of the reservoir-to-readout connections Wout , each readout neuron basically learns
to predict the expected foot contact signal associated with each of these gaits. The decay rate
for each reservoir neuron is given by τ1i , where τi is the individual membrane timeconstant.
The input-to-reservoir connections weights Win and internal recurrent weights Wrec were
drawn randomly from the uniform distribution [−0.1, 0.1] and a Gaussian distribution of zero
2
mean and variance √pg N , respectively. Where, the parameter pc controls the probability of
c
connections inside the recurrent layer and is set to be 20%. In order to select the appropriate
reservoir size, empirical evaluations were carried out (Figures 3(a) and (b)), such that we
achieved a moderate network size of N = 30, for which the minimum prediction error was
obtained at the readout layer, irrespective of the walking gait. The recurrent weights were
subsequently scaled by the factor of g = 0.95 (see Figure 3), such that the spontaneous
network dynamics is in a stable regime and achieves the best performance of the chosen
network size. In accordance with the SARN model, unsupervised intrinsic plasticity (Triesch
2005) and neuron timescale adaptation (Dasgupta 2015) were carried out in order to learn
the transfer function parameters (ai and bi )and the reservoir timeconstant parameters τi for
each individual neuron (Figure 3 (c) and (d)).
2

These three gaits were empirically selected among 19 other possibilities. Previous studies have demonstrated that the wave and tetrapod gaits are the most effective for climbing and walking on uneven terrains,
respectively. While in this particular study we observed that the caterpillar gait was the most effective for
crossing a gap. However, without any loss of performance, additional walking gaits can be applied easily by
adding further readout neurons.

7

(a)

(b)
0.045

N = 30 neurons

0.07

Mean Squared Error

Mean Squared Error

0.08

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03

g = 0.95

0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02

0.02
0.015
0.01
0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0.01

1.4

0

0.5

Reservoir Scaling Factor (g)

(c)

1

0

2

output

output

1

−1
−2

(d)

tanh(ax+b)
a=1.5087,
b=-1.1366

Intrinsic Plasticity

1.5

2

Reservoir Network Size

tanh(ax+b)
a = 1.0,
b = 0.0

0

1

Frequency

0.4

30
25
20
15
10
5

Frequency

0.2

5
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

0

−1
−2

0

input

input

2

2.5
x102

Before
Adaptation

10

15

After
Adaptation

5

10 15
[ms]

20

Figure 3: (a) Plot of the change in the mean squared error for the forward model task for one of
the front legs (R1 ) of the walking robot with respect to the scaling of the recurrent layer synaptic
weights W rec with different g values. As observed, very small values in g have a negative impact
on performance compared with values closer to one being better. Interestingly, the performance did
not change significantly for g > 1.0 (chaotic domain). This is mainly due to homeostasis introduced
by intrinsic plasticity in the network. The optimal value of g = 0.95 selected for our experiments is
indicated with a dashed line. (b) Plot of the change in mean squared error with respect to different
reservoir sizes (N ). g was fixed at the optimal value. Although increasing the reservoir size in
general tends to increase performance, a smaller size of N = 30 gave the same level of performance as
N = 100. Accordingly keeping in mind the trade off between network size and learning performance,
we set the forward model reservoir size to 30 neurons. Results were averaged over 10 trials with
different parameter initializations on the forward model task for a single leg and a fixed walking gait.
(c) Example of the intrinsic plasticity to adjust the reservoir neuron non-linearity parameters a and b.
Initially the the reservoir neuron fires with an output distribution of Gaussian shape matching that
of the input distribution. However after adjustment using intrinsic plasticity mechanism (Dasgupta
et al. 2013) the reservoir neuron adapts the parameters a and b, such that, now for the same Gaussian
input distribution the output distribution follow a maximal entropy Exponential-like distribution.
(d) Distribution of the reservoir forward model individual neuron time constants before and after
adaptation.

8

Readout Weight Adaptation
Here we used a modified version of the original recursive least squares (RLS) algorithm (Jaeger
and Haas 2004),(Simon 2002) based on the FORCE learning formulation (Sussillo and Abbott
2009), in order to learn the reservoir-to-readout connection weights Wout at each time step,
while the CPG input u(t) is being fed into the reservoir. The readout weights Wout are
calculated such that the overall error at the readout neurons is minimized; thereby the network
can learn to accurately transform the CTr-motor signal to the expected foot contact signal,
for each walking gait. The instantaneous error signal (e(t)) at the readout layer, can be
calculated as the difference between the reservoir predicted output (z(t)) and the desired
output, d(t) (i.e. here the expected foot contact signal). Based on Equation 3, this can be
formulated as:
e(t) =

3
X

Wjout (t − 1)rj (t) − d(t).

(4)

j=1

Using the RLS algorithm, and minimizing this error, the readout weights Wjout update
can be defined by,
Wiout = Wiout (t − 1) − e(t)

X

Pij (t)rj (t).

(5)

j

Where, P is a N × N square matrix proportional to the inverse of the correlation matrix
of the reservoir neuron firing rate vector r. P is initialized using the identity matrix I and
a small constant parameter δc as, P(0) = δIc . P, here, acts as the adaptive learning rate
for updating the readout weights with weight modifications automatically slowing down as P
decreases with time. This allows the learning to occur stably and eventually converge to a
solution. P is updated as each time point as,


P(t − 1)r(t)rT (t)P(t − 1)
P(t) = P(t − 1) −
.
(6)
1 + rT (t)P(t − 1)r(t)
The reservoir-to-readout neuron weights were initialized to zero at start. Details of all
the fixed parameters and initial settings for the reservoir based forward model networks are
summarized in Supplementary Table 1.

