Chapter 3

Behavior-based robotics

The quest to generate intelligent machines has now (2007) been underway for
about a half century. While much progress has been made during this period
of time, the intelligence of most autonomous robots in use today reaches, at
best, the level of insects, rather than the level of humans. Indeed, during the
last twenty years, many of the efforts in robotics research have been inspired
by rather simple biological organisms, with the aim of understanding and
implementing basic, survival-related behaviors in robots, before proceeding
with more advanced behaviors involving, for example, high-level reasoning.
These efforts have beem made mainly within the paradigm of behavior-based
robotics (BBR), an approach to machine intelligence which differs quite signif-
icantly from traditional artificial intelligence (AI). This chapter begin with a
brief discussion of the differences between BBR and AI. Next, a more detailed
introduction to BBR will be given. Finally, the topic of generating basic robotic
behaviors (by hand) will be considered.

3.1 Approaches to machine intelligence

The field of machine intelligence was founded in the mid 1950s, and is thus
a comparatively young scientific discipline. It was given the name artificial
intelligence (AI), as opposed to the natural intelligence displayed by certain
biological systems, particularly higher animals. The goal of AI was to generate
machines capable of displaying human–level intelligence. Such machines are
required to have the ability to reason, make plans for their future actions, and
also, of course, to carry out these actions.
However, as noted above, despite a near half–century of activity in this
area, no machines displaying human-level intelligence are, as yet, available.
True, there are machines that display a limited amount of intelligent behavior,
such as vacuum-cleaning and lawn-mowing robots, humanoid robots of var-

39
40 CHAPTER 3. BEHAVIOR-BASED ROBOTICS

ious kinds, and even elevators, automatic trains, TV sets and other electronic
equipment. However, the intelligence of these machines is very far from the
human–level intelligence originally aimed at by AI.
To put it mildly, the construction of artificial systems with human–level
intelligence turned out to be difficult, for a number of reasons. First, intelli-
gence is hard to define. In a way, intelligence is a concept which is easy to
spot when one sees it (and it is even easier to spot its opposite), but it is still
difficult to produce a clear and unambiguous definition. Second, and perhaps
more important, human–level intelligence is, of course, extremely complex,
and therefore hardly the best starting point. The complex nature of human
brains is difficult both to understand and to implement, and one may say that
the preoccupation with human level intelligence in AI research has probably
been the most important obstacle to progress.
So, is it at all possible to generate intelligent behavior in artificial systems?
It is, but one must take a less narrow view of intelligence, and this is exactly
what is done in BBR, which is the main topic of this course.

3.2 Behavior-based robotics

The concept of BBR was introduced in the mid 1980s, and was championed
by Rodney Brooks [3] and others. Nowadays, the behavior-based approach is
used by researchers worldwide, and it is often strongly influenced by ethology,
as discussed in Chapter 2.

3.2.1 Comparison with classical AI

BBR approaches intelligence in a way that is very different from the classical
AI approach, and a schematic illustration of the difference is given in Fig. 3.1.
In classical AI, the flow of information is as shown in the left panel of the
figure. First, the sensors of the robot sense the environment. Next, a (usually
very complex) world model is built, and the robot reasons about the effects
of various actions within the framework of this world model, before finally
deciding upon an action, which is executed in the real world.
Now, this procedure is very different from the distributed form of compu-
tation found in the brains of biological organisms, and, above all, it is gen-
erally very slow, strongly reducing its survival value. Clearly, this is not the
way most biological organisms function. As a good counterexample, consider
the evasive maneuvers displayed by noctuid moths, as they attempt to escape
from a pursuing predator (e.g. a bat) [8]. A possible way of achieving evasive
behavior would be to build a model of the world, considering many differ-
ent bat trajectories, and calculating the appropriate response. However, even
if the brain of the moth were capable of such a feat (it is not), it would most

c 2007, Mattias Wahde, [email protected]

