Hubbry Logo
Bio-inspired roboticsBio-inspired roboticsMain
Open search
Bio-inspired robotics
Community hub
Bio-inspired robotics
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Bio-inspired robotics
Bio-inspired robotics
Bio-inspired robotics
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Two u-CAT robots that are being developed at the Tallinn University of Technology to reduce the cost of underwater archaeological operations

Bio-inspired robotic locomotion is a subcategory of bio-inspired design. It is about learning concepts from nature and applying them to the design of real-world engineered systems. More specifically, this field is about making robots that are inspired by biological systems,[1] including Biomimicry. Biomimicry is copying from nature while bio-inspired design is learning from nature and making a mechanism that is simpler and more effective than the system observed in nature. Biomimicry has led to the development of a different branch of robotics called soft robotics. The biological systems have been optimized for specific tasks according to their habitat. However, they are multifunctional and are not designed for only one specific functionality. Bio-inspired robotics is about studying biological systems, and looking for the mechanisms that may solve a problem in the engineering field. The designer should then try to simplify and enhance that mechanism for the specific task of interest. Bio-inspired roboticists are usually interested in biosensors (e.g. eye), bioactuators (e.g. muscle), or biomaterials (e.g. spider silk). Most of the robots have some type of locomotion system. Thus, in this article different modes of animal locomotion and few examples of the corresponding bio-inspired robots are introduced.

Stickybot: a gecko-inspired robot

Biolocomotion

[edit]

Biolocomotion or animal locomotion is usually categorized as below:

Locomotion on a surface

[edit]

Locomotion on a surface may include terrestrial locomotion and arboreal locomotion. We will specifically discuss about terrestrial locomotion in detail in the next section.

Big eared townsend bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

Locomotion in a fluid

[edit]

Locomotion in a blood stream or cell culture media swimming and flying. There are many swimming and flying robots designed and built by roboticists.[2] Some of them use miniaturized motors or conventional MEMS actuators (such as piezoelectric, thermal, magnetic, etc),[3][4][5] while others use animal muscle cells as motors.[6][7][8]

Behavioral classification (terrestrial locomotion)

[edit]

There are many animal and insects moving on land with or without legs. We will discuss legged and limbless locomotion in this section as well as climbing and jumping. Anchoring the feet is fundamental to locomotion on land. The ability to increase traction is important for slip-free motion on surfaces such as smooth rock faces and ice, and is especially critical for moving uphill. Numerous biological mechanisms exist for providing purchase: claws rely upon friction-based mechanisms; gecko feet upon van der walls forces; and some insect feet upon fluid-mediated adhesive forces.[9]

Rhex: a Reliable Hexapedal Robot

Legged locomotion

[edit]

Legged robots may have one,[10][11][12] two,[13] four,[14] six,[15][16][17] or many legs[18] depending on the application. One of the main advantages of using legs instead of wheels is moving on uneven environment more effectively. Bipedal, quadrupedal, and hexapedal locomotion are among the most favorite types of legged locomotion in the field of bio-inspired robotics. Rhex, a Reliable Hexapedal robot[15] and Cheetah[19] are the two fastest running robots so far. iSprawl is another hexapedal robot inspired by cockroach locomotion that has been developed at Stanford University.[16] This robot can run up to 15 body length per second and can achieve speeds of up to 2.3 m/s. The original version of this robot was pneumatically driven while the new generation uses a single electric motor for locomotion.[17]

Limbless locomotion

[edit]

Terrain involving topography over a range of length scales can be challenging for most organisms and biomimetic robots. Such terrain are easily passed over by limbless organisms such as snakes. Several animals and insects including worms, snails, caterpillars, and snakes are capable of limbless locomotion. A review of snake-like robots is presented by Hirose et al.[20] These robots can be categorized as robots with passive or active wheels, robots with active treads, and undulating robots using vertical waves or linear expansions. Most snake-like robots use wheels, which are high in friction when moving side to side but low in friction when rolling forward (and can be prevented from rolling backward). The majority of snake-like robots use either lateral undulation or rectilinear locomotion and have difficulty climbing vertically. Choset has recently developed a modular robot that can mimic several snake gaits, but it cannot perform concertina motion.[21] Researchers at Georgia Tech have recently developed two snake-like robots called Scalybot. The focus of these robots is on the role of snake ventral scales on adjusting the frictional properties in different directions. These robots can actively control their scales to modify their frictional properties and move on a variety of surfaces efficiently.[22] Researchers at CMU have developed both scaled[23] and conventional actuated snake-like robots.[24]

Further information: Snakebot

Climbing

[edit]

Climbing is an especially difficult task because mistakes made by the climber could cause the climber to lose its grip and fall. Most robots have been built around a single functionality observed in their biological counterparts. Geckobots typically use van der waals forces that work only on smooth surfaces.[25] Being inspired from geckos, scientists from Stanford university have artificially created the adhesive property of a gecko. Similar to seta in a gecko's leg, millions of microfibers were placed and attached to a spring. The tip of the microfiber will be sharp and pointed in usual circumstances, but upon actuation, the movement of a spring will create a stress which bends these microfibers and increase their contact area to the surface of a glass or wall. Using the same technology, gecko grippers were invented by NASA scientists for different applications in space. Stickybots use directional dry adhesives that works best on smooth surfaces.[26][27][28][29][30] The Spinybot[31] and RiSE[32] robots are among the insect-like robots that use spines instead. Legged climbing robots have several limitations. They cannot handle large obstacles since they are not flexible and they require a wide space for moving. They usually cannot climb both smooth and rough surfaces or handle vertical to horizontal transitions as well.

Jumping

[edit]

One of the tasks commonly performed by a variety of living organisms is jumping. Bharal, hares, kangaroo, grasshopper, flea, and locust are among the best jumping animals. A miniature 7g jumping robot inspired by locust has been developed at EPFL that can jump up to 138 cm.[33] The jump event is induced by releasing the tension of a spring. The highest jumping miniature robot is inspired by the locust, weighs 23 grams with its highest jump to 365 cm is "TAUB" (Tel-Aviv University and Braude College of engineering).[34] It uses torsion springs as energy storage and includes a wire and latch mechanism to compress and release the springs. ETH Zurich has reported a soft jumping robot based on the combustion of methane and laughing gas.[35] The thermal gas expansion inside the soft combustion chamber drastically increases the chamber volume. This causes the 2 kg robot to jump up to 20 cm. The soft robot inspired by a roly-poly toy then reorientates itself into an upright position after landing.

Behavioral classification (aquatic locomotion)

[edit]

Swimming (piscine)

[edit]

It is calculated that when swimming some fish can achieve a propulsive efficiency greater than 90%.[36] Furthermore, they can accelerate and maneuver far better than any man-made boat or submarine, and produce less noise and water disturbance. Therefore, many researchers studying underwater robots would like to copy this type of locomotion.[37] Notable examples are the Essex University Computer Science Robotic Fish G9,[38] and the Robot Tuna built by the Institute of Field Robotics, to analyze and mathematically model thunniform motion.[39] The Aqua Penguin,[40] designed and built by Festo of Germany, copies the streamlined shape and propulsion by front "flippers" of penguins. Festo have also built the Aqua Ray and Aqua Jelly, which emulate the locomotion of manta ray, and jellyfish, respectively.

Robotic Fish: iSplash-II

In 2014, iSplash-II was developed by PhD student Richard James Clapham and Prof. Huosheng Hu at Essex University. It was the first robotic fish capable of outperforming real carangiform fish in terms of average maximum velocity (measured in body lengths/ second) and endurance, the duration that top speed is maintained.[41] This build attained swimming speeds of 11.6BL/s (i.e. 3.7 m/s).[42] The first build, iSplash-I (2014) was the first robotic platform to apply a full-body length carangiform swimming motion which was found to increase swimming speed by 27% over the traditional approach of a posterior confined waveform.[43]

Morphological classification

[edit]

Modular

[edit]
Honda Asimo: A Humanoid robot

The modular robots are typically capable of performing several tasks and are specifically useful for search and rescue or exploratory missions. Some of the featured robots in this category include a salamander inspired robot developed at EPFL that can walk and swim,[44] a snake inspired robot developed at Carnegie-Mellon University that has four different modes of terrestrial locomotion,[21] and a cockroach inspired robot can run and climb on a variety of complex terrain.[15]

Humanoid

[edit]

Humanoid robots are robots that look human-like or are inspired by the human form. There are many different types of humanoid robots for applications such as personal assistance, reception, work at industries, or companionship. These types of robots are used for research purposes as well and were originally developed to build better orthosis and prosthesis for human beings. Petman is one of the first and most advanced humanoid robots developed at Boston Dynamics. Some of the humanoid robots such as Honda Asimo are over actuated.[45] On the other hand, there are some humanoid robots like the robot developed at Cornell University that do not have any actuators and walk passively descending a shallow slope.[46]

Swarming

[edit]

The collective behavior of animals has been of interest to researchers for several years. Ants can make structures like rafts to survive on the rivers. Fish can sense their environment more effectively in large groups. Swarm robotics is a fairly new field and the goal is to make robots that can work together and transfer the data, make structures as a group, etc.[47]

Soft

[edit]