4
4.1

Results
Learning the Reservoir Forward Model (motor prediction)

In order to train the six forward models (RF1 toRF6 ) in an online manner, one for each leg,
we let the simulated robot AMOSII walk under normal conditions (i.e., walking on a flat
terrain with the three different gaits). Initially, we let the robot walk with a certain walking
pattern, and then every 2500 time steps, the gait pattern was sequentially altered (this occurs
by changing the modulatory input to the CPG - see supplementary Figure 1). As a result, the
robot sequentially transitions from wave gait, to tetrapod gait, to caterpillar gait repeatedly.
Using this procedure, we let the robot walk for three complete cycles (22500 time steps) and
collected the corresponding CTr-motor signal and foot contact sensor readings for all legs.
Intrinsic plasticity and neuron time constant adaptations (Dasgupta et al. 2013), (Dasgupta
9

2015), were then carried out using 20 epochs of 1000 time steps overlapping time windows.
After this pre-training phase, all the reservoir neuron non-linearity parameters and individual
time constants (τi ) were fixed (see Figure 3 (d) for the distribution of neuronal time constants
before and after training).
Subsequent to the pre-training phase, normal training of the reservoir-to-readout weights
Wout was carried out using the online RLS learning algorithm with the same process of
making the robot walk on a flat, regular terrain and sequential switching between the three
gait patterns every 2500 time steps. As such, at any given point in time only one of the
readout neurons (specific to the walking gait) are active. In this manner, synaptic weights
projecting from reservoir to the first readout neuron (z1 ) corresponding to the foot contact
signal prediction for the wave gait, and synaptic weights projecting to the second (z2 ) and
third (z3 ) readout neurons corresponding to the foot contact signal prediction of the tetrapod
and caterpillar gaits, are learned, respectively. Within this experimental setup, as observed
from Figures 4 (a), (b) and (c) the readout weights corresponding to each gait converges very
quickly (due to intrinsic noise and nature of the reservoir-to-readout synaptic adaptation, the
weights still show minute fluctuations after successful learning; therefore here convergence
applies that the norm of the readout weights |W out | remains constant with a small finite value
(Sussillo and Abbott 2009)), in less than the trial period of 2500 time steps. As a result, every
time the CTr-motor signal changes due to walking gait transformations, the RF associated
with each leg learns to predict the expected foot contact signal robustly. The training process
was carried out only once under normal walking conditions. This was subsequently used as
the baseline in order to compare with the actual foot contact signals (sensory feedback) while
walking under the situations of crossing a gap, climbing, and negotiating uneven terrains.
Figure 5 shows an example of the forward model prediction (training) during the three
different walking gaits, for the right front leg of AMOSII (R1 ). Visual inspection clearly
demonstrates that according to the corresponding efference copy of CTr-motor signal at a
particular gait, the expected foot contact (FC) signal is precisely predicted at each time
point. Similarly, the foot contact signals for the other legs are also predicted online, given the
current context of CTr-signal (not shown). Note that the FC signals of the other legs normally
show slightly different periodic patterns. Furthermore, there exists considerable lag between
the expected stance phase according to the motor signal and that observed from the FC
signal (difference between dotted green lines in Figure 5). Due to the internal memory of the
incoming motor signal in the reservoir, we see that the output neurons can adapt to these time
lags efficiently, even when the frequency of the signal increases with a change in walking gaits.
Furthermore, the reservoir-based forward models enable the robust generation of the predicted
FC signal, even in the presence of high noise corruption or missing information in the incoming
CTr-joint motor signal (Figures 5 (j) and (k)). Due to the fact that the CTr-motor signals
are obtained after appropriate post-processing of original CPG singals and passage through
the motor neurons coupled with different time delays. Such signal corruption can occur at
various levels. Therefore, the ability of the forward model to deal with such abrupt noise in the
motor signals in a robust manner is crucial to the adaptive mechanisms. Furthermore, such
signal corruptions can also occur, due to entrainment mechanisms applied for the automatic
tuning or adaptation of CPG outputs (Nachstedt et al. 2013). Such online adaptation for
sudden motor signal variations, was not possible in the previous state of the art adaptive
neuron forward models (Manoonpong et al. 2013). This model inherently lacked the ability
to deal with variations in the temporal properties of the signal. As such, a simple square wave
matching the timing of the motor signal efference copy was used, providing a limited range of
10

(a)

Convergence

Wave gait

Weights to z

1

Learning

Legs

300
0
-300
1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

R3
R2
R1
L3
L2
L1

1800

1200

(b)

Convergence

Learning

2

Legs

Weights to z

1500
0
-1500
2600

2700

2800

2900

R3
R2
R1
L3
L2
L1

2700

3000

Convergence

2000
0
-2000
5600
3.72 sec

5700

2900

Caterpillar gait
Legs

Weights to z

3

Learning
4000

-4000
5500

2800

Time [steps]

Time [steps]

(c)

1400

Tetrapod gait

3000

-3000
2500

1300

Time [steps]

Time [steps]

5800

5900

Time [steps]

6000

6100

R3
R2
R1
L3
L2
L1

5700

5800

Time [steps]

Figure 4: Reservoir-to-readout weight adaptation during online learning. (a) Changes of 30
weights projecting to the first readout neuron (z1 ) of the forward model of the right front leg (R1 )
while walking with a wave gait. During this period, weights projecting to the second (z2 ) and third
(z3 ) output neurons remain unchanged (i.e., they are zero). (b) Changes of the weights to z2 while
walking with a tetrapod gait. During this period, the weights to z3 still remain unchanged and the
weights to z1 converge to around zero. (c) Changes of the weights to z3 while walking with a caterpillar
gait. During this period, the weights to z1 and z2 converge to around zero. At the end of each gait, all
weights are stored such that they will be used for locomotion in different environments. The grey areas
represent transition phases from one gait to another gait and the yellow areas represent convergence.
The gait diagrams are shown on the right. They are observed from the motor signals of the CTr-joints
(Figure 5). White areas indicate ground contact or stance phase and grey areas refer to no ground
contact during swing phase. As frequency increases, some legs step in pairs (dashed enclosures). Here
convergence implies no siginificant change in the vector norm of the readout weights.