CHAPTER 3. BEHAVIOR-BASED ROBOTICS 41

Sensors
Sense

Avoid obstacles
Model
Wander Follow wall
Plan
Charge battery

Act
Actuators
Figure 3.1: A comparison of the information flow in classical AI (left panel) and in BBR
(right panel). For BBR, any number of behaviors may be involved, and the figure only shows
an example involving four behaviors.

likely find itself eaten before deciding what to do. Instead, as will be discussed
below, moths use a much simpler procedure.
As is evident from the left panel of Fig. 3.1, classical AI is strongly focused
on high-level reasoning, i.e. an advanced cognitive procedure displayed in
humans and, perhaps, some other mammals. Attempting to emulate such
complex biological systems has proven simply to be too complex as a starting-
point for research in robotics: Classical AI has had great success in many of
the subfields it has spawned (e.g. pattern recognition, path planning etc.), but
has made little progress toward the goal of generating truly intelligent ma-
chines, capable of autonomous operation. For a comprehensive introduction
to classical AI, see e.g. [35].
BBR, illustrated in the right panel of Fig. 3.1 is an alternative to classical
AI, in which intelligent behavior is built in a bottom-up fashion, starting from
simple behaviors, many of which may be running simultaneously in a given
robotic brain, giving suggestions concerning which actions the robot ought to
take.
Returning to the example of the moth, its evasive behavior is very simple
indeed, and is in fact based on only a few neurons and an ingenious position-
ing of the ears on its body. This simple system enables the moth to fly away
from an approaching bat and, if it is unable to shake off the pursuer, start to fly
erratically (and finally dropping toward the ground) to confuse the predator
[8].

c 2007, Mattias Wahde, [email protected]

42 CHAPTER 3. BEHAVIOR-BASED ROBOTICS

3.2.2 Behaviors and actions

An attempt should be made to define the concepts of behaviors and actions,
since they are used somewhat differently by different authors. Here, a be-
havior will be defined simply as a sequence of actions performed in order to
achieve some goal. Thus, for example, an obstacle avoidance behavior may
consist of the actions of stopping, turning, and starting to move again in a dif-
ferent direction. Note, however, that the definition is not very strict, and that
the terms behavior and action remain somewhat blurred.

3.2.3 Intelligent behavior and reasoning

The example with the moth shows that intelligent behavior does not require
reasoning, and in BBR one generally uses a more generous definition of in-
telligent behavior than that implicity used in AI. Thus, in BBR, one may de-
fine intelligent behavior as the ability to survive, and to strive to reach other goals,
in an unstructured environment. This definition is more in tune with the fact
that most biological organisms are capable of highly intelligent behavior in
the environment for which they have been designed, even though they may
fail quite badly in novel environments (as illustrated by the failure of e.g. a
fly caught in front of a window). An unstructured environment is an envi-
ronment that changes rapidly and unexpectedly, so that it is impossible to rely
on pre–defined maps, something that holds true for most real-world environ-
ment. For example, if it is the task of a robot to transport equipment in a
hospital, it must first be able to avoid (moving) obstacles. Putting a complete
plan of the hospital into the robot will not be sufficient, since the environment
changes on a continuous basis. The robot may pass an empty room, only to
find the room full of people or equipment when it returns.

3.2.4 Features of behavior-based robots

Different behavior-based robots generally share certain basic features, even
though not all features are present in all such robots. To start with, behavior-
based robots are first provided with the most basic behaviors such as obstacle
avoidance or battery charging, needed to function in an unstructured environ-
ment. More complex behaviors are added at a later stage. Second, several
behaviors are generally in operation simultaneously, and the final action taken
by the robot represents either a choice between the suggestions given by the
various behaviors, or an average action formed from the actions suggested by
several behaviors. Third, BBR is mostly concerned with autonomous robots,
i.e. robots that are able to move freely and without direct human supervision.
Finally, the concept of situatedness is a central tenet of BBR: Behavior-based
robots do not build complex, abstract world models. Instead, behavior-based

c 2007, Mattias Wahde, [email protected]

