Despite a slow neuromuscular system, humans easily outperform modern robot technology, especially in physical contact tasks. How is this possible? Biological evidence indicates that motor control of biological systems is achieved by a modular organization of motor primitives, which are fundamental building blocks of motor behavior. Inspired by neuro-motor control research, the idea of using simpler building blocks has been successfully used in robotics. Nevertheless, a comprehensive formulation of modularity for robot control remains to be established. In this paper, we introduce a modular framework for robot control using motor primitives. We present two essential requirements to achieve modular robot control: independence of modules and closure of stability. We describe key control modules and demonstrate that a wide range of complex robotic behaviors can be generated from this small set of modules and their combinations. The presented modular control framework demonstrates several beneficial properties for robot control, including task-space control without solving Inverse Kinematics, addressing the problems of kinematic singularity and kinematic redundancy, and preserving passivity for contact and physical interactions. Further advantages include exploiting kinematic singularity to maintain high external load with low torque compensation, as well as controlling the robot beyond its end-effector, extending even to external objects. Both simulation and actual robot experiments are presented to validate the effectiveness of our modular framework. We conclude that modularity may be an effective constructive framework for achieving robotic behaviors comparable to human-level performance.

Motor primitives are fundamental building blocks of a controller which enable dynamic robot behavior with minimal high-level intervention. By treating motor primitives as basic "modules," different modules can be sequenced or superimposed to generate a rich repertoire of motor behavior. In robotics, two distinct approaches have been proposed: Dynamic Movement Primitives (DMPs) and Elementary Dynamic Actions (EDAs). While both approaches instantiate similar ideas, significant differences also exist. This paper attempts to clarify the distinction and provide a unifying view by delineating the similarities and differences between DMPs and EDAs. We provide eight robot control examples, including sequencing or superimposing movements, managing kinematic redundancy and singularity, obstacle avoidance, and managing physical interaction. We show that the two approaches clearly diverge in their implementation. We also discuss how DMPs and EDAs might be combined to get the best of both approaches. With this detailed comparison, we enable researchers to make informed decisions to select the most suitable approach for specific robot tasks and applications.

IBM says it has made progress toward developing ways to estimate the severity of Parkinson's symptoms by analyzing physical activity as motor impairment increases. In a paper published in the journal Nature Scientific Reports, scientists at IBM Research, Pfizer, the Spivack Center for Clinical and Translational Neuroscience, and Tufts created statistical representations of patients' movement that could be evaluated using AI either in-clinic or from a more natural setting, such as a patient's home. And at the 2020 Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference (MLHC), IBM and the Michael J. Fox Foundation intend to detail a disease progression model that pinpoints how far a person's Parkinson's has advanced. The human motor system relies on a series of discrete movements, like arm swinging while walking, running, or jogging, to perform tasks. These movements and the transitions linking them create patterns of activity that can be measured and analyzed for signs of Parkinson's, a disease that's anticipated to affect nearly 1 million people in the U.S. this year alone.