11

5900

behavior, as well as being biologically implausible. However, here our reservoir-based model
can accurately estimate the spatiotemporal properties of the signal and robustly learn the
exact shape, as well as the timing of the actual FC signals.

4.2

Simulated Complex Environments

In order to assess the ability of the reservoir-based forward models to generate adaptive3 complex locomotive behaviors in a neural closed-loop control system (see Figure 1), we conducted
simulation experiments under different situations including crossing a gap, walking on uneven
terrain and climbing over high obstacles (similar to the behaviors observed in real insects). In
all cases, we used the same training procedure for the forward models by allowing the robot
to walk under normal conditions on a flat even terrain.
During testing of the learned behavior, while AMOSII walks under different environmental
conditions and a specific gait, the output of each trained forward model (i.e., the predicted
FC signal, Figure 6 (a)) is used to compare it to the actual incoming FC signal of the leg
(Figure 6 (b)). The difference (instantaneous error signal ∆) between them determines the
walking state where a positive value (+∆) indicates losing ground contact during the stance
phase and a negative value (−∆) indicates stepping on or hitting obstacles during the swing
phase.
∆i (t) = RFi (t) − F Ci (t).
(7)
where i ∈ {1, 2, ..., 6} represents each leg of the robot.
Thus, we use the positive value for searching control (Figure 6 (d) above). This is then
accumulated through a single recurrent neuron S with a linear transfer function and is always
reset to 0.0 at the beginning of swing phase. Similarly, the negative value is used for elevation
control (Figure 6 (d) below). The value is also accumulated through a recurrent neuron E
with a linear transfer function. These accumulated errors (Figure 6 (c)) thus allow the robot
leg to be either elevated (on hitting an obstacle) or searching for a foothold during the swing
and stance phases respectively (see (Manoonpong et al. 2013) for more details of the searching
and elevation control). As depicted in Figures 6 (a) and (b), while walking on a rough terrain
(in this case with tetrapod walking gait), the currently recorded sensory feedback or foot
contact sensor reading differs considerably from the reservoir predicted signal. As a result,
there is a high accumulation of error between each swing or stance phase (Figure 6 (c)). It
should be noted that the initial (≈ 50 time steps) abruptly high amplitude signal observed in
the reservoir forward model prediction, is caused due to the transient recovery time needed
by reservoir readout neurons to settle to the exact learned patterns. This is overcome within
the next few time steps and RF predicted FC signal continues to occur in a robust manner.
The accumulated error causes the corresponding leg action control mechanism to kick in and
the robot successfully navigates out of the rough terrain (after ≈ 4000 time steps). Once the
robot moves into the flat terrain, the reservoir predicted foot contact signal matches almost
perfectly with the actual sensory feedback. As a result, the accumulated error becomes zero
and normal walking without any additional searching or elevation control mechanisms, can
continue. In essence based on the reservoir forward models, while traversing from the uneven
terrain (Figure 6 inset 1-4) to the flat terrain (Figure 6 inset 5), the robot can adapt its legs
individually to deal with the change of terrain. That is, it depressed its leg and extended its
3
Forward models for motor prediction need an internal fading memory of the motor apparatus, in order to
adjust for time delays between motor output signal and the actual sensory feedback (Kawato 1999).

12

1
0

-1

swing
stance

0
-1

1
0
-1

-1
2000

2100

2200

1
0
-1
5000

Time [steps]

j)

5100
Time [steps]

5200

0
-1

1

Motor efference copy

0

Sensory feedback
Predicted signal

-1
8000

8100

8200

Time [steps]

k)
Ctr-motor signal

2% noise
corruption

0
-1
280

300

320

340

360

380

400

0

actual

RF output signal

0.5
predicted

-0.5
-1
260

1

1

1

-2
260

0

i)
RF output signal

RF output signal

0

1

f)

h)

1

Caterpillar gait

-1

Force sensor signal

Force sensor signal

Force sensor signal

lag

g)
RF output signal

0

e)

1

CTr-motor signal

1

-1

d)

RF output signal

c)

Tetrapod gait
CTr-motor signal of R1

b)

Wave gait

CTr-motor signal of R1

CTr-motor signal of R1

a)

280

300

320
340
Time [steps]

360

380

400

0.5
0

missing
information

-0.5
-1
260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

380

400

0.5
0

actual

predicted

-0.5
-1
260

280

300

320
340
Time [steps]

360

Figure 5: (a-c) The CTr-joint motor signal of the right front leg (R1 ) for wave, tetrapod, and caterpillar
gaits, respectively. This motor signal provides the efference copy or the input to the reservoir forward
models. (d-f) The actual foot contact signal (force sensor signal under normal walking conditions)
used as the target signal of the reservoir models. (g-i) The predicted foot contact signal or the final
learned output of the forward model for each walking gait (RF output signal). The green shaded
region indicates the time interval between swing and stance phase for the CTr motor signal at the
three walking gaits. As observed the actual foot contact signal is considerably lagged in time compared
to the motor signal. Effectively, this lag decreases with an increase in the gait frequency. The single
RF adaptively accounts for these different delay times in order to accurately predict the expected foot
contact signal. (j) above - CTr-joint motor signal demonstrated for a single leg, with 2% Gaussian
noise injected between 300-350 time steps (yellow shaded region), below - Despite the noise corruption
of the motor signal, the reservoir forward model is able to generate the correct predicted FC signal
(blue dotted - target FC signal, red solid - predicted signal). (k) above - The CTr-joint motor signal
corrupted with missing information between 280-320 time steps. As a result, the motor signal shows
a narrow spike between 310 -330 time steps (yellow shaded region), below - Reservoir forward model
predicted signal (red) as compared to the desired FC signal (dotted blue). Although the CTr motor
signal was transiently missing, the reservoir is able to generate the desired FC signal considerably well,
while at the same time maintaining the correct temporal sequence of the signals.