CHAPTER 3. BEHAVIOR-BASED ROBOTICS 43

robots are generally situated (i.e. operate in the real world), and many be-
haviors in BBR are reactive, i.e. have a direct coupling between sensors and
actuators. However, internal states, which provide the robot with, for exam-
ple, motivation (see Chapter 2) or short-term memory, are of course allowed
and are often very useful, but, to the extent that such states are used, they are
not in the form of abstract world models.
Note that, in BBR, it is often necessary to use simulations before an im-
plementation in an actual robot is attempted. While the use of simulations
represents a step away from the requirement of situatedness, the simulations
used in BBR differ strongly from the construction of abstract world models:
Just like a physical behavior-based robot, a simulated robot in BBR will rely
only on the information it can gather through its simulated sensors, and the
reading of a simulated sensor, in itself, never provides information that the
physical counterpart to the sensor would be unable to provide. However, no
simulation can capture all the facets of reality. Thus, it is important to test, in
real robots, any results obtained through simulations.
In general, the brain of a behavior-based robot is built from a set of ba-
sic behaviors, known as the behavioral repertoire. The construction of such
a brain can be considered a two-stage process: First the individual behaviors
must be defined (or evolved). Next, a system for selecting which behavior(s) to
use in any given situation, must be constructed as well. Clearly, in any robot
intended for complex applications, the behavioral selection system is just as
important as the individual behaviors themselves. For example, returning to
the example of the hospital robot, it is clear that if it starts to run out of power,
it must reprioritize its goals and quickly try to find a power supply, even if, by
doing so, it comes no closer to achieving its task of delivering objects. How-
ever, the topic of behavior selection (also known as behavior coordination or
behavioral organization), will be considered in Chapter 6. In this chapter, the
aim is simply to generate basic behaviors.

3.3 Generating behaviors

In general, a behavior-based robot is first equipped with the most fundamen-
tal of all behaviors, namely those that deal with survival. In animals, survival
obviously takes precedence over any other activity: Whatever an animal (pos-
sibly a human) is doing, it will suspend that activity if its life is threatened.
What does survival involve in the case of a robot? In order to function, a robot
must, of course, be structurally intact, and have a non-zero energy level in its
batteries. Thus, examples of survival-related behaviors are collision avoidance1
and battery charging. However, even more importantly, particularly for large
1
Names of behaviors will generally be put in italics.

c 2007, Mattias Wahde, [email protected]

44 CHAPTER 3. BEHAVIOR-BASED ROBOTICS

robots, is to avoid harming people. Thus, the purpose of collision avoidance is

often to protect people in the surroundings of the robot, rather than protecting
the robot itself. Indeed, one could imagine a situation where a robot would
be required to sacrifice itself in defense of a human (to some extent, this is
what robots used by bomb squads do already today). These ideas have been
summarized beautifully by the great science fiction author Isaac Asimov in his
three laws of robotics, which are stated as follows

First law: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction,
allow a human being to come to harm.

Second law: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except
where such orders would conflict with the first law.

Third law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protec-
tion does not conflict this the first or second law

While Asimov’s laws certainly serves as an inspiration for researchers work-

ing on autonomous robots, a full implementation of those laws would be a
daunting task, requiring reasoning and deliberation by the robot on a level be-
yond the reach of the current state-of-the-art. However, in a basic sense, BBR
clearly deals with behaviors related to Asimov’s laws. In the following sec-
tions, a few specific examples of behavior implementations, using the Matlab
model of the simple, differentially steered robot introduced in Chapter 1, will
be given. Only behaviors implemented by hand will be considered here, the
evolution of behaviors being deferred to the next chapter.

