Learning Space Analysis and Coverage for Robot Learning Control
Shaw-Ji Shiah and Kuu-young Young
Department of Electrical and Control Engineering
National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
Abstract
To tackle the nonlinearity present in the dynamics of
robot manipulators, the learning controllers have been
applied for robot motion governing using dierent kinds
of control structures. However, most of them need to
repeat the learning process each time a new trajectory
is encountered. Otherwise, a neural network will consist
of a huge number of neurons or a fuzzy system will re-
quire too many rules because the learning space needed
to handle arbitrary trajectories is too large. Inspired by
the concept of human motor program, we consider that
to generalize the learned motions eectively for govern-
ing those unpracticed motions is the key role to reduce
the size of the learning space. In this dissertation, a
novel robot learning control scheme, which consists of a
learning control structure emulating human motor pro-
grams and includes a robot motion similarity measure-
ment algorithm, is proposed to analyze learning space
and enlarge learning space coverage. Simulation results
show that the learning eort is dramatically reduced in
dealing with a wide range of robot motions by using the
proposed scheme.
1.Introduction
The dynamics of robot manipulators are, in gen-
eral, nonlinear and complex. Therefore, conventional
xed gain, linear feedback controllers are not capable of
eectively controlling movements of multijoint robot ma-
nipulators under dierent task requirements. To achieve
better compensation for dynamic interaction, a com-
plete, nonlinear dynamic model describing the robot ma-
nipulator is needed 7]. The use of a complicated nonlin-
ear dynamic model makes real-time implementation dif-
cult. On the other hand, if a learning controller is used,
the consequences of using incomplete models and inaccu-
rate model parameters may not be very signicant. Two
well-known types of learning controllers for robot motion
control are articial neural networks and fuzy systems.
Both are biologically inspired and intended to model hu-
man experience 20, 25]. However, most of them need to
repeat the learning process each time a new trajectory is
encountered. Otherwise, a neural network will consist of
a huge number of neurons or a fuzzy system will require
too many rules because the learning space needed to
handle arbitrary trajectories is too large 15, 19]. Since
the human motor control system can perform numerous
kinds of motions through learning, we wonder how the
human beings resolve this learning space problem.
In our daily life, we may see frequently the cases that
the human motor control system deals with large learn-
ing space. For example, the arm postures and the forces
required for a basketball player to shoot a ball are dier-
ent along with the locations she (he) is and the actions
that she (he) takes. It is impossible for this player to
practice for handling every possible situation in advance.
Thus, the movements of shooting a ball should be similar
in certain degree so that a basketball player can make
use of the existing skills to deal with unpracticed situa-
tions. The concept of human motor program also states
that a motor program should be generalized, simple to
operate, and eceint in storage 16]. Because of these
reasons, we consider that to generalize the learned mo-
tions eectively for governing those unpracticed motions
is the key role for reducing the size of the learning space.
In this dissertation, we propose a novel learning scheme
that is capable of large learning space coverage. A new
robot learning control structure is proposed for this learn-
ing control scheme 23]. It is motivated by the con-
cept of human motor program, and consists mainly of
a fuzzy system and a cerebellar model articulation con-
troller (CMAC)-type neural network 1, 2]. The fuzzy
system is used for governing a number of sampled mo-
tions in a group of motions which are not yet classied.
Meanwhile, we also propose to evaluate the degrees of
similarities between robot motions so as to classify those
motions governed by the fuzzy system 17, 18]. The
CMAC is then used to generalize the parameters of the
fuzzy system to deal with the whole group of motions.
One reason for adopting the CMAC rather than another
type of neural network is that this neural network has a
good generalization capability and simple structure. Un-
der this design, in some sense the qualitative fuzzy rules
in the fuzzy system are generalized by the CMAC-type
neural network, and then a larger learning space can be
covered 23]. Furthermore, motion classication accord-
ing to similarities reduces the complexity of learning.
Therefore, the learning eort is dramatically reduced in
dealing with a wide range of robot motions.
2.Human Motor Control