13

tibia to search for a foothold when loosing ground contact during the stance phase. Losing
ground contact information is detected by a significant change of the accumulated errors
(Figure 6 (c)). In case of both walking on uneven terrain and climbing, this accumulated
error causes shifting of the CTr- and FTi-joints causing the respective leg to search for a
foothold. However, in the specific case of crossing a gap (Figure 7), we use the accumulated
error in order to control tilting of the backbone joint (BJ) and shifting of the TC- and FTijoints such that the front legs can be extended forward continuously till the robot can find
a foothold. In addition to this leg joint control, reactive backbone joint control using the
additional ultrasonic sensors in front of the robot can also be used to learn to lean up the
BJ for climbing over obstacles (this has been previously successfully applied using classical
conditioning based learning in (Goldschmidt et al. 2014) and as such not discussed here).
We now take the example of the more complex, multiple gap crossing experiment in order
to look in detail at the learning outcome of the forward models. This experiment was divided
into two components, consisting of one larger gap (15cm length) and another relatively shorter
gap of 11 cm length. The two gaps were separated by considerable distance where the robot
was allowed to walk on a regular flat terrain. In order to learn to cross a gap, we let AMOS II
walk with a caterpillar gait (see Figure 4 (c), right), such that each left and right pair of legs
moves simultaneously. Empirically this is observed to be the most suited gait for overcoming
large gaps, as well as supported by experimental observations in stick insects (Blaesing and
Cruse 2004). As shown in Figure 7(1), at the beginning AMOS II walked forward straight
towards the initial gap. In this period, as it walks on the flat surface of the platform, it
performed regular movements similar to the training period under normal walking conditions
(training on a flat regular surface) . Eventually, it encounters a 15 cm wide gap (≈ 44% of
body length - the maximum cross-able distance). In this situation, during the subsequent
stance phase the front legs of the robot loose ground contact (Figs. 7(d) and (e)). As a result,
the foot contact sensors from the front legs do not record any value. However the reservoir
forward model still predicts the expected foot contact signal, causing a positive instantaneous
error (Eq. 7). This leads to a gradual ramping of the accumulated error signal between each
stance phase and swing phase, for the front legs (Figure 7 (a)).
In order to activate the BJ and adapt the leg movements due to the difference between
the reservoir predicted FC signal and the actual sensory feedback of the FC sensors (error
signals), we used the maximum accumulated error value of the previous step (Figure 7, (a)
red line) and control the BJ and leg movements in the subsequent step. In this manner, the
BJ started to lean upwards incrementally (step like manner) at around 680 − 850 time steps
(Figure 7(2)). Simultaneously, the TC- and FTi-joint movements of the left and right front
legs were also adapted accordingly in order to carry out elevation action (this is reflected in the
higher amplitude of these two signals in this time period). Due to a predefined time-out period
for tilting upwards, at around 850 time steps (Figure 7(3)), the backbone joint automatically
moved downwards recording a negative value. Consequently, the front legs touch the ground
of the second platform at the middle of the stance phase; thereby, causing the accumulated
error signals to decrease. Due to another time-out period for tilting downwards at around
900 time steps (Figure 7(4)), the BJ automatically moved to the normal position (−2 deg).
Since now the situation is similar to walking on flat terrain, the RF predicted foot contact
signal matches the one recorded by the foot sensors, with accumulated error dropping to
zero. Thereafter, the TC- and FTi-joints perform regular movements. Subsequently left and
right hind legs loose the ground contact, and AMOSII continues to walk forward. Here the
movements of the TC- and FTi-joints were slightly adapted allowing AMOS II to successfully
14

(b)

Predicted
FC signal

(a)

5
0

0.5
0
−0.5
−1
−1.5

Current
FC signal

Rough terrain

1

1

0

0

−1

−1

(c)

Acc. error

0

200

400

Flat terrain
0.5
0
−0.5
−1
−1.5

2000

2500

3000

error

(t)

0.5
0
−0.5
−1
−1.5
5000

S/E
Control
5500

6000

6500

7000

200
100

accumulated

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Time [steps]

1
(d)

3

2

1.0

5

1.0

Searching Control

(+ )

4

S

1.0

Acc. error

Joint Control
Excitatory

Elevation Control

(-

)

1.0

synapse

1.0

E

1.0

Acc. error

Joint Control

Figure 6: Successfully navigating rough terrain with reservoir forward model (a) The reservoir forward model predicted, expected foot contact signal. After a small initial transient the reservoir
output quickly converges to the expect signal for normal walking condition. (b) The actual sensory
feedback (foot contact signal) while walking on the rough surface (c) Accumulated error calculated
from the instantaneous error (∆(t)) after passing through the recurrent neuron in the searching and
elevation control . (d) The searching and elevation action control system consisting of individual recurrent neurons as signal accumulators. After 4000 time steps, the robot successfully overcomes the
rough terrain and continuous walking on a flat surface. As a result, there is zero accumulated error
since the predicted foot contact signal almost exactly matches the actual signal. See the experiment
supplementary video 3.