3.3.1 Behavioral architectures

Before implementing a behavior one must, of course, select a behavioral archi-
tecture2 , i.e. a general framework for the implementation. Unlike researchers
in many other fields of science, a robotics researcher has a great deal of free-
dom in the selection of the models and methods used. This is so, since, in
robotics, anything that works (robustly) is, per definition, correct. While, for
example, biological organisms may serve as an inspiration for the implemen-
tation of robotic behaviors, there is absolutely no need to follow biology ex-
actly. This state of affairs is sometimes an advantage, and sometimes not: One
problem is the fact that there is really no single, standard benchmark method
to which a new method can be compared. However, in practice, the number
of frequently used behavioral architectures is quite limited. For example, in
connection with evolutionary robotics, it is common to use (continuous-time)
2
The word architecture is here used in a sense similar to that implied by the term computer
architecture, i.e. a manner of organizing the components (in the case of BBR, the basic actions
taken by the robot) in a certain way.

c 2007, Mattias Wahde, [email protected]

CHAPTER 3. BEHAVIOR-BASED ROBOTICS 45

SL SR

wlr wrl
ML MR

Figure 3.2: A Braitenberg vehicle equipped with elementary pursuit behavior.

artificial neural networks, even though other architectures are certainly used
as well. For hand-coded behaviors, i.e. behaviors that are defined completely
by hand, neural networks are rarely used, simply because they are, by virtue
of the distributed nature of their computation, very difficult to generate by
hand. Instead, other architectures are used, and here architectures based on
simple if-then-else rules, combined with Boolean state variables, will be
considered. This architecture is particularly suited for hand-coded behaviors,
and can also be represented in the form of finite state automata. First, how-
ever, behaviors implemented as very simple neural networks will be discussed
briefly.

3.3.2 Braitenberg vehicles

Even very simple networks can make a robot display some form of basic in-
telligent behavior. This was noted by, among others, Valentino Braitenberg
[2]. He described, in an informal way, how intelligent artificial creatures could
be constructed incrementally starting from very simple ones. The term Brait-
enberg vehicle will be used here to denote an artificial creature with a direct
sensor–actuator mapping, even though Braitenberg did describe much more
complex creatures with memory, shape and pattern recognition etc.
As an example, consider a creature with two light sensors (e.g. infrared)
placed in its direction of motion, and two actuators (e.g. wheels), one on each
side of its body. If the sensors are connected to the actuators in the manner
shown in Fig. 3.2, the creature will be a pursuer, i.e. it will tend to move to-
ward a detected object, since the left sensor (SL ) will activate the motor (MR )
controlling the right wheel.
Using the equations for a differentially steered robot, from Chapter 1, and
neglecting the motor model (i.e. assuming that the torques generated by the
brain of the robot are applied directly to the wheel axes), the equations of mo-

c 2007, Mattias Wahde, [email protected]

46 CHAPTER 3. BEHAVIOR-BASED ROBOTICS

tion can be written

M V̇ + αV = A(τL + τR ) = A(wlr Sr + wrl Sl ), (3.1)

I ϕ̈ + β ϕ̇ = B(−τL + τR ) = B(−wlr Sr + wrl Sl ), (3.2)

where wlr and wrl are the (positive) weights connecting the sensors to the mo-
tors. The ability of this robot to pursue a target is of course limited, to put
it mildly, and dependent on the values of the connection weights. If the con-
nection weights are made too large, the robot will tend to spin, whereas if the
weights are too small, it will have difficulties turning.
Still, with the proper choice of connection weights, a simple pursuer can
be made using only two neurons. Strictly speaking, the connections between
the sensors and the actuators are not neurons at all, but input elements, since
they only mediate the signals from the input and thus do not perform any
computation.
In the case just described, the training of the neural network would be very
simple: it would amount to setting the values of only two weights. Normally,
the neural networks used for robot control are much more complex, however,
and are often recurrent. As mentioned above, such networks are very difficult
to generate by hand, and are instead most often used in connection with ar-
tificial evolution, a topic that will be considered in the next chapter. For the
remainder of this chapter, hand-coded behaviors will be considered.