Soft robots[48] are robots composed entirely of soft materials and moved through pneumatic pressure, similar to an octopus or starfish. Such robots are flexible enough to move in very limited spaces (such as in the human body). The first multigait soft robots was developed in 2011[49] and the first fully integrated, independent soft robot (with soft batteries and control systems) was developed in 2015.[50]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Bio-inspired robotics

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Bio-inspired robotics, also known as biomimetic robotics, is an interdisciplinary field that designs and constructs robots by drawing inspiration from biological organisms, emulating their structures, mechanisms, sensory capabilities, and behaviors to create systems that are more adaptable, efficient, and resilient in complex environments. This approach addresses limitations of conventional rigid robotics by incorporating principles from , such as soft materials for compliant motion, collective intelligence in swarms, and neuromorphic sensing for real-time environmental interaction. Key subdomains include , which mimics muscle-like actuation; bio-inspired locomotion, replicating animal gaits for uneven terrain; and systems derived from neural dynamics. The field's historical roots trace to 19th-century attempts to mimic for , as pioneered by in 1889, but modern developments began in the mid-20th century with early legged locomotion controls in 1968 and dynamic walking machines in 1983. Over the past few decades, advances in , , and manufacturing have accelerated progress, enabling applications in , , medical prosthetics, and missions. Notable examples include snake-like robots for search-and-rescue operations and soft grippers inspired by arms for delicate manipulation.

Fundamentals

Definition and Principles

Bio-inspired robotics is an interdisciplinary field that designs and engineers robotic systems by drawing direct inspiration from biological structures, processes, or behaviors to address challenges in functionality, , and adaptability. This approach emphasizes understanding and abstracting principles from , such as adaptive locomotion or sensory integration, rather than superficial replication, enabling robots to operate effectively in unstructured or dynamic environments. At its core, bio-inspired robotics adheres to several key principles derived from biological systems. structures robotic architectures from low-level components, like sensors and actuators, to higher-level control systems, mirroring the multi-scale composition of organisms from cells to whole bodies. Emergent behaviors arise from interactions among simple rules or modules, leading to complex, adaptive outcomes without centralized control, as seen in decentralized swarm coordination. Energy efficiency is achieved through passive dynamics, where material properties and environmental interactions minimize active power use, such as in compliant structures that leverage elasticity for motion. Multi-functionality allows single structures to perform diverse roles, like actuators that simultaneously control position and , enhancing compactness and versatility. Bio-inspired robotics differs from related fields in its focus on functional replication over aesthetic . While biomimetic designs prioritize close physical resemblance to biological forms, bio-inspired approaches broadly transfer underlying principles for practical engineering gains, avoiding unnecessary complexity. In contrast to traditional , which emphasizes rigid , high-precision components, and predefined operations in controlled settings, bio-inspired methods promote organic adaptability, compliance, and robustness through integrated, nature-derived designs. A fundamental concept in bio-inspired robotics is the of biological inspirations at varying levels to inform . These include form (mimicking physical structures), function (replicating operational purposes), and process (emulating dynamic mechanisms), allowing engineers to distill essential features for targeted applications. For instance, foot inspires climbing capabilities by abstracting the fibrillar microstructure at the form level to enable reversible dry without chemical residues.

Historical Development

The field of bio-inspired robotics traces its origins to the mid-20th century, when early research began exploring simple machines that mimicked animal reflexes. In 1948 and 1949, British neurophysiologist W. Grey Walter constructed the first electromechanical tortoises, named Elmer and Elsie, at the Burden Neurological Institute. These autonomous devices, equipped with basic sensors for light and obstacle detection, exhibited reactive behaviors such as seeking light sources and avoiding collisions, drawing inspiration from neural circuits in animal brains. Walter's work, detailed in his 1950 experiments, laid foundational concepts for behavior-based robotics by demonstrating how minimal hardware could produce emergent, life-like responses without complex programming. The 1970s and 1980s marked a shift toward dynamic locomotion systems, influenced by biomechanical studies of animal gaits. At , founded the Leg Laboratory in 1980, where he developed one-legged hopping robots that balanced dynamically using control strategies inspired by animal stability mechanisms. These machines, evolving into multi-legged prototypes by the mid-1980s, emphasized energy efficiency and rapid adaptation, as seen in Raibert's 1983 demonstrations of stable running at speeds up to 2 m/s. Concurrently, the concept of passive dynamic walking emerged, pioneered by Tad McGeer in the late 1980s at , with bipedal models that descended slopes without actuators by leveraging gravity and mechanical compliance akin to human walking. Raibert's lab later moved to MIT in 1986, continuing to advance these principles through robots like the 1984 two-legged hopper. At UC Berkeley, Robert Full's PolyPEDAL Laboratory, established in the 1990s but building on 1980s research, analyzed and locomotion to inform robot design, contributing to adhesive technologies for climbing. The 1990s and 2000s saw expanded applications in and climbing robots, alongside early swarm behaviors. The project, initiated in 2005 under the EU's RobotCub initiative, produced an open-source by 2009, sized like a child and inspired by human developmental for sensorimotor learning. In 2006, Stanford's and Dexterous Manipulation Laboratory unveiled Stickybot, a quadruped that climbed smooth vertical surfaces using gecko-like directional dry adhesives made from polymer microstructures, achieving speeds of 4 cm/s on glass. gained traction with Harvard's Kilobots, prototyped around 2012 but rooted in 2000s studies, enabling thousands of simple units to self-organize into shapes via local rules mimicking insect colonies. Key contributors included Cecilia Laschi at the Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, whose 2011 octopus-inspired soft arm demonstrated flexible grasping and pushing locomotion using pneumatic actuation. From the onward, bio-inspired robotics embraced soft materials and neural-inspired controls, representing a from rigid structures to compliant, adaptive systems. Harvard's Octobot, introduced in 2016, became the first fully soft, untethered , powered by chemical reactions and 3D-printed elastomers mimicking propulsion, with no rigid components or . Insect brain architectures influenced for control, as in 2016 Cornell models for flapping-wing micro-robots that processed sensory data for agile flight like . The transition to accelerated post-2010, driven by advances in fabrication like , enabling deformation-resistant designs for unstructured environments. In the , machine learning integration enhanced adaptability, exemplified by 2023 drone swarms at the Noor Festival that emulated murmurations through decentralized algorithms, coordinating 3,000 units for synchronized, emergent formations. In 2025, researchers introduced a bio-inspired quadruped with a laterally undulating spine and adjustable posture mechanism, improving adaptability by mimicking snake-like flexibility. Laschi's ongoing work on octopus-derived soft grippers and Full's gecko-inspired adhesives underscore these evolutions, while institutions like MIT's Leg Lab and Berkeley's PolyPEDAL Lab continue to bridge and .

Biological Inspirations

Biomimicry Methods

Biomimicry methods in robotics follow a structured design cycle that begins with observation of biological phenomena, proceeds to abstraction of key principles, and culminates in implementation within engineering contexts. This iterative process, often termed the research-abstraction-implementation framework, enables designers to identify functional strategies from nature and translate them into practical robotic solutions without directly copying biological forms. To facilitate observation, practitioners rely on curated biological databases such as AskNature.org, an open-source repository maintained by the Biomimicry Institute that catalogs more than 1,800 biological strategies across taxa, organized by function to inspire problem-solving in fields like robotics. These resources emphasize emulating nature's strategies rather than exploiting specific organisms, promoting a systematic translation from biological data to design innovations. Design tools play a crucial role in bridging biology and robotics, with finite element analysis (FEA) commonly used to simulate the mechanical behavior of biological tissues and validate abstracted models. FEA models, for instance, replicate the viscoelastic properties of soft tissues by discretizing complex geometries into finite elements, allowing engineers to predict deformation and stress under loads akin to those in . Complementing this, evolutionary algorithms draw from to optimize robotic designs, employing genetic algorithms that evolve populations of candidate solutions through selection, crossover, and mutation, guided by fitness functions that mimic survival pressures such as energy efficiency or adaptability. These tools ensure that bio-inspired optimizations align with evolutionary principles, yielding robust configurations for robotic components. Biomimicry operates across varying levels of fidelity, from nanoscale adaptations to macroscale mechanisms, to match the scale of robotic applications. At the nanoscale, the —arising from hierarchical micro- and nanostructures on lotus leaves that create superhydrophobicity—has inspired self-cleaning surfaces by abstracting and low-surface-energy coatings to repel contaminants via water droplet roll-off. In contrast, macroscale approaches focus on larger kinematic patterns, such as motions, where kinematics involving upstroke and downstroke angles are abstracted to enhance lift and thrust in aerial , prioritizing geometric scaling over microscopic details. This scalability allows biomimicry to address diverse engineering challenges while preserving the essence of biological efficiency. A key aspect of biomimicry is the case study framework for abstracting biological principles, particularly through extracting mathematical models from to inform robotic actuation without referencing specific devices. For muscle actuation, researchers analyze electromyographic data and force-velocity relationships from , deriving equations such as the Hill-type model, which approximates active force as F=Fa(1−vvmax⁡)+FpF = F_a \left(1 - \frac{v}{v_{\max}}\right) + F_p, where FaF_a is active force, vv is contraction velocity, vmax⁡v_{\max} is maximum velocity, and FpF_p is passive force, to capture nonlinear muscle dynamics observed in vertebrates. This abstraction process involves isolating core variables like length-tension curves from empirical studies, enabling generalized models for actuation control. Such frameworks ensure that biological insights are distilled into transferable engineering principles. Ethical considerations are integral to biomimicry methods, emphasizing the avoidance of over-exploitation of through respectful sourcing and equitable knowledge sharing, particularly from indigenous or underrepresented communities contributing to records. is prioritized by mimicking 's inherently efficient, closed-loop processes, which reduce resource consumption in robotic designs, but practitioners must guard against unintended ecological harms, such as scaling up biomimetic materials that inadvertently increase environmental footprints. These ethics foster a balanced approach, viewing as a mentor rather than a resource to be depleted. Integration with engineering often involves biological functions to derive quantifiable models, exemplified by stiffness analyses of exoskeletons. Insect cuticles, composed of reinforced with proteins, exhibit gradient stiffness from flexible joints to rigid plates; reverse engineering uses and microstructural imaging to model variations, typically ranging from 1-10 GPa, via composite theories that treat the as a fiber-reinforced matrix. This process abstracts hierarchical architectures into finite element models for robotic exoskeletons, optimizing load-bearing while maintaining flexibility. Such methods ensure bio-inspired designs are grounded in verifiable biomechanical data, enhancing durability and performance.