15

cross the gap and continue walking on the second platform (Figure 7(5)). As the terrian now
resembles a regular flat surface (similar to the original training terrain) AMOSII two continues
to walk forward in normal manner with no accumulated errors being present. However, the
same procedure is repeated once again, when AMOSII re-encounters the second gap at around
2100 time steps. However in this case, since the gap length is much smaller, the elevation
in the BJ occurs with an initial increment of smaller amplitude (Figure 7 (2)) as compared
to the previous case. Thereafter, a similar process is followed and AMOSII can once again
successfully overcome this gap and continue walking on the other end of the platform (Figure 7
(9)). This clearly demonstrates the adaptive yet robust performance of the forward model
based predictions in order to successively cross gaps of different length.
Figure 8 shows that the reservoir forward model in combination with the neural locomotion
control mechanisms, not only successfully generates gap crossing behavior of AMOS II (as
shown above), and learns to walk on uneven terrain, but also allows it to climb over single and
multiple obstacles (eg. up a fleet of stairs). In all these cases, we directly used the accumulated
errors for movement adaptation via the searching and elevation control mechanisms. For
climbing, the reactive backbone joint control was also applied to the system (see (Goldschmidt
et al. 2014) for more details) and a slow wave gait walking pattern (see Figure 4 (a), right)
was used.
Experimentally the wave gait was found to be the most effective for climbing, which allows
AMOSII to overcome the highest climbable obstacle (i.e., 15 cm height which equals ≈ 86%
of its leg length) and to surmount a fleet of stairs. For walking on uneven terrain, a tetrapod
gait (see Figure 4 (b), right) was used without the backbone joint control. This is the most
effective gait for walking on uneven terrain (see also (Manoonpong et al. 2013)). Recall that
in all experiments the forward models basically generate the expected foot contact signals
(i.e., sensory prediction), which are compared to the actual incoming ones. Errors between
the expected and actual signals during locomotion serve as state estimation and are used
to adapt the joint movements accordingly. It is important to note that, the best gait for
each specific scenario was experimentally determined and fixed. However, this could be easily
extended with learning mechanisms (see (Steingrube et al. 2010)) to switch to the desired gait
when the respective behavioral scenarios are encountered, without any additional influence
on the performance of the reservoir forward models.
In order to evaluate the performance of our adaptive reservoir forward model in comparison
to the state of the art model recently presented in (Manoonpong et al. 2013) (single recurrent
neural with low-pass filter), we carried out simulation experiments with AMOSII walking
on different types of surfaces. Specifically, after training on a flat surface (under normal
conditions) we carried out 10 trials each with the robot walking on uneven terrains (laid with
multiple obstacles of height 8cm), having three different elastic properties4 . The surfaces
were divided into hard (1.0), moderately elastic (5.0) and highly elastic (10.0). A tetrapod
walking gait was used in all three cases. Starting from a fixed position, we noted the total
time taken by the robot to successfully cross the uneven terrain region and move into a flat
surface region. As observed in Figs. 9 (a) and (b), the reservoir forward model enables the
robot to traverse the uneven region considerably faster as compared to the adaptive neuron
forward model, in all three scenarios. Both the models can be seen to overcome the hard
surface much better as compared to the elastic ones. This was expected due to the changes
4

Here the elasticity coefficients do not strictly represent Young’s modulus values. These were local parameter
setting defined in the simulation, with increasing values causing greater elasticity.

16

Acc. error

(a)

FR1-joint [deg] CR1-joint [deg] TR1-joint [deg]

BJ [deg]

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(1)

(2) (3) (4)

(5)

(6) (7)

(8)

elevated

20

normal position (-2°)

0
-20
depressed
50
0

swing

stance

80
60

Normal walking

40

Gap crossing
Backbone elevated

-110
-120
-130

Gap crossing
Backbone depressed

500

1000

1500
2000
Time [steps]

2500

15 cm gap

(1)

(9)

100
50
0

(2)

(3)

11 cm gap

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Figure 7: Real-time data of walking and crossing multiple gaps using the forward model
predictions. (a) The accumulated error (black line) and the maximum accumulated error value at
the end of each stance phase (red line) of the right front leg (R1 ). The accumulated error is reset to
zero every swing phase. (b) The backbone joint (BJ) angle during walking and gap crossing. The
BJ stays at the normal position (−2 deg) during normal walking. On encountering a gap (15cm), it
leans upwards in a step like fashion and then finally bent downwards in order to cross the gap. This
procedure is repeated for the second gap (11cm), however with different degree of elevations. (c-e)
The TC-, CTr-, and FTi-joint angles of right front leg R1 during normal walking and gap crossing.
The joint adaptation was controlled by the maximum accumulated error value of the previous step
(red line). Below pictures show snap shots of the locomotion of AMOS II during the experiment. Note
that one time step is ≈ 0.037 s. For further details interested readers are recommended to see the
experiment supplementary videos 1 and 2.

17

Climbing over a large obstacle (15 cm height )

a)

Range sensors

1

2

b)

3

4

5

Climbing up a fleet of stairs (6 cm high steps)

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 8: Snapshots showing the learned behavior during climbing over a high obstacle
and climbing up a fleet of stairs (a) AMOSII walked with the wave gait and approached a 15
cm high obstacle (1). It detected the obstacle using its range sensors installed at its front part. The
low-pass filtered range sensory signals control the BJ to tilt upwards (2) and then back to its normal
position (3). Due to the missing foot contact of the front legs, the BJ moved downwards to ensure
stability (4). During climbing, middle and hind legs lowered downwards due to the occurrence of the
accumulated errors, showing leg extension, to support the body. Finally, it successfully surmounted
the high obstacle (5). For further details see the supplementary experiment video 4 (b) AMOSII
climbed up a fleet of stairs (1-5) using the wave gait as well as the reactive BJ control. The climbing
behavior is also similar to the one described in the case (a). For further details see supplementary
experiment video 5.

