cussed in this work.
(Nakaoka et al., 2003) explored a procedure to let
a humanoid (HRP-1S) imitate a Japanese folk dance
captured by a motion capture system. Symbolic rep-
resentations for primitive motions that consisted of
essential arms’ postures and legs’ steps, were pre-
sented. The time trajectories of joint positions were
first generated to imitate the primitive motions. These
trajectories were then modified satisfying mechanical
constraints of the humanoid. Especially, for the dy-
namic stabilities the trajectory of waist was modified
to be consistent with the desired ZMP trajectory. The
imitation of the Japanese folk dance was performed
in OpenHRP dynamics simulator and was realized by
the real humanoid of HRP-1S as well. As the exten-
sion of this work, (Nakaoka et al., 2004) updated the
forgoing developed method. The updated method fo-
cused more on leg motions using a symbolic descrip-
tion of leg motion primitives in the same Japanese
folk dance. By solving a inverse kinematics problem
for the upper body of a human the arm motions of
the humanoid were determined. The joint positions
obtained from that inverse kinematics problem were
then modified by the velocity limits of joint motors.
The leg motions were also obtained from the inverse
kinematics problem and were modified according to
the desired ZMP trajectories. The entire dance was
performed at the half of the speed of the original cap-
tured dance to avoid falling down.
(Pollard et al., 2002) also developed a method to
adapt captured human motions to a humanoid that
consists of only a upper body. The captured upper
body motions of an actor was optimized, minimiz-
ing the posture differences between the humanoid and
the actor. The limits of joint position and velocity of
the humanoid were also involved. However, in these
studies the description of the conversion of the mo-
tion capture data to the humanoid was not made in
that detail.
(Zhao et al., 2004) presented a kinematics mapping
of captured human motion data to a humanoid intro-
ducing a similarity function. The similarity function
was defined using the errors between the joint posi-
tions of an actor and those of a humanoid. The num-
ber of degrees of freedom (DOF) of the humanoid was
assumed to be same as that of the human, which may
not be very realistic.
In the studies mentioned so far the procedure to
obtain the trajectories of joint position and velocity
of a humanoid from human motion capture data has
been explored insufficiently. In other words, it was
not clearly described to transform motions of a hu-
man having more DOF to the humanoid having less
DOF. Therefore this work will discuss more details
about that conversion process.
It is one of the key tasks for a humanoid to imitate
human arm motions, since such tasks are essential in
providing people with human-friendly behaviors. It is
also difficult to imitate the arm motions due to com-
plexity and delicateness of the motions. In addition,
incorrect imitation of arm and hand motions may lead
misunderstandings to people about the original mean-
ing. The imitation of human arm motions will be dis-
cussed as the start of human motion imitation.
As mentioned earlier it is difficult to apply captured
human arm motions to a humanoid because of several
differences between a human and a humanoid as fol-
lowed
• arm length difference
• length rate difference of upper and lower arms
• less degrees of freedom of a humanoid than those
of a human
• dynamics capability difference
To resolve the difficulty due to the differences
above an efficient method using optimization for con-
verting captured human arm motions to a humanoid
will be discussed. In addition, a simple way to im-
pose limits of joint position and velocity will be pro-
posed. Two human arm motions will be imitated by
the humanoid in dynamics simulation to evaluate the
developed method.
2 GEOMETRIC SCALING OF
HUMANOID ARMS
One of the difficulties of adapting human motions to
a humanoid robot is to have the work space of hu-
manoid arms be similar to that of human arms. To re-
solve this difficulty (Hodgins and Pollard, 1997) pro-
posed a rule for geometric and mass scaling to adapt
existing simulated behaviors of a character to new
characters. In the proposed rule the geometric scal-
ing for running motion of a human was done using a
scaling factor based on the height and the leg length of
a new character. For other motions a different scaling
factor was selected for more reliable animation.
In this work a scaling rule similar to (Hodgins and
Pollard, 1997) is used. In detail the arm length of
the humanoid robot is scaled by multiplying a dimen-
sionless constant, ρ = (
L
human
L
robot
) to it. L
human
de-
notes the sum of the lengths of the upper and lower
arm of an actor as seen in Fig.1. L
robot
is also de-
fined for the humanoid in the same manner. Therefore
the lengths of the upper and lower arms of humanoid
are scaled as ρL
upper
robot
and ρL
lower
robot
. The same scaling
rule is applied to the left or right arm using different
scaling constants, respectively. The boundary of the
work space of the arms may then become similar to
the actor’s. However, the scaled work space may not
be identical to that of the actor due to the differences
ICINCO 2005 - ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION
86