The proposed learning control scheme is motivated
by the concept of human motor program, which is de-
rived from the study of human movement and has stim-
ulated research in human control strategies 3, 5, 9, 10,
14, 16]. Because feedback processing in the human motor
control system is slow, long delays are experienced in the
transfer of sensory information to the higher level of the
hierarchy. For slow movement, long delays may cause no
serious problems when feedback control is employed by
the higher level of the hierarchy however, the eect of
delays cannot be ignored in dealing with fast movement.
Therefore, open-loop control might be more appropriate
for governing fast human movement and a concept of
motor program was proposed 5, 16]. The basic idea in
human motor program is that movement demands are
specied by the CNS in advance and then executed in
an essentially open-loop manner. When activated, the
motor program generates motor commands and sents
them to the peripheral neuromotor system for execution.
Where a class of movements are concerned, the storage
of complex motor programs for each movement may not
be appropriate. Instead, the motor program should be
generalized, simple to operate, and ecient in storage.
Thus, a single motor program will be enough to accom-
modate a wide variety of movements. Proper parame-
ters corresponding to a particular movement can then
be supplied to the motor program in execution. In other
words, the motor program should be abstract and the
corresponding control parameters should be eciently
stored and manipulated 13, 16].
3.Proposed Learning Control Scheme
The proposed learning control scheme uses a new
learning control structure 23] and includes a motion sim-
ilarity measurement algorithm 18]. The learning con-
trol structure consists mainly of a fuzzy system and a
CMAC. We take advantage of the merits of a fuzzy sys-
tem and a CMAC to emulate a motor program with the
appealing characteristics described in Sec. 2. A fuzzy
system is used to represent the abstract motor program
and a CMAC to manage the parameters. In some sense,
the fuzzy system encodes knowledge via qualitative rules
rather than via precise quantitative description. This
feature makes the fuzzy system an appealing choice for
emulating a motor program. The parameters specifying
the fuzzy rules for governing sampled motions are stored
and manipulated by the CMAC to deal with a wide range
of motions. The combination of a fuzzy system and a
CMAC in this way is novel and exploits the merits of
the motor program. In order to simplify the complexity
in learning, we also propose to evaluate the degrees of
similarities between robot motions so as to classify those
motions governed by the fuzzy system 17, 18]. Under
this arrangement, a class of motions with the same fea-
ture are expected to correspond to similar fuzzy param-
eters. Consequently, the data with which the CMAC,
which executes the generalization, will have to deal will
exhibit less nonlinearity. Generalization of qualitative
fuzzy rules is more eective than that of quantitative
numerical data, because the former involves the general-
ization of abstract representations and tends to cover a
larger learning space.
3.1.Robot Learning Control Structure
The conceptual organization of this learning sturcture
is shown schematically in Fig. 1. In Fig. 1, the inputs
to the learning structure are motions which belong to
a motion class. Each of these motions can be repre-
sented as mi (pi ), where mi refers to the ith motion in
the motion class, and pi is the corresponding vector of
parameters describing the ith robot motion. For a mo-
tion mi , the motion parameter vector pi usually consists
of movement initial position, nal position, distance, ve-
locity, load, and other kinematic or dynamic constraints.
The motion parameter vector pi is used as an index and
inputted into the CMAC. A set of parameters Fi will
then be solicited from the CMAC and sent forward to the
fuzzy system. The kinematic-related elements of pi are
sent to the motion trajectory planner, and the planner
generates the corresponding desired joint position and
velocity trajectories which are used as the inputs to the
fuzzy system. With Fi representing the fuzzy rules, the
fuzzy system can govern the motion along with the de-
sired position and velocity trajectories of the motion. To
allow for automatic adjustment of the system's param-
eters, the fuzzy system in the learning structure is im-
plemented in the form of a fuzzy neural network (FNN)
4, 12], and generates motion commands sent forward to
a local controller. In turn, the local controller, which
emulates the peripheral neuromotor system, modulates
the motion command via sensory feedback and uses the
resultant signal to move the robot manipulator 21, 22].
According to some biological evidence, a simple position
control law with linear damping is then adopted for the
local controller 5, 21]

=Kp(Cm ; q) ; Kd q_ (1)
where Cm stands for the motion command vector, q and
q_ are the actual position and velocity vectors obtained
from sensory feedback, and Kp and Kd are selected to
be diagonal positive denite gain matrices for stability
considerations 7].
3.2.Motion Similarity Analysis
It is quite intuitive that the characteristics of a
robot motion for a special control purpose will be re-
ected on the dynamics of that robot manipulator. There-
fore, to measure the degree of the similarity between
robot motions is equal to measure that of the closeness
between the corresponding robot dynamics. As direct
 


 

5L
/ L


 2L
 6G 6G 2


9 5RERW

 
 3L 

  


 '\QDPLFV

  


Figure 1: Conceptual organization of the proposed robot learning control structure.
measurement of similarity between robot dynamics is im-
possible, we will measure the similarity between rules or
parameters in the fuzzy system that control the robot
motions. Thus, we dene similar motions as follows.
Denition 1 (Similar Robot Motions) If the fuzzy
relations of the fuzzy systems govern a group of robot
motions are similar, these robot motions are similar.
In this dissertation, we choose the fuzzy relations of the
fuzzy system governing robot motions for evaluation.
Because the fuzzy relation of a fuzzy system describes
the fuzzy system as a whole, it is appropriate to mea-
sure the similarity between fuzzy systems by evaluating
their fuzzy relations. In evaluating the similarities be-
tween fuzzy relations, we dene similar fuzzy relations
as follows.
Denition 2 (Similar Fuzzy Relations) If fuzzy re-
lations are with similar characteristics or distributions,
these fuzzy relations are similar.
Consider two fuzzy systems implemented as two FNNs,
FN1 and FN2, with two inputs and one output. Assume
that FN1 and FN2 govern motion 1 and motion 2 well,
and have N and M rules. Let x 2 X 1 and y 2 Y 1 be
two non-fuzzy input variables representing the states of
the robot manipulator, and z 2 Z 1 be a non-fuzzy out-
put variable representing the command sent to the robot
manipulator, where X 1  Y 1  Z 1  <. The fuzzy rules of
FN1 can then be expressed as
if X1 is A11 and Y1 is B11 then Z1 is C11 
if X1 is A12 and Y1 is B12 then Z1 is C12 
:::
if X1 is A1N and Y1 is B1N then Z1 is C1N :
(2)
6 6
where F () represents a fuzzy set X1 2 F (X 1 ), Y1 2
F (Y 1 ) and Z1 2 F (Z 1 ) are the linguistic variables rep-
resenting two fuzzy input variables and one fuzzy output
variable. A1i , B1i , and C1i dened on F (X 1 ), F (Y 1 )
and F (Z 1 ), are linguistic values of X1 , Y1 and Z1 , where
i = 1 2 : : :  N . Let R1 2 F (X 1  Y 1  Z 1 ) be the fuzzy
relation on FN1 . We can then determine R1 by using
each R1i as 6, 11, 24]:
R1 = _Ni=1 R1i = _Ni=1 (A1i ^ B1i ^ C1i ) (3)
where _ and ^ represent max and min connectives, re-
spectively 6]. The fuzzy set form can be expressed as
R1 =f(x y z ) R1 (x y z ) j (x y z ) 2 X 1  Y 1  Z 1 g
(4)
with
R1 (x y z )= sup min(A1 (x) B1 (y) C1 (z )) (5)
i i i i
where F (:) : U ! 0 1] stands for a membership func-
tion characterizing a fuzzy set F. This fuzzy set R1 can
also be expressed as
R1 =fx~ R1 (~x) j x~ 2 W 1 g (6)
where x~=(x y z ), and W 1 =X 1  Y 1  Z 1 . So, we may
view the fuzzy relation of FN1 as a fuzzy set dened on
W 1 . Similarly, the fuzzy relation R2 representing FN2
can also be represented as
R2 =fy~ 2 R (~y) j y~ 2 W 2 g (7)
with y~=(x y z ), and W 2 =X 2  Y 2  Z 2 . Now, we can
dene the similarity between robot motions.
Denition 3 (Robot Motion Similarity) Suppose mo-
tion 1 and motion 2 governed by fuzzy systems FN1 and
FN2 , and let
R^i =D(Ri  n) i = 1 2:
 If R^1 and R^2 satisfy the following equality:

 


  3   
MS (R^1  R^2 )= P  S  L   Q
L L

then the degree of the similarity between motion 1 and

2 is .    
#
MS ( ) is the robot motion similarity measuring opera- L
 L     Q

tor, and D( ) represents the discretelization process of

a fuzzy relation. Both of them will be described in the   

next section, and  is a real constant which belongs to 

,  $  #  #
the closed interval (0 1). L M L M


There are two kinds of methods for measuring the

similarity between two fuzzy sets: the geometric and set-

theoretic measures 26]. Because fuzzy relations with  , J ,
similar distributions are always with dierrent coordi-
L M


nates and scales, we adopt the set-theoretic measure as P  S  { P  S  N 
L L L L

our similarity measure. The reasons for discretelizing P  S  { P  S  N

M M M M

fuzzy sets are convenient for computation of the set-

theoretic measure and for extracting the characteristics



of distributions of the fuzzy sets. For two discrete nite
fuzzy sets R^1 and R^2 , We can adopt a similarity measure
8] to be the robot motion similarity measuring operator:
MS (R^1  R^2 )
^ ^
= jR^1 \ R^2 j (8)
jR1  R2 j
Pn3
= Pnk3=1 min(R1 (~xk ) R2 (~yk )) (9)
k=1 max(R1 (~xk ) R2 (~yk ))
where the operator j  j is the cardinality operator 8,
11, 25]. The value evaluated using this robot motion
similarity measuring operator is always between 0 and
1. When R^1 and R^2 have no intersection, MS (R^1  R^ 2 )
is equal to zero it is equal to one when R^1 is equal to
R^2 .
Due to the variations exhibited in general robot mo-
tions, it may demand plenty of memory for a CMAC to
deal with dierent kinds of motions. However, if there
is similarity present in a set of motions, it is easier to be
learnt by using a CMAC of a reasonable size because of
their similarity.
3.3.Learning to Govern Classes of Motions
By using the learning control structure described
in Sec. 3.1 and the motion similarity measurement al-
gorithm described in Sec. 3.2, classes of motions can
be governed through learning. The process of learning
to govern classes of motions can be divided into three
stages. In the rst stage, the fuzzy systems in the pro-
posed learning structure are used to learn to govern sam-
pled motions from a group of robot motions which are
not yet classied. Proper parameters of the fuzzy sys-
tems which govern these motions well will then be ob-
tained. In the second stage, the parameters obtained
P  S  N  L  Q N  U 
L L
Figure 3: The robot motion classication process.
in the rst stage will be used to evaluate the similari-
ties between these motions using the proposed similarity
measurement, and these robot motions can then be clas-
sied according to their similarities. In the third stage,
the CMAC-type neural network in the proposed learn-
ing structure will be used to learn to generalize these
classied motions. The processes in the three stages are
shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
After these three stages of learning and processing,
fuzzy parameters will be manipulated and supplied by
the CMAC to the FNN for the governing of input desired
motions. The learnings in the FNN and the CMAC are in
fact interactive. When the fuzzy parameters generated
by the CMAC are not appropriate for governing a partic-
ular motion, the FNN can provide more training patterns
by learning to govern more sampled motions around that
motion to increase the resolution of the CMAC. In other
words, the FNN and the CMAC will cooperate to yield
homogeneous reliable performance for a whole class of
motions.
4.Simulation
To demonstrate the eectiveness of the proposed
learning control scheme, simulations of applying this sheme
to govern motions based on using a PUMA 560 manip-
ulator were executed.
 $Q $UELWUDU\ 5L 0RWLRQ 6/ 6 / 2


0RWLRQ 7UDMHFWRU\ 

)11V
/RFDO 9 5RERW
3ODQQHU &RQWUROOHU '\QDPLFV
2L  5L 


6 6




Figure 2: Conceptual organization of robot motion governing by using a fuzzy system.

 )L  
 
  PL SL 
S
L

    

L žQ

)
L
 

Figure 4: Conceptual organization of the CMAC-type neural network learning process.

4.1.Learning to Govern Individual Planned Mo-
tions
In this stage of processing, the learning controllers
were used to learn to govern a group of motions. To
simplify the simulations, orientations were not planned
in the motions. Therefore, only the rst three joints of
the PUMA manipulator were used to perform planned
motions. The gains of the local controllers were chosen
to be xed in the simulations. Each joint of the robot
manipulator was equipped with an FNN. In each FNN,
there are two nodes in Layer 1, fty nodes in layer 2,
twenty ve nodes in Layer 3 and 4, respectively, and one
node in Layer 5. A second-order system model is used to
provide critical damped reference trajectories, qr and q_r ,
for each joint of the robot manipulator, and expressed
as
qr (t) + bq_r (t) + kqr (t) = f (10)
with
b = 2Vm expq
(1) (11)
f motions, described in Section 4.1, were classied accord-


k = Vm exp
qf
(1) 2
f = (Vm exp
qf
(1))2
where Vm stands for the desired maximum joint velocity,
and qf the desired nal joint position. By using Eqs.(10)-
(13), we planned joint trajectories of 23 motions for the
PUMA manipulator. Each planned motion was denoted
as mi (pi ) with i 2 f1 2 : : : 23g, and the kinematic re-
lated elements of each vector pi were selected to be the
desired nal joint positions qf 1 qf 2 qf 3 ]t . Parameters
i i i
of these trajectories were shown in Table 1. Because
each joint of the PUMA manipulator is equiped with an
FNN for governing motions, we expressed parameters
of the FNNs governing mi (pi ) as Fi = fFi1  Fi2  Fi3 g.
After performing the learning process, tracking errors
for learning to govern each planned motions were within
a reasonable range. The mean square errors of all the
23 Cartesian motion trajectories at the end of the FNN
learning were shown in Fig. 5.
4.2.Classifying the Governed Motions
In this stage of processing, the 23 well-governed
ing to their similarities. Similarities between these mo-
(12) tions are determined according to the equation below:
 = 1
min 
k
3 k
(14)
(13)
= min SM(R^ik  R^jk )
1
k
3
(15)

 


 


Figure 5: Cartesian mean square tracking error for tracking the 23 planned motions.

 

 
  

 
         
   

     

     

Table 2: Motion classes with the similarity threshold of 0:2.

where R^ik and R^jk are discrete fuzzy relations calculated

from Fik and Fjk of the FNNs which govern the kth
joint of the PUMA 560 robot manipulator for motions
i and j . The number of points used for discretelization
of the fuzzy relations is 50. The similarities between

 
   
  
the 23 robot motions were then evaluated according to

    Eq. 15. To simplify our demonstration, we only classi-

    ed those governed motions according to the similarity
 
   
threshold value of 0:2. These motions were then divided



 
 


 




into three classes according to their degrees of similari-


   ties, and members of the three motion classes were shown


   in Table 2.
  
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
4.3.Generalizing Classied Motions to Govern
Other Similar Motions





 



 

  

 

 


 
In this stage of processing, the CMAC type neural
















network was used to learn parameters of the FNNs gov-





   erning the 23 motions in three motion classes described

 


   in Table 2, and generalize new parameters for governing

 




other similar motions in the three motion classes.
To deal with motion class 1, the input for the CMAC
 


 










 type neural network was selected as pi dened in Sec-
 


 
tion 4.1. The resolution of each input dimension for
the CMAC after quantization was 0.1 rad, and the total
memory size of association cells of the CMAC was about
Table 1: Parameters of the 23 planned motions. 800k bytes. To deal with motion class 2, the input pi
for the CMAC type neural network was selected to be
the planned maxium joint velocity Vm dened in Section
4.1. The resolution of this one dimensional input vector
after quantization was 0.2 rad/sec. The size the of used
memory was 200k bytes. To deal with motion class 3, the
 this, we propose a learning control scheme to enlarge

 
    
   learning space coverage by taking advantage of the mer-

   
 its of fuzzy systems and CMAC-type neural networks.

  
 

The combination of the fuzzy systems and the CMAC-

  

type neural networks in our design allows fuzzy rules
to be generalized by using CMAC-type neural networks.


  
 

   


   


This means that abstract representations are general-
ized, and they tend to cover a larger learning space.

   


Thus, the fuzzy parameters appropriate for a set of sam-

   


 
  



  
 pled motions can be generalized to deal with a whole

  
 
 class of motions. Another important factor for enlarging
   
 a learning space is the classication of a group of sampled
motions. This will be helpful for oerring more proper


  
 

   

 

   
 
training patterns so as to increase the speed of conver-
    
 
gence in the learning process and the precision rate of
     
generalization of the CMAC-type neural networks. Be-
cause of the motion classication, the generalization ca-


  
 

   



pability of the CMAC-type neural networks can be en-

   


   




  
 hanced in the proposed learning control scheme. Con-

sequently, motions in the same class are guaranteed to
correspond to very similar fuzzy parameters. Thus, the
Table 3: The parameters of the planned 19 motions for fuzzy parameters that the CMAC-type neural networks
generalization testing. need to generalize will exhibit much less nonlinearity and
then more classes of motions can be incorporated into the
network with a reasonable size of network memory.
input pi for the CMAC type neural network was selected Simulation results implicate that the human control
as the load carried by the PUMA manipulator. The res- strategy can be applied to robot motion control, and to
olution of this input vector after quantization was 1kg, have good performace. However, we need to know were
and the size of the used memory was also 200k bytes. about how the human makes use of the existing skills
Dimensions of the input vectors for the CMAC to deal of governing various kinds of motions to govern dierent
with motion classes are dierent, so sizes of the used kinds of motions. In our future works, we will explore
memories are dierent. useful properties of relations between dierent motion
After learning the parameters of the FNNs governing classes, develop schemes to extract motion properties of
planned motions in classes 1, 2, and 3, the CMAC type certain skills to compose another kind of skills, and study
neural networks were used to generalize new parameters what kind of format most suitable for representing mo-
for governing other 19 planned motions which belong to tion skills when used for generalization between dierent
classes 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Parameters of the 19 motion classes. All of these should be helpful for general
planned motions for generalization testing were shown robot motion governing using learning controllers.
in Table 3. The weights of all CMAC type neural net-
works were updated until errors between every training References
pattern and the corresponding reproduced parameters
were lower than 1  10;5. By using these weights, the 1] J.S. Albus, \A new approach to manipulator con-
CMAC type neural network can generalize parameters trol: the cerebellar model articulation controller
of the FNNs for governing the 19 planned test motions. (CMAC)," ASME J. Dynamic Syst., Measurement,
The mean square tracking errors for governing all the 19 Contr., vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 220{227, 1975.
Cartesian motions were shown in Fig. 6. Although the
tracking errors for generalization were large than those 2] J.S. Albus, \Data storage in the cerebellar model ar-
for learning, it was good enough for motion governing ticulation controller (CMAC)," ASME J. Dynamic
via motion generalization. Syst., Measurement, Contr., vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 228{
233, 1975.
5.Conclusion 3] C.G. Atkeson and J.M. Hollerbach, \Kinematic fea-
tures of unrestrained vertical arm movements," J.
One major problem in applying learning controllers Neurosci., vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 2318{2330, 1985.
to govern general motions of multijoint robot manipula-
tors is that the learning space is quite large. To tackle

 
  



 

Figure 6: The Cartesian mean square tracking errors for governing the 19 test motions.
4] H.R. Berenji and P. Khedkar, \Learning and tun-
ing fuzzy logic controllers through reinforcements,"
IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, vol. 3, no. 5, pp.
724{740, 1992.
5] E. Bizzi, N. Accornero, W. Chapple, and N. Hogan,
\Posture control and trajectory formulation during
arm movement," J. Neurosci., vol. 4, no. 11, pp.
2738{2744, 1984.
6] J.Q. Chen, J.H. Lu, and L.J. Chen, \Analysis
and synthesis of fuzzy closed-loop control systems,"
IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, and Cybern., vol. 25, no.
5, pp. 881{888, 1995.
7] J.J. Craig, Introduction to Robotics, MA: Addison-
Wesley, Reading, 1989.
8] D. Dubois and H. Prade, Fuzzy Sets and Sys-
tems: Theory and Application, Academic Press,
New York, 1980.
9] T. Flash, \The control of hand equilibrium trajec-
tories in multijoint arm movements," Biol. Cybern.,
vol. 57, pp. 257{274, 1987.
10] S.W. Keele, \Movement control in skilled motor
performance," Psych. Bull., vol. 70, pp. 387{403,
1968.
11] C.C. Lee, \Fuzzy logic in control systems: fuzzy
logic controller{Part I, II," IEEE Trans. Syst.,
Man, and Cybern., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 404{435, 1990.
12] C.T. Lin and C.S.G. Lee, \Reinforcement struc-
ture/parameter learning for neural-network-based
fuzzy logic control systems," IEEE Trans. Fuzzy
Syst., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 46{63, 1994.
13] M.C. Nechyba and Y. Xu, \Human control strategy:
abstraction, verication, and replication," IEEE
Control Systems Magazine, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 48{61,
1997.


 
14] A. Polit and E. Bizzi, \Characteristics of motor
programs underlying arm movements in monkeys,"
J. Neurophysiol., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 183{194, 1979.
15] T.D. Sanger, \Neural network learning control of
robot manipulators using gradually increasing task
diculty," IEEE Trans. Rob. and Aut., vol. 10, no.
3, pp. 323{333, 1994.
16] R.A. Schmidt, Motor Control and Learning: A Be-
havioral Emphasis, Human Kinetics, Champaign,
IL, 1988.
17] S.J. Shiah and K.Y. Young, \Classifying robot mo-
tions to increase eciency in robot learning con-
trol," in to appear in Conf. IFSA, 1999.
18] S.J. Shiah and K.Y. Young, \Robot motion classi-
cation from the standpoint of learning control," to
appear in the Eighth IEEE International Conference
on Fuzzy Syst., 1999.
19] T. Shibata and T. Fukuda, \Hierarchical intelligent
control for robotic motion," IEEE Trans. Neural
Networks, vol. 5, pp. 823{832, 1994.
20] P.D. Wasserman, Neural Computing{Theory and
Practice, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork, 1989.
21] C.H. Wu, K.Y. Young, K.S. Hwang, and S. Lehman,
\Voluntary movements for robotic control," IEEE
Control Systems Magazine, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 8{14,
1992.
22] K.Y. Young and C.C. Fan, \An approach to simplify
the learning space for robot learning control," Fuzzy
Sets and Systems, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 23{38, 1998.
23] K.Y. Young and S.J. Shiah, \An approach to en-
large learning space coverage for robot learning con-
trol," IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 5, no. 4, pp.
511{522, 1997.
24] L.A. Zadeh, \Outline of a new approach to the
analysis of complex systems and decision process,"
IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, and Cybern., vol. 3, pp.
28{44, 1973.
25] H.J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Ap-
plications, MA: Kluwer, Norwell, 3rd edition, 1996.
26] R. Zwick, E. Carlstein, and D.V. Budescu, \Mea-
sures of similarity among fuzzy concepts: a com-
parative analysis," Int. J. Approx. Reas., vol. 1, pp.
221{242, 1987.