18

(b)

(a)

Neuron Forward Model

3.5

Success Time [min]

Success Time [min]

Reservoir Forward Model

3
2.5
2

5
1
10
Surface elasticity [a.u.]

5.5
5
4.5
4

5
1
10
Surface elasticity [a.u.]

Figure 9: Average time to successfully overcome uneven terrains of different elasticity
(hard, moderate, highly elastic) (a) Average success time for reservoir-based forward model. (b)
Average success time for adaptive neuron forward model from (Manoonpong et al. 2013). Here the
whiskers indicate one standard deviation above and below the mean value. Note the difference in scale
of the y-axis in both plots. The experimental surface here consisted of the rough terrain as presented
in Fig. 6 consisting of irregular undulations, however with varying degree of elasticity for the three
cases.

19

in surface stiffness resulting in additional forces on the robot legs. However, the reservoir
model performance was considerably more robust with a mean difference in success time of
1.86 mins for the hardest surface and approximately 2 mins for the most elastic surface,
cases. Given that the walking gait was fixed, here the success time can be thought as an
indicator of the robot’s energy efficiency. In the absence of additional body mechanisms
to deal with changing surface stiffness, the reservoir based model outperforms the previous
implementations of adaptive forward models by ≈ 25% order of magnitude on average.

5

Discussion

In this study, we presented adaptive forward models using the self-adaptive reservoir network
for locomotion control. The model is implemented on each leg of a simulated bio-inspired
hexapod robot. It is trained online during walking on a flat terrain in order to transform an
efference copy (motor signal) into an expected foot contact signal (i.e., sensory prediction).
Afterwards, the learned model of each leg is used to estimate walking states by comparing
the expected foot contact signal with the actual incoming one. The difference between the
expected and actual foot contact signals is used to adapt the robot’s leg through elevation and
searching control. Each leg is adapted independently. This enables the robot to successfully
walk on uneven terrains. Moreover, using a backbone joint, the robot can also successfully
cross a large gap and climb over a high obstacle as well as up a fleet of stairs. In this
approach, basic walking patterns are generated by CPG-based control along with local leg
control mechanisms that make use of the reservoir prediction to adapt the robot’s behavior.
The key neural mechanisms presented in this work, namely, CPG -based neural control,
internal forward models and local leg control, are essential for robust, adaptive locomotion
control. However, only individual instances of them has been successfully realized on artificial
and bio-mimetic robotic systems (Bläsing 2004), (Lewinger and Quinn 2011), (Schilling et al.
2012), (Ren et al. 2012), (Christensen et al. 2014), (Pfeifer et al. 2007); thereby achieving
partial solutions. Furthermore, although a few studies have focused on a combination of these
neural mechanisms, they have largely been tailored for adaptive locomotion in quadruped
robots (Lewis and Bekey 2002), (Silva et al. 2012), without the ability to climb obstacles
or cross large gaps, as observed in real animals and insects. Thus, this work demonstrates
how the combination of these essential components, coupled with the power of the adaptive
recurrent neural forward models can achieve very rich behavioral repertoire in bio-inspired
hexapod robots. Thus supporting the idea that such embodied neural control (Floreano et al.
2014) is indeed a potential powerful future alternative of more conventional control methods.
It is important to note that the usage of reservoir networks, as forward models here,
provides the crucial benefit of an inherent representation of time and fading memory (due
to the internal feedback loops and input dependent adaptations). Such memory of the timevarying motor or sensory stimuli is required to overcome intrinsic time lags between expected
sensory signals and motor outputs (Wolpert et al. 1998), as well as in behavioral scenarios
with considerable dependence on the history of motor output (Lonini et al. 2009). This
is very difficult in most of the previous implementations of forward internal models using
either simple single recurrent neuron implementations (Manoonpong et al. 2013), feed-forward
multi-layered neural networks (Schröder-Schetelig et al. 2010), or Bayesian network models
(Dearden and Demiris 2005), (Sturm et al. 2008). Furthermore, in this case, online adaptation
of only the reservoir-to-readout weights (readout) makes such networks beneficial for simple

20

and online learning.
The concept of forward models with efference copies in conjunction with neural control
has been suggested since the mid-20th century (Holst and Mittelstaedt 1950), (Held 1961) and
increasingly employed for biological investigations (Webb 2004). This is because it can explain
mechanisms which biological systems use to predict the consequence of their action based on
sensory information, resulting in adaptive and robust behaviors in a closed-loop scenario. This
concept also forms a major motivation for robots inspired by biological systems. Within this
context, the work presented here, verifies that a combination of CPG-based neural control,
adaptive reservoir forward models with efference copies, and searching and elevation control
can be used for robustly generating complex locomotion and adaptive behaviors in an artificial
walking system. Additionally, although in this study we specifically focused on locomotive
behaviors for walking robots, (such) SARN based motor prediction systems can be easily
generalized to a number of other applications. Specifically for neuro-prosthetic (Ganguly
and Carmena 2009), sensor-driven orthotic control (Braun et al. 2014), (Lee and Lee 2005)
or brain-machine interface devices (Golub et al. 2012), that require the learning of such
predictive models using highly non-stationary, temporal signals, applying SARN models can
provide high performance gains with embedded memory, as compared to the current static
feed-forward neural network solutions. In the future, we will transfer the reservoir-based
adaptive forward models to the physical hexapod robot AMOS-II (Manoonpong et al. 2013)
in order to test the adaptive behaviors in a real environment. Furthermore, although in this
work, we specifically focused on a single CPG-based control mechanism, in the future we plan
to augment the distributed forward model architecture with multiple CPG-based control (one
for each leg) (Ren et al. 2015). Thereby, truly enabling decentralized control of the robot legs
for greater degree of adaptation as observed in biology.

Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the Emmy Noether Program (DFG, MA4464/3-1), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) by a grant to the Bernstein Center for
Computational Neuroscience II Göttingen (01GQ1005A, project D1) and the International
Max Planck Research School for Physics of Biological and Complex Systems scholarship.

Author contributions
S.D, F.W and P.M designed the research. S.D and P.M implemented the model, analyzed
data and carried out simulations. D.G carried out the climbing experiments. S.D and P.M
wrote the manuscript.

References
B. Blaesing and H. Cruse. Stick insect locomotion in a complex environment: climbing over
large gaps. Journal of experimental biology, 207(8):1273–1286, 2004.
B. Bläsing. Adaptive locomotion in a complex environment: simulation of stick insect gap
crossing behaviour. From animals to animats, 8:173–182, 2004.

21

J. M. Braun, F. Wörgötter, and P. Manoonpong. Internal models support specific gaits in
orthotic devices. In Mobile Service Robotics, number 17 in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Climbing and Walking Robots, pages 539–546, 2014.
D. J. Christensen, J. C. Larsen, and K. Stoy. Fault-tolerant gait learning and morphology
optimization of a polymorphic walking robot. Evolving Systems, 5(1):21–32, 2014.
H. Cruse. The control of body position in the stick insect (carausius morosus), when walking
over uneven surfaces. Biological Cybernetics, 24(1):25–33, 1976.
S. Dasgupta. Temporal information processing and memory guided behaviors with recurrent
neural networks. PhD thesis, Georg-August University, Göttingen, 2015.
S. Dasgupta, F. Wörgötter, and P. Manoonpong. Information dynamics based self-adaptive
reservoir for delay temporal memory tasks. Evolving Systems, 4(4):235–249, 2013.
A. Dearden and Y. Demiris. Learning forward models for robots. In International Joint
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 5, page 1440, 2005.
R. Der and G. Martius. The lpzrobots simulator. In The Playful Machine, pages 293–308.
Springer, 2012.
D. Floreano, A. J. Ijspeert, and S. Schaal. Robotics and neuroscience. Current Biology, 24
(18):910–920, 2014.
K. Ganguly and J. M. Carmena. Emergence of a stable cortical map for neuroprosthetic
control. PLoS biology, 7(7):e1000153, 2009.
D. Goldschmidt, F. Wörgötter, and P. Manoonpong. Biologically-inspired adaptive obstacle
negotiation behavior of hexapod robots. Frontiers in neurorobotics, 8, 2014.
M. D. Golub, B. Yu, and S. M. Chase. Internal models engaged by brain-computer interface
control. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE, pages 1327–1330. IEEE, 2012.
R. Held. Exposure-history as a factor in maintaining stability of perception and coordination.
The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 132(1):26–hyhen, 1961.
F. Hesse, G. Martius, P. Manoonpong, M. Biehl, and F. Wörgötter. Modular robot control
environment testing neural control on simulated and real robots. In Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, Conference Abstract: Bernstein Conference, pages 1416–1420, 2012.
E. Holst and H. Mittelstaedt. Das reafferenzprinzip. Naturwissenschaften, 37(20):464–476,
1950.
S. J. Huston and V. Jayaraman. Studying sensorimotor integration in insects. Current opinion
in neurobiology, 21(4):527–534, 2011.
H. Jaeger and H. Haas. Harnessing nonlinearity: Predicting chaotic systems and saving energy
in wireless communication. Science, 304(5667):78–80, 2004.
M. Kawato. Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning. Current opinion in
neurobiology, 9(6):718–727, 1999.
22

P. Kesper, E. Grinke, F. Hesse, F. Wörgötter, and P. Manoonpong. Obstacle/gap detection
and terrain classification of walking robots based on a 2d laser range finder. Chapter, 53:
419–426, 2013.
J.-W. Lee and G.-K. Lee. Gait angle prediction for lower limb orthotics and prostheses using
an emg signal and neural networks. International Journal of Control, Automation, and
Systems, 3(2):152–158, 2005.
W. A. Lewinger and R. D. Quinn. Neurobiologically-based control system for an adaptively
walking hexapod. Industrial Robot: An International Journal, 38(3):258–263, 2011.
M. A. Lewis and G. A. Bekey. Gait adaptation in a quadruped robot. Autonomous robots,
12(3):301–312, 2002.
L. Lonini, L. Dipietro, L. Zollo, E. Guglielmelli, and H. I. Krebs. An internal model for
acquisition and retention of motor learning during arm reaching. Neural computation, 21
(7):2009–2027, 2009.
W. Maass, T. Natschlaeger, and H. Markram. Real-time computing without stable states:
A new framework for neural computation based on perturbations. Neural computation, 14
(11):2531–2560, 2002.
P. Manoonpong, U. Parlitz, and F. Wörgötter. Neural control and adaptive neural forward models for insect-like, energy-efficient, and adaptable locomotion of walking machines.
Frontiers in neural circuits, 7, 2013.
M. Mischiati, H.-T. Lin, P. Herold, E. Imler, R. Olberg, and A. Leonardo. Internal models
direct dragonfly interception steering. Nature, 517(7534):333–338, 2015.
T. Nachstedt, F. Worgotter, P. Manoonpong, R. Ariizumi, Y. Ambe, and F. Matsuno. Adaptive neural oscillators with synaptic plasticity for locomotion control of a snake-like robot
with screw-drive mechanism. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2013 IEEE International Conference on, pages 3389–3395. IEEE, 2013.
F. Pasemann, M. Hild, and K. Zahedi. So (2)-networks as neural oscillators. In Computational
methods in neural modeling, pages 144–151. Springer, 2003.
K. Pearson and R. Franklin. Characteristics of leg movements and patterns of coordination
in locusts walking on rough terrain. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 3(2):
101–112, 1984.
R. Pfeifer, M. Lungarella, and F. Iida. Self-organization, embodiment, and biologically inspired robotics. science, 318(5853):1088–1093, 2007.
G. Ren, W. Chen, C. Kolodziejski, F. Worgotter, S. Dasgupta, and P. Manoonpong. Multiple
chaotic central pattern generators for locomotion generation and leg damage compensation
in a hexapod robot. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pages 2756–2761. IEEE, 2012.
G. Ren, W. Chen, S. Dasgupta, C. Kolodziejski, F. Wörgötter, and P. Manoonpong. Multiple
chaotic central pattern generators with learning for legged locomotion and malfunction
compensation. Information Sciences, 294:666–682, 2015.
23

