arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2201.08319

Body Models in Humans and Robots

Matej Hoffmann·Matthew R. Longo
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Neurocognitive models of higher-level somatosensory processing have emphasised the role of stored body representations in interpreting real-time sensory signals coming from the body (Longo, Azanon and Haggard, 2010; Tame, Azanon and Longo, 2019). The need for such stored representations arises from the fact that immediate sensory signals coming from the body do not specify metric details about body size and shape. Several aspects of somatoperception, therefore, require that immediate sensory signals be combined with stored body representations. This basic problem is equally true for humanoid robots and, intriguingly, neurocognitive models developed to explain human perception are strikingly similar to those developed independently for localizing touch on humanoid robots, such as the iCub, equipped with artificial electronic skin on the majority of its body surface (Roncone et al., 2014; Hoffmann, 2021). In this chapter, we will review the key features of these models, discuss their similarities and differences to each other, and to other models in the literature. Using robots as embodied computational models is an example of synthetic methodology or 'understanding by building' (e.g., Hoffmann and Pfeifer, 2018), computational embodied neuroscience (Caligiore et al., 2010) or 'synthetic psychology of the self' (Prescott and Camilleri, 2019). Such models have the advantage that they need to be worked out into every detail, making any theory explicit and complete. There is also an additional way of (pre)validating such a theory other than comparing to the biological or psychological phenomenon studied by simply verifying that a particular implementation really performs the task: can the robot localize where it is being touched (see https://youtu.be/pfse424t5mQ)?

Explore related subjects

cs.ROq-bio.NC

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Matej Hoffmann, Matthew R. Longo. 2022-01-20. Body Models in Humans and Robots. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.08319

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