Key Natural Systems

Bio-inspired robotics draws from a variety of natural systems that exhibit remarkable functional mechanisms for locomotion, sensing, structure, neural processing, collective behavior, and unique adaptations. These biological paradigms provide foundational insights into efficient, adaptive designs observed in nature. In locomotory systems, insect legs enable multi-legged stability through coordinated gaits that maintain balance during movement. Insects like fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) employ a continuum of interleg coordination patterns, such as the alternating tripod gait, where three legs are always in contact with the ground to ensure static stability against perturbations, allowing reliable progression over uneven terrain. Snake undulation facilitates limbless propulsion via specialized muscular mechanisms that generate lateral and longitudinal body waves without requiring lateral bending. In species like the boa constrictor, epaxial and hypaxial muscles contract asymmetrically to produce these waves, enabling forward thrust through frictional interactions with the substrate while minimizing energy loss. Bird wings achieve flapping aerodynamics by cyclically deforming to generate both lift and thrust, with the wing's feathered structure twisting during upstroke and downstroke to optimize airflow. This mechanism, seen across avian species, relies on the handwing and armwing regions to create leading-edge vortices and delayed stall, enhancing maneuverability in three-dimensional space. Sensory systems in nature include the compound eyes of flies, which provide wide-field vision through thousands of arranged in a hemispherical array. Each captures light from a narrow , collectively yielding nearly 360-degree panoramic coverage with high , ideal for detecting rapid motion in the environment. The in serves hydrodynamic sensing by detecting water movements and gradients via neuromasts embedded in canals along the body. These mechanoreceptors, consisting of hair cells within cupulae, respond to low-frequency vibrations and flows, enabling perception of nearby objects, predators, or conspecifics even in turbid conditions. Structural systems encompass bone-muscle actuation in mammals, where skeletal muscles attach to bones via tendons to produce precise, forceful movements through the sliding filament mechanism. Actin and myosin filaments in sarcomeres interact via cross-bridges powered by ATP, generating contraction that actuates lever-like bones for locomotion and manipulation, with antagonistic muscle pairs ensuring bidirectional control. Arthropod exoskeletons offer lightweight strength through a chitin-based cuticle reinforced with proteins and minerals, forming a composite that resists compression while minimizing mass. In beetles, for instance, layered microstructures with helicoidal fiber arrangements distribute stress and prevent cracking, allowing the exoskeleton to support body weight despite its thin profile. Plant tendrils enable adaptive grasping by coiling around supports in response to thigmotropism, a touch-sensitive mechanism involving differential growth and contraction. In species like the passionflower, tendrils form contact coils upon mechanical stimulation, with elastic mesophyll tissues providing reversible tightening to secure attachment without rigid structures. Nervous systems feature insect ganglia for decentralized control, where segmental ganglia along the ventral nerve cord independently regulate local motor functions like leg movement. In walking insects, each thoracic ganglion coordinates its respective legs via central pattern generators, integrating sensory feedback for adaptive stepping without constant central oversight. The octopus demonstrates distributed intelligence through its elaborate arm nervous system, comprising about two-thirds of its 500 million neurons outside the central brain. Each arm possesses semi-autonomous ganglia that process tactile and proprioceptive inputs, enabling parallel control of multiple appendages for complex tasks like object manipulation. Collective systems include ant colonies, which employ foraging strategies based on pheromone trails and feedback loops to optimize resource allocation. In harvester , foragers assess availability and deposit pheromones proportionally, creating self-reinforcing paths that balance exploration and exploitation without centralized . Fish schools achieve obstacle avoidance through synchronized local interactions that propagate information rapidly across the group. Individuals align with neighbors while maintaining repulsion zones, allowing the school to collectively veer or split around barriers via emergent wave-like patterns in density and orientation. Unique adaptations highlight gecko setae for , where millions of microscopic hairs on their exploit van der Waals forces for reversible attachment to diverse surfaces. These spatula-shaped setae increase contact area, enabling intermolecular attractions to support the gecko's weight through weak, non-sticky electrostatic interactions that detach easily upon angling. The bell provides soft propulsion by contracting a to expel water jet-like, recapturing elastic energy from the bell's relaxation phase. In species like , the subumbrella musculature and elastic store and release energy, achieving efficient thrust with minimal metabolic cost in fluid environments.

Locomotion Systems

Terrestrial Locomotion

Terrestrial locomotion in bio-inspired robotics draws from adaptations to navigate diverse ground environments, such as uneven , obstacles, and confined spaces, emphasizing energy-efficient and robust movement mechanisms. These systems replicate biological gaits and structures to achieve stability, adaptability, and versatility without relying on wheels, which falter in rough landscapes. Key inspirations include the dynamic balance of quadrupeds, the undulatory of reptiles, and the adhesive capabilities of species, enabling robots to traverse surfaces where traditional vehicles cannot. Legged systems form a cornerstone of bio-inspired terrestrial robots, mimicking the multi-limb coordination seen in animals for enhanced stability and obstacle negotiation. Quadrupedal designs, such as ' developed in 2005, achieve balance through dynamic stability algorithms inspired by goats' ability to maintain equilibrium on slopes by adjusting limb forces in real-time. This robot demonstrated robust trotting and walking on irregular terrain, carrying payloads up to 150 kg while recovering from perturbations like pushes. Hexapod robots, drawing from locomotion, excel in obstacle navigation; for instance, designs like the DASH robot (UC Berkeley, 2012) replicate gaits to climb vertical walls by using momentum from collisions, achieving transitions to surfaces exceeding body height using alternating leg steps for passive stability. These legged platforms prioritize fault-tolerant gaits, where limb loss or failure still allows continued movement, as observed in biological . Limbless locomotion addresses scenarios requiring serpentine navigation, such as search-and-rescue in rubble or pipes, by emulating snake undulation without discrete legs. Carnegie Mellon University's modular snakebots, developed in the 2010s, use linked segments with actuated joints to perform and motions, inspired by rattlesnakes and other reptiles for propulsion on loose or confined tunnels. These robots achieve speeds up to 0.3 m/s in straight-line crawling and can reconfigure for specialized tasks, like bridging gaps, by altering segment orientations to generate lateral waves. Such designs leverage friction anisotropy—differing grip between body scales and ground—for directional control, mirroring biological snakes' ventral scale adaptations. Climbing mechanisms in bio-inspired robots replicate adhesion and grip strategies from arboreal and wall-scaling animals to access vertical or inverted surfaces. Stanford's Stickybot, introduced in 2006, employs gecko-inspired —microstructured adhesive pads made from polymer arrays—that exploit van der Waals forces for reversible attachment, allowing it to scale smooth glass walls at 4 cm/s while supporting its 70 g mass. Insect-inspired grippers, such as those on the robot, use compliant claws mimicking beetle tarsi for hooking into rough textures like concrete or bark. For tree-climbing, robots with compliant legs, like those based on squirrel limb flexibility, incorporate elastic joints to absorb impacts and conform to irregular branches, enabling sustained traversal without slippage. These approaches highlight the role of surface microstructure in , outperforming or magnetic methods in energy efficiency. Recent quadrupeds like ANYmal C (, 2023) enhance dynamic climbing on varied terrains using adaptive control. Jumping robots capture the explosive power of small animals for overcoming barriers or energy-efficient long-distance travel. A Harvard flea-inspired jumper uses a mechanism to achieve jumps up to 120 cm (40 times body ) from a 30 mm device, storing akin to flea leg mechanisms for rapid release. Larger systems, like those inspired by , employ tendon-like energy storage in compliant actuators; the MIT , for example, recycles during bounding gaits to jump obstacles over 0.5 m high while maintaining speeds of 2.5 m/s. These designs reduce power consumption by 50% compared to rigid mechanisms through biological elastic rebound principles. Efficiency in bio-inspired terrestrial locomotion is often evaluated using specific resistance (SR), defined as the dimensionless ratio of power input to the product of weight and speed, providing a metric to compare robotic gaits against biological counterparts. In animals like , SR values range from 1 to 10 during walking, indicating near-optimal energy use; bio-inspired robots aim for similar figures, with achieving SR ≈ 5 in trotting modes, highlighting the benefits of dynamic balancing over static stability. Hexapods and snakebots typically exhibit SR between 10 and 50, trading efficiency for adaptability in rough terrain. This metric underscores how bio-mimicry minimizes energy loss, as seen in passive dynamics where gaits emerge from rather than constant actuation. Terrain adaptation in these robots relies on passive compliance in limb structures, inspired by animal joints that absorb shocks and adjust to irregularities without active control. Quadrupedal legs with series elastic actuators, as in , mimic goat synovial joints by allowing deflection under load, reducing ground reaction forces by up to 30% on uneven surfaces and preventing falls. Insect-like hexapods use compliant exoskeletons to distribute impacts, enabling traversal of gaps or rocks at speeds comparable to their biological models. Such mechanisms enhance robustness, allowing robots to operate autonomously in unpredictable environments like disaster zones.

Aquatic Locomotion

Bio-inspired aquatic locomotion draws from the propulsion strategies of marine organisms to enable underwater robots to navigate fluid environments with efficiency, stealth, and agility. These systems emphasize undulatory motions, , and hydrodynamic adaptations to minimize energy use and maximize maneuverability in submerged conditions, contrasting with the high-friction interactions of . Key designs replicate the fluid dynamics of , , and other aquatic life to achieve sustained , tight turns, and obstacle avoidance without relying on traditional propellers, which often produce noise and inefficiency. Piscine swimming in bio-inspired robots often employs fin-based through undulating tails or bodies to generate via wave along the robot's length. For instance, the Soft Robotic (SoFi), developed by MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in 2018, features a flexible silicone body with an actuated tail that mimics the carangiform swimming of , allowing silent, three-dimensional movement at speeds up to 3.7 body lengths per second while capturing video in coral reefs. This design enhances stealth for by reducing acoustic signatures compared to propeller-driven vehicles. Tuna-inspired robots, such as the Tunabot series, utilize rigid-body undulation to replicate the thunniform mode of fast-swimming scombrids, achieving high-frequency tail beats up to 20 Hz and speeds exceeding 1 body length per second with power efficiencies matching biological counterparts. These systems leverage pectoral fins for stability and caudal fins for primary , enabling long-duration missions in open water. Invertebrate-inspired propulsion focuses on jetting mechanisms for burst acceleration and multi-limb coordination for precise control. Jellyfish-like robots employ pulsed actuators to simulate bell contraction, expelling for that achieves up to 1.86 m/s² and forces around 4.66 N, ideal for energy-efficient hovering and sampling in low-speed environments. A 2023 versatile jellyfish platform integrates dielectric elastomer actuators for omnidirectional movement, demonstrating sustained with minimal energy loss through rhythmic pulsing. Octopus-inspired designs combine jetting from a siphon-like orifice with arm-based paddling for agility; multi-arm robots using compliant limbs generate thrust via coordinated flapping, reaching speeds of 0.5 body lengths per second while enabling complex maneuvers like turning in confined spaces. These hybrid approaches provide superior dexterity over rigid systems, supporting tasks such as underwater. Bio-inspired hydrodynamics enhance efficiency through surface textures and group behaviors that reduce drag and optimize flow. Shark skin denticles, replicated as riblet microstructures on robot hulls, align with streamlines to decrease frictional drag by 7-8% in turbulent flows, as demonstrated in 3D-printed biomimetic surfaces tested at Reynolds numbers relevant to submersibles. This passive drag reduction, originally observed in fast-swimming , minimizes consumption without active control. Formations mimicking schools of allow robotic swarms to exploit for savings; studies on bio-inspired robots show up to 56% reduction in total expenditure per tail beat when positioned in diamond or lattice patterns behind a leader, leveraging wake for augmentation. Such collective strategies extend operational range in resource-constrained missions. Recent soft robots, like those from 2024 developments, improve ocean monitoring with enhanced autonomy. Maneuverability in aquatic robots benefits from and legged gaits tailored to specific habitats. Eel-like sinuous swimming uses dielectric elastomer actuators to propagate lateral waves along a flexible body, enabling tight turns with radii as small as 0.5 body lengths and silent through complex reefs at speeds up to 0.1 m/s. This anguilliform motion excels in cluttered environments by allowing rapid direction changes without rotational . For benthic , crab-inspired robots employ with multiple actuated legs to traverse uneven seabeds; a bionic Portunus trituberculatus robot integrates walking and swimming modes, achieving stable locomotion over slopes up to 30° and speeds of 0.2 m/s on substrates, facilitating inspection of coastal . Sensor integration for flow sensing incorporates mimics to detect environmental disturbances. Artificial s, using strain gauges or arrays along the body, identify vortices from nearby objects or upstream robots, enabling obstacle avoidance at distances up to 10 body lengths with localization errors below 5%. Whisker-like appendages inspired by seal mystacial pads amplify wake signals, detecting prey-mimicking dipoles in turbulent flows and improving navigation in low-visibility waters. These bio-mimetic sensors provide real-time hydrodynamic feedback, enhancing autonomy without reliance on . A primary challenge in aquatic robotics is , where microbial adhesion reduces performance; skin inspires slippery, low-adhesion surfaces through nanotextured polymers that mimic the oleophobic properties of cetacean , preventing settlement and maintaining drag coefficients within 5% of clean states over months of immersion. This passive antifouling extends mission durations for long-term deployments in marine settings.

Aerial Locomotion

Bio-inspired aerial locomotion in draws from the flight mechanisms of birds, , and bats to achieve enhanced , , and in flying robots, particularly micro air vehicles (MAVs) operating at low Reynolds numbers. These designs prioritize active lift generation in low-density air through , , or morphing wings, enabling sustained flight without reliance on fixed rotors or jets. Key advancements focus on replicating unsteady observed in , such as vortex formation and wing interactions, to overcome limitations in traditional drones like high and limited maneuverability. Flapping-wing designs form the core of many bio-inspired aerial systems, with insect-inspired MAVs exemplifying compact, agile flight. The DelFly, developed in 2008, mimics bee-like wing structures and achieves hover through flapping at approximately 20 Hz, generating sufficient lift for a 3-gram vehicle with a 10 cm via passive wing rotation and clap-like interactions. Bird-like ornithopters, such as Festo's SmartBird introduced in 2011, replicate herring gull with articulated wings that enable autonomous takeoff, flapping flight, and seamless transitions to , achieving speeds up to 8 m/s while minimizing use through biomimetic mechanisms. These systems demonstrate how bio-mimicry enhances stability and payload capacity in untethered flight. Gliding and soaring strategies, inspired by large seabirds, optimize energy efficiency for long-duration missions. Albatross-inspired dynamic soaring algorithms exploit wind shear gradients to extract kinetic energy, enabling near-zero power flight over extended distances; computational models derived from observed albatross trajectories show that shallow arc maneuvers at low amplitudes maximize glide ratios up to 20:1, far surpassing conventional fixed-wing drones in wind-dependent environments. These algorithms have been implemented in robotic gliders, reducing battery demands by up to 90% during crosswind operations compared to powered flight. Maneuverability in bio-inspired flyers benefits from adaptive wing structures, as seen in bat and dragonfly models. -inspired robots employ wings with flexible membranes and skeletal actuators to alter camber and mid-flight, facilitating rapid obstacle avoidance through 3D trajectory adjustments and banking turns with radii under 0.5 m at speeds of 5 m/s. Dragonfly-like designs achieve omnidirectional flight— including sideways and backward motion—via independent control of four wings, allowing flapping amplitudes and phases that generate asymmetric forces for agile hovering and evasion, as demonstrated in prototypes capable of 360-degree turns in under 0.2 seconds. Central aerodynamic principles in these low-Reynolds regimes include leading-edge vortices (LEVs) for lift augmentation and clap-and-fling for thrust enhancement. LEVs, stabilized by spanwise flow in flapping wings, provide up to 70% of lift in small drones by delaying stall at angles of attack exceeding 45 degrees, a mechanism prevalent in insect-mimicking MAVs operating below Re = 10^4. The clap-and-fling process, where wings clap together at stroke reversal and fling apart to recirculate air, boosts thrust by 50-100% in hovering robots through enhanced circulation, as validated in two-winged flapping prototypes that achieve stable flight with minimal actuators. Hybrid systems combine flapping elements with rotary propulsion to leverage complementary strengths, such as noise reduction in urban applications. Insect-bird hybrid designs integrate flapping add-ons onto quadcopters, where low-frequency wing oscillations dampen rotor turbulence, cutting acoustic signatures by 10-15 dB while preserving hover stability; for instance, owl-inspired trailing-edge fringes on hybrid wings suppress broadband noise from tip vortices during mixed-mode flight. These configurations enable quieter operations for surveillance without sacrificing payload. Recent advances in the 2020s emphasize swarms of bio-inspired drones for search-and-rescue tasks, incorporating bird-flock dynamics for collision avoidance. Decentralized algorithms mimicking starling murmurations have been proposed for swarms of flapping-wing drones, enabling simulated formation maintenance and collision avoidance at densities up to 5 units/m³ with over 95% success in dynamic obstacles (as of 2023 studies). These systems extend operational range through emergent collective efficiency, addressing gaps in single-agent limitations, though large-scale flapping-wing hardware swarms remain in development as of 2025.

Sensing and Perception

Visual Systems

Bio-inspired visual systems in emulate biological eyes and neural processing to enable efficient environmental , such as wide-angle detection, selective focus, and real-time motion analysis, addressing limitations of traditional cameras in terms of , power consumption, and processing speed. These systems draw from compound eyes for panoramic coverage and eyes for high-acuity targeting, integrating hardware innovations with algorithms modeled on neural mechanisms to support tasks like and in dynamic settings. Compound eyes, inspired by those of flies, provide panoramic vision through arrays of ommatidia that collectively offer a 360-degree with low distortion, particularly suited for micro-robots operating in cluttered environments. This design allows simultaneous monitoring of surroundings without mechanical scanning, enhancing in small-scale platforms. A notable hardware implementation is the curved artificial developed at EPFL, featuring 630 microlenses arranged in a hemispherical to mimic fruit fly vision, achieving a wide in a compact form factor under 1 mm thick for integration into flying or crawling robots. Motion detection in these systems often employs the Reichardt correlator, a model derived from fly visual processing that correlates signals from adjacent ommatidia to estimate motion direction and speed with minimal computational overhead. This bio-inspired detector enables rapid responses to approaching obstacles, as demonstrated in high-speed vision systems for robot control where it processes to avoid collisions at velocities exceeding biological limits. Vertebrate-inspired designs focus on foveated vision, where high-resolution is concentrated in a central fovea while peripheral areas provide broader context, mimicking the human retina to optimize in humanoid robots. Saccades—rapid eye movements to redirect the fovea toward points of interest—allow these robots to track targets efficiently, as implemented in systems using dual cameras per eye for active vision and . Lens accommodation, drawn from where the lens shifts position to adjust focus for varying distances in water, inspires variable-focus optics in underwater robots, enabling clear across ranges without mechanical complexity. Processing algorithms further enhance these systems by replicating cortical mechanisms; for instance, based on the Hubel-Wiesel model from cat uses simple and complex cells to identify oriented features hierarchically, improving object segmentation in robotic vision pipelines. computation, inspired by bee landing behaviors where regulate descent by monitoring image expansion, supports in robots by estimating and from scene motion, facilitating stable approaches in aerial or ground vehicles. Advanced hardware like event-based cameras, which mimic the asynchronous spiking of retinal ganglion cells, output data only on brightness changes, drastically reducing latency and bandwidth compared to frame-based sensors. These neuromorphic devices, such as dynamic vision sensors, enable real-time processing in by capturing high temporal resolution events, ideal for fast-moving scenarios like drone flight. In applications, bio-inspired visual systems excel in obstacle avoidance for drones, where insect-like optic flow and lobula giant movement detector neurons from locusts provide collision warnings in low-light or high-speed conditions. For target tracking in legged robots, foveated systems with space-variant resolution enable precise following of moving objects, as in active vision setups that combine saccades with for locomotion. Despite these advances, bio-inspired robotic visual systems face limitations in matching biological efficiency, particularly in bandwidth and resolution; the human eye has approximately 576 million photoreceptors, which has been estimated as equivalent to a 576-megapixel sensor if resolution were uniform across the field of view, though effective resolution is lower due to varying acuity in central (foveal) and peripheral regions, far surpassing typical robot sensors at 1-50 megapixels.

Non-Visual Sensory Systems

Non-visual sensory systems in bio-inspired robotics draw from diverse biological modalities to enable robots to perceive and interact with their environments through touch, fluid flow, body position, chemical cues, and integrated strain-vibration detection. These systems complement by providing direct, proximal sensing for tasks such as , manipulation, and obstacle avoidance in unstructured settings. Unlike electromagnetic-based vision, non-visual sensors emphasize mechanical, hydrodynamic, and molecular interactions, often integrated into flexible or distributed architectures to mimic natural sensory distributions. Tactile sensing in bio-inspired robots frequently emulates mammalian vibrissae, or , for and texture discrimination. Rat-inspired whisker arrays, consisting of flexible filaments mounted on mobile platforms, allow robots to sense contact forces and vibrations during exploration, enabling spatial mapping without vision. For instance, biomimetic vibrissal sensors have been used to quantify spatiotemporal patterns of whisker-object interactions, achieving texture discrimination through vibration analysis similar to palpation. Human skin-inspired electronic skins (e-skins) further advance tactile capabilities by incorporating mechanoreceptor-like arrays, such as piezoelectric films that detect and shear via deformation-induced charge generation. These e-skins, often fabricated with hierarchical microstructures, provide real-time discrimination of force magnitude, position, and direction, supporting dexterous grasping in robotic hands. Flow sensing replicates aquatic and aerial biological systems to enhance environmental interaction. Artificial lateral lines, inspired by fish neuromasts, use arrays of pressure or flow sensors embedded in flexible membranes to detect water currents, aiding underwater navigation and obstacle localization. These systems enable robotic fish to estimate and direction, facilitating leader-follower formations or vortex detection from nearby swimmers. In aerial contexts, antenna-inspired wind sensors on flapping-wing micro-robots measure disturbances to maintain stability during gusts, using strain gauges on flexible wings to compute and direction in real time. Proprioception in bio-inspired soft robots mimics muscle spindles and Golgi tendon organs to provide self-awareness of deformation and states. Soft actuators embedded with stretchable strain sensors emulate spindle feedback, allowing estimation of body curvature and position during locomotion. For example, fiber-reinforced elastomers with integrated optical or resistive sensors detect multi-axis strain, enabling closed-loop control in continuum manipulators without rigid encoders. This distributed proprioceptive approach supports graceful degradation in soft bodies, where partial failure still permits functional . Chemical and olfactory sensing draws from insect antennae for plume tracking and gas detection. Moth-inspired detectors use antennal-like structures with gas-sensitive to localize pheromones or volatile compounds, guiding robots via anemotaxis algorithms that alternate casting and upwind surges. Artificial implementations, such as metal-oxide sensor arrays shaped like moth antennae, achieve sub-millimeter plume resolution in turbulent flows, enhancing search-and-rescue applications. Multimodal integration combines vibration and strain detection, often inspired by arachnid sensilla for enhanced environmental probing. Spider slit sensilla analogs employ tunable slits in flexible substrates to sense substrate vibrations and tensile strains, integrated into climbing robots for foothold evaluation during vertical traversal. These sensors detect micro-displacements with high sensitivity, fusing mechanical signals to distinguish contact types in dynamic surfaces. Recent advances in the 2020s leverage flexible electronics for distributed non-visual sensing in soft robotics, enabling high-density arrays that conform to irregular morphologies. Stretchable e-skins with up to 625 sensors per cm², using printed piezoelectric or capacitive elements, provide granular tactile and proprioceptive feedback across entire robotic surfaces, improving interaction in unstructured environments.

Morphology and Materials

Soft and Compliant Designs

Soft and compliant designs in bio-inspired robotics utilize flexible, deformable materials and structures that emulate the adaptability of biological tissues, such as muscles, , and soft-bodied organisms like octopuses and . These robots eschew rigid components in favor of continuous, elastic forms that enable safe interaction with dynamic environments and fragile objects. By mimicking the compliance of natural systems, they achieve enhanced dexterity and resilience, allowing deformation under external forces while returning to their original shape. Key materials in these designs include and hydrogels that replicate the strain and elasticity of biological muscles. , for instance, can achieve strains exceeding 100% under , mimicking through electrostatic pressure on a thin sandwiched between compliant electrodes. Hydrogels provide high stretchability and , often incorporating ionic conductivity for actuation similar to muscle fibers. Pneumatic actuators, inspired by the of octopuses, use fluid-filled chambers in elastomeric bodies to generate bending and elongation via pressure changes, enabling octopus-like manipulation without rigid joints. Designs emphasize continuum architectures with no discrete rigid links, allowing infinite for fluid motion. Harvard's soft pneumatic grippers, developed around 2010, employ inflatable chambers to conform to irregular shapes, facilitating gentle handling of fragile items like eggs or biological tissues through underactuated grasping. Worm-like crawlers draw from , using sequential pneumatic inflation of segments to propagate waves of contraction and extension for locomotion in confined spaces. These structures are modeled using constant kinematics, which approximate bending as circular arcs defined by , orientation, and parameters, simplifying control while capturing compliant deformation. A primary advantage of soft and compliant designs is their impact resilience, as seen in jellyfish-inspired robots that absorb shocks through viscoelastic deformation, reducing damage from collisions in fluid environments. This compliance also ensures safe human-robot interaction by minimizing injury risk; with Young's moduli typically ranging from 0.1 to 10 MPa—far lower than the 100 GPa of rigid metals or ceramics—these robots distribute forces over larger areas upon contact. Fabrication techniques leverage additive manufacturing for precision, such as soft composites that integrate multiple materials with varying stiffness in a single structure. Self-healing polymers, inspired by skin's regenerative properties, incorporate dynamic bonds like or ionic interactions that autonomously repair cuts or punctures under or solvent exposure, extending operational lifespan in harsh conditions. Recent advances as of include biohybrid soft robots that incorporate living cells for self-healing and responsiveness, and achieving over 100% strain with improved . Notable examples include the 2016 Octobot from Harvard, a fully soft, fabricated via and , powered by a in pneumatic channels for untethered crawling without electronics. In medical applications, worm-like soft crawlers enable minimally invasive ; for instance, earthworm-inspired designs use peristaltic actuation to navigate the , performing tasks like tissue sampling with reduced patient discomfort compared to rigid endoscopes.

Modular and Reconfigurable Designs

Modular and reconfigurable designs in bio-inspired robotics draw from the adaptability of multicellular organisms and ecosystems, enabling robots to assemble, disassemble, and reshape dynamically through interchangeable units. These systems emphasize versatility, allowing individual modules to connect and function collectively, much like cells forming tissues or organisms adapting to environmental demands. By mimicking natural modularity, such robots achieve tasks that rigid structures cannot, such as navigating complex terrains or repairing themselves on-site. Seminal examples of self-reconfiguring modular systems include MIT's M-Blocks, introduced in 2013, which consist of cubic units that pivot using internal flywheels and magnetic faces to climb, roll, and reassemble without external moving parts. These cubes enable locomotion and shape changes, supporting swarm applications where modules collectively form larger structures. Inspired by principles of cellular self-assembly, M-Blocks demonstrate how discrete units can achieve coordinated reconfiguration akin to growing organisms. Complementing this, the Claytronics project at Carnegie Mellon University envisions programmable matter through catom (claytronic atom) modules—millimeter-scale units that latch via electrostatic or magnetic forces to create dynamic 3D forms, simulating the fluidity of biological tissues. Reconfiguration often involves swarm robotics with docking mechanisms, as exemplified by Harvard's Kilobots, a low-cost platform developed in 2012 capable of scaling to thousands of units. These palm-sized robots use infrared signaling for local communication and vibration motors for movement, allowing them to dock and form complex shapes, such as emergent structures reminiscent of termite mound architectures through decentralized self-organization. This approach highlights how modular swarms can transition from dispersed states to cohesive forms, enhancing adaptability in unstructured environments. Biological inspirations underpin these designs, particularly drawing from embryonic development for processes. In nature, embryonic involves cells differentiating and aggregating via chemical gradients and mechanical cues; robotic analogs use similar distributed rules for modules to align and bond autonomously, as seen in tensegrity-based systems that emulate cytoskeletal dynamics for deformation and reconfiguration. Additionally, optimization inspires task allocation among modules, where pheromone-like signals guide role assignment—such as leader modules directing assembly—optimizing resource use in heterogeneous swarms without central control. These bio-mimetic strategies enable robust, emergent behaviors in modular robots. Control in these systems relies on distributed algorithms for shape formation, often employing leader-follower hierarchies to coordinate module interactions. In such frameworks, designated leader modules broadcast positional data via local sensing, while followers adjust their latching and movement to maintain desired geometries, ensuring scalability across varying swarm sizes. This hierarchical yet decentralized approach, inspired by social insect foraging, facilitates efficient reconfiguration even under communication constraints. Key advantages of modular reconfigurable designs include , as additional units can be integrated to expand functionality without redesign, and , where the loss of modules—analogous to amputated limbs in organisms—allows the system to reconfigure and continue operating with reduced capability. These properties enhance robustness in dynamic settings, such as , by enabling self-repair through module replacement or redistribution of tasks. Recent advances in the have focused on magnetic latching mechanisms for rapid reconfiguration, with 3D-printed cubic modules using embedded permanent magnets and external fields to achieve precise and disassembly in seconds, improving speed over mechanical connectors. Hybrid modular-soft systems further integrate compliant elements, such as pneumatic actuators within rigid modules, to combine discrete reconfigurability with flexible deformation, enabling applications like adaptive gripping while maintaining fault-tolerant .

Rigid and Anthropomorphic Designs

Rigid and anthropomorphic designs in bio-inspired robotics emphasize stiff, jointed structures that replicate the skeletal frameworks and articulated forms of vertebrates, enabling precise manipulation and locomotion in structured environments. These robots typically feature rigid links connected by joints mimicking biological hinges, such as those in or limbs, to achieve high-fidelity motion replication. Humanoid robots, for instance, draw from primate to perform bipedal walking and upper-body gestures, prioritizing accuracy in tasks like object handling or over flexibility. A seminal example is Honda's , introduced in , which employs zero-moment point (ZMP) control to maintain balance during bipedal locomotion by dynamically adjusting the projection of the center of mass onto the ground. This approach ensures stability on flat surfaces by keeping the ZMP within the support polygon formed by the feet, allowing ASIMO to walk at speeds up to 1.6 km/h while adapting to minor perturbations. Gesture replication in such humanoids often incorporates kinematic models derived from upper-limb movements, enabling the to mimic reaching and grasping motions through coordinated joint trajectories that capture 98% of natural variance using synergies. Animal-inspired quadrupedal designs further exemplify rigid , such as the MIT Cheetah robot developed around 2012-2013, which achieves sprints up to 22 km/h by incorporating spinal flexion to enhance stride length and energy efficiency, mimicking the flexible backbone of felines. Joint mechanisms in these systems include ball-and-socket configurations inspired by hip joints, providing three degrees of freedom for rotational movement akin to biological acetabulofemoral articulations. Tendon-driven actuators, often paired with series elastic elements, simulate muscle-tendon units by transmitting force through compliant cables, allowing shock absorption and precise torque control while maintaining structural rigidity. Structural optimization in rigid designs frequently adopts lattice-based bone architectures inspired by avian skeletons, where hollow, trabecular patterns distribute loads efficiently to minimize weight without sacrificing strength—for example, Voronoi lattice structures in robotic limbs that enhance stiffness-to-mass ratios by up to 50% compared to solid equivalents. The DARPA Atlas robot, unveiled in 2013, integrates these principles in a humanoid frame for disaster response, demonstrating whole-body coordination to perform tasks like traversing rubble or manipulating tools through synchronized hydraulic actuators and rigid skeletal links. Despite their advantages in precision and load-bearing capacity, rigid anthropomorphic designs exhibit trade-offs relative to compliant alternatives, offering superior in controlled settings but reduced adaptability to irregular terrains or unexpected contacts due to their fixed geometries and higher .

Control and

Bio-inspired Control Mechanisms

Bio-inspired control mechanisms in robotics draw from biological nervous systems to enable adaptive, robust in dynamic environments. These approaches emulate neural architectures for sensory inputs into motor outputs, prioritizing and adaptability over rigid programming. Central to this field is the replication of biological principles such as rhythm generation, hierarchical , and plasticity, which allow robots to handle uncertainties like variations or unexpected obstacles. Reflex-based control systems, inspired by circuitry, generate rhythmic movements without higher-level supervision, facilitating stable locomotion in bio-inspired robots. A prominent example is the use of (CPGs), which produce oscillatory signals mimicking neural ensembles in locomotion. The Matsuoka oscillator model, a foundational CPG , simulates mutually inhibiting s with to sustain rhythmic patterns for tasks like legged walking. Its dynamics consist of two coupled equations per : τxi˙=−xi+∑jwijyj−βyi+ui\tau \dot{x_i} = -x_i + \sum_{j} w_{ij} y_j - \beta y_i + u_i for the xix_i, and τayi˙=−yi+max⁡(0,xi)\tau_a \dot{y_i} = -y_i + \max(0, x_i) for the variable yiy_i, where τ,τa\tau, \tau_a are time constants, wijw_{ij} are connection weights, β\beta is the , and uiu_i incorporates sensory inputs. This model has been applied in bipedal robots to produce stable gait cycles, adapting to perturbations through parameter tuning. Hierarchical control architectures mirror the layered organization of biological brains, with low-level reflexes handling rapid responses and higher levels managing goal-directed actions. Spinal cord-inspired reflexes, such as stretch reflexes, enable quick corrective actions in robots by directly sensory feedback to muscle actuation, stabilizing posture during hopping or walking gaits. For instance, these reflexes counteract perturbations by modulating joint torques based on length changes in , improving robustness in bio-mimetic legged systems. At higher levels, basal ganglia-inspired models facilitate action selection by evaluating competing motor programs through winner-take-all dynamics, allowing robots to switch behaviors adaptively, such as transitioning from walking to obstacle avoidance. This structure, implemented in robotic platforms, resolves conflicts among sensorimotor modules via dopamine-modulated gating, akin to mammalian . Learning mechanisms in bio-inspired controllers incorporate to evolve behaviors over time, drawing from in animals. Reinforcement learning paradigms inspired by mammalian systems use reward prediction errors to update policies, enabling robots to optimize actions like through trial-and-error . signals, modeled as temporal difference errors, reinforce successful motor patterns, as seen in autonomous mobile robots learning to approach goals in uncertain environments. Complementing this, Hebbian learning emulates synaptic strengthening in neural networks, where co-activated neurons enhance connections to form adaptive controllers. In , Hebbian rules integrated into CPGs allow of synchronized movements, such as rhythmic arm motions, by adjusting weights based on correlated sensory-motor activity. Recent advances (as of 2025) include AI-driven enhancements to these mechanisms, such as integration with CPGs for improved robustness in industrial applications. Sensory-motor loops provide reactive behaviors at the periphery, inspired by nervous systems for simple, efficient tropisms. Insect-like architectures, such as Braitenberg vehicles, demonstrate emergent complexity from direct sensor-motor wiring, where or obstacle sensors drive differential motor speeds to produce phototaxis or avoidance. These minimalistic models, with crossed or uncrossed connections, yield behaviors like aggression or fear in wheeled robots, illustrating how basic loops can underpin more sophisticated control without central computation. Practical implementations highlight these mechanisms' efficacy in humanoid and . The platform employs developmental robotics to learn infant-like grasps through incremental and Hebbian processes, starting with reaching and progressing to via sensory feedback loops. Similarly, octopus-inspired controllers use a constant reference length strategy, maintaining muscular hydrostat invariants to enable dexterous bending and grasping without explicit kinematic models, as modeled in dynamic simulations of continuum arms. Stability in these bio-inspired systems is ensured through , particularly Lyapunov functions that verify dynamics in locomotion. For CPG-driven gaits, Lyapunov-based methods construct energy-like functions to prove convergence to periodic orbits, robust to perturbations in quadrupedal or bipedal robots. This approach confirms asymptotic stability, allowing safe deployment in real-world scenarios by bounding error trajectories.

Collective and Swarming Behaviors

Collective and swarming behaviors in bio-inspired robotics draw from the emergent intelligence observed in social animal groups, where simple local interactions among individuals produce complex global patterns without centralized control. A foundational example is the model developed by Craig Reynolds, which simulates in birds through three core rules: separation to avoid collisions, alignment to match the of neighbors, and cohesion to stay close to the group. These rules, implemented as steering forces in simulations, enable realistic group motion and have influenced robotic swarm algorithms by emphasizing decentralized based on proximity and relative motion. In applications mimicking foraging behaviors, swarms emulate ant colonies using pheromone trail algorithms, where virtual chemical signals deposited by robots guide collective pathfinding. In ant colony optimization (ACO), robots update trail strengths probabilistically, with pheromone evaporation governed by a decay rate ρ\rho, often set to 0.1 to balance exploration and exploitation while preventing premature convergence on suboptimal paths. This stigmergic approach, where environmental modifications by one agent influence others, has been adapted for robotic tasks like resource collection, fostering efficient decentralized foraging without explicit communication. Herding behaviors, inspired by sheepdogs, extend these principles to containment and guidance, where boundary robots apply repulsive forces to corral targets into desired formations. Communication in swarms often relies on bio-inspired signaling for coordination. Pulse-coupled , drawn from firefly flashing patterns, allows robots to align periodic actions through mutual inhibition or excitation via light or radio pulses, achieving phase locking in mobile groups for tasks like synchronized scanning. Similarly, bacterial inspires density-dependent behaviors, where robots release and detect diffusing molecules to threshold collective responses, such as activating group migration only above a , enabling scalable decision-making in confined environments. Notable implementations include the Kilobot platform, where over 1,000 low-cost units self-organize into shapes via local rules like gradient ascent, demonstrating programmable assembly in 2014. In aquatic settings, fish-inspired swarms have demonstrated 3D collective behaviors using implicit coordination through local sensing, with potential applications in . Scalability benefits from decentralized control, as seen in termite eusociality-inspired systems, where robots transport materials based on local pile assessments to build structures, avoiding single-point failures inherent in hierarchical setups. Challenges in these systems include robustness to , such as sensor inaccuracies or environmental perturbations mimicking biological stochasticity. Swarms with shorter interaction ranges often adapt better to disturbances, as local rules reduce error propagation compared to long-range dependencies, though this trades off against global coherence in dynamic settings. Ongoing research focuses on hybrid algorithms to enhance while preserving emergent behaviors.

Applications and Challenges

Practical Applications

Bio-inspired robotics has found practical applications across diverse industries, leveraging natural designs to enhance efficiency, adaptability, and safety in challenging environments. These robots draw from biological principles to perform tasks that traditional rigid machines struggle with, such as navigating irregular terrains or interacting delicately with living systems. Key sectors include , healthcare, , , defense, and , where bio-mimetic features enable innovative solutions. In search and rescue operations, snake-like robots have been developed to access confined spaces in disaster zones, such as rubble in earthquake-affected areas. For instance, the Active Scope Camera (ACM) series, inspired by inchworm and snake locomotion, was conceptualized for deployment in the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster to inspect hazardous reactor interiors, demonstrating enhanced mobility over wheeled robots in debris-filled environments. Flying swarms of bio-inspired drones, mimicking bird or insect flight patterns, have been employed for urban mapping and victim localization, providing rapid aerial surveys in post-disaster scenarios without risking human lives. Medical applications benefit from soft robotics inspired by invertebrates, enabling minimally invasive procedures. Worm-like soft endoscopes and capsule robots, utilizing peristaltic motion for propulsion, navigate the to deliver drugs or perform biopsies with reduced tissue damage compared to rigid tools; prototypes in the 2020s have achieved controlled locomotion in simulated intestines at speeds up to 4 cm/s. Exoskeletons mimicking gait, drawing from muscle-tendon structures, assist in rehabilitation by providing adaptive support during walking , improving mobility and reducing therapist workload in clinical settings. Environmental monitoring utilizes aquatic bio-inspired robots to address pollution challenges. Fish-inspired swimmers, equipped with flexible fins for efficient propulsion, track and collect ocean microplastics, filtering particles as small as 2 mm while minimizing disturbance to marine life; prototypes have demonstrated promising capture efficiency in lab tests simulating coastal waters. In controlled settings like greenhouses, pollinator drones modeled after bees perform crop pollination, using vibrating wings to transfer pollen with precision, compensating for declining natural bee populations and boosting yields in crop cultivation, such as tomatoes. Agriculture employs insect-inspired designs for fieldwork on uneven . Legged harvesters, emulating gaits with multiple compliant limbs, navigate soft and obstacles to pick fruits selectively, reducing damage in orchards compared to wheeled alternatives. , inspired by ant foraging behaviors, facilitates inspection by coordinating small legged units to scan fields for pests and nutrient deficiencies, covering large areas autonomously with minimal energy use. In military and , flapping-wing drones provide stealthy reconnaissance. designs, based on bird , enable quiet, agile flight for in urban or forested areas, evading detection better than propeller-based UAVs. NASA's modular rovers, such as the 2020 DuAxel concept, which reconfigure by splitting into specialized units for traversing craters and vents on Mars and other extreme terrains. Commercial products highlight everyday integration of bio-inspired elements. The vacuum's reactive navigation system, drawing from rodent whisker-like tactile sensing, allows obstacle avoidance through bump detection and path correction, enabling efficient cleaning in cluttered homes without complex mapping. Gecko-inspired grippers, using for dry adhesion, facilitate delicate handling in manufacturing, grasping irregular objects like electronics without residue or damage, as commercialized in systems enduring over 30,000 cycles.

Challenges and Future Directions

One of the primary technical challenges in bio-inspired robotics is achieving energy efficiency comparable to biological systems, where actuators like muscles convert into mechanical work with high thermodynamic , often exceeding that of conventional robotic motors which suffer from losses in conversion and heat dissipation. Current biohybrid actuators, integrating living tissues with synthetic components, demonstrate lower contractile performance—typically 1–5% strain and ~1 kPa stress—compared to native biological tissues (20% strain, 0.5 MPa stress), limiting their practical deployment due to high metabolic demands for glucose and oxygen. Scalability from microscale (e.g., millimeter-sized actuators) to macroscale systems remains hindered by vascularization issues, as and oxygen delivery becomes insufficient without advanced 3D networks, restricting most successes to small prototypes. Integration of sensing, control, and actuation poses significant hurdles, particularly in soft and biohybrid designs where wiring and interfaces suffer from mechanical mismatch, signal , and tissue degradation at biotic-abiotic boundaries. In soft bodies, sensors and actuators requires hierarchical structures to avoid stress concentrations and , while 3D scaffolds are essential for functional neuromuscular junctions, differing markedly from simpler 2D cultures. Real-time adaptation in dynamic environments is further complicated by the need for event-driven control to mimic biological responsiveness, as current systems struggle with instability, shrinkage, and limited longevity under varying conditions like and . Ethical and societal concerns accompany these technical barriers, including potential job displacement from advanced and swarm robots automating labor-intensive tasks, exacerbating social inequalities as access to such technologies may favor affluent users. Ecologically, bio-mimicking drones and multi-robot systems risk disrupting wildlife behaviors—such as mimicking predators or conspecifics—and introducing pollutants like into ecosystems in sensitive habitats. Looking ahead, neuromorphic computing offers promise for brain-like efficiency through spiking neural networks and stretchable synaptic transistors, enabling adaptive, low-power processing in soft robots by 2025 and beyond. Hybrid bio-robotic systems, incorporating living tissues like skeletal muscle for powered locomotion, are advancing with self-sensing actuators and improved maturation protocols via mechanical and electrical stimulation. AI-driven evolution, leveraging optimization algorithms for custom designs, enhances autonomy and feedback in complex morphologies. Key research gaps include aerial-aquatic hybrids for seamless multi-domain mobility, such as flapping-wing microrobots, and long-term autonomy in swarms, where collective behaviors in underwater or microswimmer systems require better energy harvesting and decentralized control. As of 2025, advances in bioinspired soft robots, including biohybrid systems for healthcare and underwater applications, are addressing actuation and sensing integration challenges. Projections indicate robust market growth, with the bio-inspired robotics sector valued at USD 2.79 billion in 2025 and projected to grow at a CAGR of 21.5% to reach USD 19.56 billion by 2035 (approximately USD 7.2 billion by 2030), driven by advancements in and healthcare applications. Advancements in self-repair, inspired by worm regeneration, are fostering computational frameworks for self-healing robots that dynamically reorganize cellular-like modules to restore functionality after damage.

References

  1. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-9554-4_42
  2. https://wyss.harvard.edu/media-post/bioinspired-robotics-softer-smarter-safer/
  3. https://www.ri.cmu.edu/publications/bioinspired-robots-examples-and-the-state-of-the-art/
  4. https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/ir.2021.08
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S2352431617302316
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312525672_Biologically_Inspired_Robots_into_a_New_Dimension-_A_Review
  7. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/20.500.12657/41667/1/9781439854976.pdf
  8. https://ddrobotec.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pfeifer_lungarella_iida_nov_2012.pdf
  9. https://peninsula-press.ae/Journals/index.php/KHWARIZMIA/article/download/10/10/423
  10. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3882/caos8-5.pdf
  11. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/am8002439
  12. https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=668
  13. https://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/pub3/raibert_marc_h_1983_1/raibert_marc_h_1983_1.pdf
  14. http://underactuated.mit.edu/simple_legs.html
  15. https://groups.csail.mit.edu/robotics-center/public_papers/Tedrake04.pdf
  16. http://bdml.stanford.edu/twiki/pub/RisePrivate/IeeeIcra07/StickyBotDesign_v5.pdf
  17. https://users.eecs.northwestern.edu/~mrubenst/RAS2013.pdf
  18. https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2016/08/first-autonomous-entirely-soft-robot
  19. http://lisc.mae.cornell.edu/LISCpapers/CDC_clawson_snn_16.pdf
  20. https://mymodernmet.com/drift-desert-swarm-noor-riyadh/
  21. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-07623-0
  22. https://kwpublications.com/papers_submitted/12352/biomimicry-levels-as-design-inspiration-in-design.pdf
  23. https://asknature.org/
  24. https://biomimicry.org/inspiration/asknature/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3030147/
  26. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/robotics-and-ai/articles/10.3389/frobt.2015.00004/full
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3813526/
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5046942/
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376042123000490
  30. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.adg0279
  31. https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/52/5/553/683544
  32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37451257/
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12467393/
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402303387X
  35. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2006.0127
  36. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00339-021-04439-3
  37. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/221/22/jeb189142/20759/Static-stability-predicts-the-continuum-of
  38. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/221/4/jeb166199/33944/Crawling-without-wiggling-muscular-mechanisms-and
  39. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/219/7/920/17778/Flapping-wing-aerodynamics-from-insects-to
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/lateral-line
  41. https://organismalbio.biosci.gatech.edu/chemical-and-electrical-signals/motor-units-and-skeletal-systems/
  42. https://als.lbl.gov/microstructures-explain-beetle-exoskeleton-strength/
  43. https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/73/4/1190/6407680
  44. https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007804
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8988249/
  46. https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002670
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022519316302004
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC129431/
  49. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1306983110
  50. https://www.engineering.com/cockroach-inspired-robot-can-run-up-walls/
  51. https://www.anybotics.com/anymal-c/
  52. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/icra2013_flea_0214_final_publish.pdf
  53. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.aar3449
  54. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.aax4615
  55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0029801825020980
  56. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adg0292
  57. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/217/10/1656/13926/Biomimetic-shark-skin-design-fabrication-and
  58. https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/90352
  59. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45678-9
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240303/
  61. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/10/12/1804
  62. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-3190/ac84b7
  63. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0609274103
  64. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101228094106.htm
  65. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171307
  66. https://www.festo.com/us/en/e/about-festo/research-and-development/bionic-learning-network/bionic-flying-objects/smartbird-id_33686/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12292994/
  68. https://engineering.purdue.edu/~xdeng/AR09.pdf
  69. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.160746
  70. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48454-3
  71. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2023.1125534/full
  72. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1219068110
  73. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00422-012-0509-3
  74. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15599612.2024.2334293
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146780391730066X
  76. https://rpg.ifi.uzh.ch/docs/EventVisionSurvey.pdf
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9860380/
  78. https://clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html
  79. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aisy.202000280
  80. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/soro.2016.0018
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11481036/
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542529320300821
  83. https://www.mdpi.com/2313-7673/9/12/773
  84. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228961331_Continuum_robots_and_underactuated_grasping
  85. https://news.mit.edu/2012/autonomous-earthworm-robot-0810
  86. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanismsrobotics/article/11/1/011010/401094/Kinematics-of-Continuum-Robots-With-Constant
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666386422003757
  88. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/adfm.202300888
  89. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14686996.2018.1431862
  90. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/soro.2019.0081
  91. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/robotics-and-ai/articles/10.3389/frobt.2017.00048/full
  92. https://www.cell.com/matter/fulltext/S2590-2385(25)00088-8
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6771908/
  94. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/robotics-and-ai/articles/10.3389/frobt.2024.1309220/full
  95. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370215000260
  96. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6696971
  97. https://news.mit.edu/2013/simple-scheme-for-self-assembling-robots-1004
  98. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~claytronics/
  99. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/7312037c-a301-6bd4-e053-0100007fdf3b/download
  100. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1089/soro.2014.0014
  101. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/2/751
  102. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386280301_A_robust_distributed_model_predictive_control_strategy_for_Leader_-_Follower_formation_control_of_multiple_perturbed_wheeled_mobile_robotics
  103. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aisy.202300774
  104. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10381786
  105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11295247/
  106. https://ieeemilestones.ethw.org/w/images/6/67/Hirai_2.pdf
  107. https://global.honda/en/newsroom/news/2000/c001120b-eng.html
  108. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/85490/870998828-MIT.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  109. https://www.mdpi.com/2218-6581/14/2/8
  110. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7527627/
  111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264127524008761
  112. https://www.darpa.mil/news/2013/atlas-robot-unveiled
  113. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322938543_Softer_is_Harder_What_Differentiates_Soft_Robotics_from_Hard_Robotics
  114. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-94408-0
  115. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10015-007-0479-z
  116. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227018670_Central_pattern_generators_based_on_Matsuoka_oscillators_for_the_locomotion_of_biped_robots
  117. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00319514
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5908536/
  119. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0024
  120. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15011270/
  121. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/50/12921
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11351755/
  123. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2022.905596/full
  124. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurorobotics/articles/10.3389/fnbot.2018.00029/full
  125. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394086966_Artificial_Intelligence-Driven_and_Bio-Inspired_Control_Strategies_for_Industrial_Robotics_A_Systematic_Review_of_Trends_Challenges_and_Sustainable_Innovations_Toward_Industry_50
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7525016/
  127. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-31525-1_22
  128. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898122112002234
  129. https://cyberboticslab.com/publication/kolathaya-2018-input/kolathaya-2018-input.pdf
  130. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10665908/
  131. https://www.red3d.com/cwr/papers/1987/boids.html
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167739X0000042X
  133. https://www.ifaamas.org/Proceedings/aamas2015/aamas/p279.pdf
  134. https://direct.mit.edu/artl/article/25/3/227/2919/Nanoscale-Robots-Exhibiting-Quorum-Sensing
  135. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1254295
  136. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.abd8668
  137. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.abf1416
  138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957415825001278
  139. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220122379_Snakes_and_Strings_New_Robotic_Components_for_Rescue_Operations
  140. https://robotics.leeds.ac.uk/case-studies/bio-inspired-search-and-rescue-robotics/
  141. https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/ss.2025.61
  142. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/16/9255
  143. https://wyss.harvard.edu/technology/robobees-autonomous-flying-microrobots/
  144. https://spectrum.ieee.org/ground-control-robot-insects
  145. https://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/40216-four-legged-swarm-robots-traverse-tough-terrain-together
  146. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2024-85665
  147. https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/this-transforming-rover-can-explore-the-toughest-terrain/
  148. https://direct.mit.edu/artl/article/23/1/1/2858/What-Is-Morphological-Computation-On-How-the-Body
  149. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.abi9773
  150. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7612659/
  151. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44182-025-00049-w
  152. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347703186_Biohybrid_Actuators_for_Soft_Robotics_Challenges_in_Scaling_Up
  153. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11294997/
  154. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-3190/ade215
  155. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2590238525000888
  156. https://www.factmr.com/report/bio-inspired-robotics-market
  157. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9944231/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.