M. Schilling, J. Paskarbeit, J. Schmitz, A. Schneider, and H. Cruse. Grounding an internal
body model of a hexapod walker control of curve walking in a biologically inspired robot.
In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on,
pages 2762–2768. IEEE, 2012.
J. Schröder-Schetelig, P. Manoonpong, and F. Wörgötter. Using efference copy and a forward
internal model for adaptive biped walking. Autonomous Robots, 29(3-4):357–366, 2010.
P. Silva, V. Matos, and C. P. Santos. Adaptive quadruped locomotion: learning to detect
and avoid an obstacle. In From Animals to Animats 12, pages 361–370. Springer, 2012.
H. Simon. Adaptive filter theory. Prentice Hall, 2:478–481, 2002.
H. Sompolinsky, A. Crisanti, and H. Sommers. Chaos in random neural networks. Physical
Review Letters, 61(3):259, 1988.
S. Steingrube, M. Timme, F. Wörgötter, and P. Manoonpong. Self-organized adaptation of a
simple neural circuit enables complex robot behaviour. Nature Physics, 6(3):224–230, 2010.
J. Sturm, C. Plagemann, and W. Burgard. Adaptive body scheme models for robust robotic
manipulation. In Robotics: Science and systems, 2008.
D. Sussillo and L. F. Abbott. Generating coherent patterns of activity from chaotic neural
networks. Neuron, 63(4):544–557, 2009.
J. Triesch. A gradient rule for the plasticity of a neurons intrinsic excitability. In Artificial
Neural Networks: Biological Inspirations–ICANN 2005, pages 65–70. Springer, 2005.
C. van Vreeswijk and H. Sompolinsky. Chaos in neuronal networks with balanced excitatory
and inhibitory activity. Science, 274(5293):1724–1726, 1996.
J. T. Watson, R. E. Ritzmann, S. N. Zill, and A. J. Pollack. Control of obstacle climbing in
the cockroach, blaberus discoidalis. i. kinematics. Journal of Comparative Physiology A,
188(1):39–53, 2002.
B. Webb. Neural mechanisms for prediction: do insects have forward models? Trends in
neurosciences, 27(5):278–282, 2004.
D. M. Wolpert, R. C. Miall, and M. Kawato. Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends in
cognitive sciences, 2(9):338–347, 1998.
S. Zenker, E. E. Aksoy, D. Goldschmidt, F. Wörgötter, and P. Manoonpong. Visual terrain
classification for selecting energy efficient gaits of a hexapod robot. In Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), 2013 IEEE/ASME International Conference on, pages 577–584.
IEEE, 2013.
S. Zill, J. Schmitz, and A. Büschges. Load sensing and control of posture and locomotion.
Arthropod structure & development, 33(3):273–286, 2004.

24

Distributed Recurrent Neural Forward Models with Synaptic
Adaptation for Complex Behaviors of Walking Robots
Supplementary Data

Figure 1: Main wiring diagram of the central pattern generator based control, the reservoir forward models
and local leg controls. Single CPG-based control applied to AMOS II for locomotn. CPG’s outputs are projected to
PCPG (CPG post processing unit) which translate them into ascending and descending slopes, then these signals
are fed to the PSN (phase shift network) component. The outputs of the PSN are projected to the F(R,L) and C(R,L)
motor neurons (i.e. the FTi and CTr joints of the robot) through delay lines, as well as to the VRN (velocity regulating
network). The VRN’s outputs are projected to the T(R,L) motor neurons (TC joints) through delay lines. The CTr joint
signals were then used as efference copies that feed as time varying inputs to each of the six reservoir forward
models. This in turn is connected to the local searching and elevation controls.

25

Parameters

Values

Recurrent Network Size –
Number of output neurons

N

Number of input neurons
Time step - ∆t
Neuron time constant initialization -

τ

δc
Scaling parameter -

g

Connection probability -

pc

Nonlinearity shape initialization Nonlinearity scale initialization Auxiliary neuron bias -

ai
bi

1.0
0.0
N (0, 0.01)

Bi

Input weight initialization -

30
3
1
0.037
10ms
10−3
0.95
0.2

W

U [ −0.1, 0.1]

in

Recurrent weight initialization -

W rec


g2 
N  0,


pc N 


Table 1: Recurrent Neural Network (reservoir) forward model parameters

26

