Skip to main content

Empirical verification of fine-motion planning theories

  • Chapter 11 Fine-Motion Planning and Control
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Experimental Robotics IV

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences ((LNCIS,volume 223))

Abstract

Successful robot systems must employ actions that are robust in the face of task uncertainty. Toward this end, Lozano-PĂ©rez, Mason, and Taylor developed a model of manipulation tasks that explicitly considers task uncertainty. In this paper we study the utility of this model applied to real-world tasks. We report the results of two experiments that highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the LMT approach. The first experiment showed that the LMT formalism can successfully plan solutions for a complex real-world task. The second experiment showed a task that the formalism is fundamentally incapable of solving.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. A. J. Briggs. An efficient algorithm for one-step planar compliant motion planning with uncertainty. Technical Report TR 89-980, Cornell University Department of Computer Science, March 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. C. Brost. Dynamic analysis of planar manipulation tasks. In Proceedings, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 2247–2254, May 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. C. Brost. Natural sets in manipulation tasks. In K. Goldberg, D. Halperin, J.C. Latombe, and R. Wilson, eds, The Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics, pages 127–136. A. K. Peters, Boston, MA, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  4. R. C. Brost and A. D. Christiansen. Probabilistic analysis of manipulation tasks: A computational framework. Intl. J. of Robotics Research, 15(1), 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. F. Canny and J. Reif. New lower bound techniques for robot motion planning. In Proceedings, 28th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 49–60. IEEE, October 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  6. B. R. Donald. A geometric approach to error detection and recovery for robot motion planning with uncertainty. Artificial Intelligence, 37:223–271, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. M. A. Erdmann. Using backprojections for fine motion planning with uncertainty. Intl. J. of Robotics Research, 5(1):19–45, Spring 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  8. H. A. Ernst. MH-1, A Computer-Operated Mechanical Hand. PhD thesis, MIT Department of Electrical Engineering, December 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  9. H. Inoue. Force feedback in precise assembly tasks. Memo 308, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, August 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. C. Latombe. Robot Motion Planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  11. T. Lozano-Pérez, M. T. Mason, and R. H. Taylor. Automatic synthesis of fine-motion strategies for robots. Intl. J. of Robotics Research, 3(1):3–24, Spring 1984.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Oussama Khatib J. Kenneth Salisbury

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this paper

Cite this paper

Brost, R.C., Christiansen, A.D. (1997). Empirical verification of fine-motion planning theories. In: Khatib, O., Salisbury, J.K. (eds) Experimental Robotics IV. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, vol 223. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0035237

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0035237

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-76133-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-40942-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics