Comparison of motion encoding frameworks on human manipulation actions

Movement generation, and especially generalization to unseen situations, plays an important role in robotics. Different types of movement generation methods exist such as spline based methods, dynamical system based methods, and methods based on Gaussian mixture models (GMMs). Using a large, new dataset on human manipulations, in this paper we provide a highly detailed comparison of five fundamentally different and widely used movement encoding and generation frameworks: dynamic movement primitives (DMPs), time based Gaussian mixture regression (tbGMR), stable estimator of dynamical systems (SEDS), Probabilistic Movement Primitives (ProMP) and Optimal Control Primitives (OCP). We compare these frameworks with respect to their movement encoding efficiency, reconstruction accuracy, and movement generalization capabilities. The new dataset consists of nine object manipulation actions performed by 12 humans: pick and place, put on top/take down, put inside/take out, hide/uncover, and push/pull with a total of 7,652 movement examples. Our analysis shows that for movement encoding and reconstruction DMPs and OCPs are the most efficient with respect to the number of parameters and reconstruction accuracy, if a sufficient number of kernels is used. In case of movement generalization to new start- and end-point situations, DMPs, OCPs and task parameterized GMM (TP-GMM, movement generalization framework based on tbGMR) lead to similar performance, which ProMPs only achieve when using many demonstrations for learning. All models outperform SEDS, which additionally proves to be difficult to fit. Furthermore we observe that TP-GMM and SEDS suffer from problems reaching the end-points of generalizations. These different quantitative results will help selecting the most appropriate models and designing trajectory representations in an improved task-dependent way in future robotic applications. • Comparison of five motion encoding frameworks on human manipulation action dataset. • Large dataset containing 7652 movement trajectories from 9 different action classes. • Comparison regarding encoding and generalization reveals model specific differences.