3.3.3 Hand-coded behaviors

Writing reliable behaviors for autonomous robots is more difficult than it might
seem at a first glance, particularly for robots operating in realistic (i.e. noisy
and unstructured) environments, for which it is hard to predict all possible
situations that the robot might encounter. In the BBR paradigm, as has been
mentioned before, robotic brains commonly consist of several simple behav-
iors which together define the overall behavior of the robot. However, there
is no well-defined method for deciding the exact composition of a behavior:
For example, in some applications, navigation and obstacle avoidance may
be parts of the same behavior whereas, in other application, the behaviors
straight-line navigation and obstacle avoidance may be separate behaviors, as il-
lustrated beautifully by the kinesis of E. Coli in Chapter 2, an example that also
illustrates an important principle, namely that of keeping individual behaviors
very simple.
The writing of hand-coded behaviors will now be illustrated by means of
an example. The example will make use of the ARSim Matlab robot simulator
for differentially steered robots, introduced in Chapter 1.
The program flow during execution of a behavior is given in Fig. 1.14 in
Chapter 1. Thus, in each time step of the simulation, (1) the robot probes the

c 2007, Mattias Wahde, [email protected]

CHAPTER 3. BEHAVIOR-BASED ROBOTICS 47

state of the enviroment using its sensors. With the updated sensor readings,
the robot then (2) selects an action, i.e. generates motor signals (one for each
motor), which are then sent to the motors, and (3) the position and velocity
are updated. Finally, (4) the termination criteria (for example, collisions) are
considered.
Note that, for such a simulation to be realistic (i.e. implementable in a real
robot), the time required, in a corresponding real robot, for the execution of
steps (1) - (2) must be shorter than the simulation time step. By default, the Mat-
lab simulator (ARSim) uses an updating frequency of 100 Hz (i.e. a time step
of 0.01 s), which is attainable by the simple (e.g. IR) sensors used here3 . Fur-
thermore, in the simple behaviors considered here, the deliberations in step (2)
usually amount to checking a few if-then-else-clauses, a procedure that a
modern processor completes within a few microseconds. At the end of step (2),
the motor signals can be sent to the motors which, of course, also must be able
to update their output within a time interval no longer than the time step, as
illustrated in Fig. 1.15 in Chapter 1. Cases where a motor with a slower updat-
ing frequency is used can easily be handled, simply by limiting the updating
frequency of the motor signals, regardless of the signals sent to the motor as a
result of the execution of step (2). Finally, an updating frequency of 100 Hz is
not unrealistic for a DC motor. However, also in this case, a state variable can
be introduced, limiting the allowed updating frequency (to a lower value).
The writing of basic behaviors for autonomous robots will be exemplified
in the form of a wandering behavior, which allows a robot to explore its sur-
roundings, provided that no obstacles are present. Other basic behaviors, such
as e.g. obstacle avoidance, wall-following etc. will be considered in the exercises.

Example: wandering
The task of robot navigation, in a general sense, is a very complex one, since it
normally requires that the robot should know its position at all times which, in
turn, requires accurate positioning (or localization), a procedure which will
not be considered in this chapter. However, simpler aspects of the motion
of a robot can be considered without the need to introduce localization. For
example wandering is an important behavior in, for instance, an exploration
robot or a guard robot that is required to cover an area as efficiently as possible.
Below, a few versions of wandering, with varying degrees of complexity, will
be considered.
The simplest form of wandering, following an asymptotically circular path,
can be achieved simply by setting the motor torques of the robot to different,
3
In cases where the simulation time step is shorter than the time required to update sensor
readings, a situation that may occur, for example, if binocular vision is used, a readability state
can be added to the simulated sensors, such that they are updated only with the frequency that
could be realistically achieved in the real robot, see also Chapter 1.

c 2007, Mattias Wahde, [email protected]

 48 CHAPTER 3. BEHAVIOR-BASED ROBOTICS

constant values. In the Matlab ARSim robot simulator, for each time step, the
motor signals are generated by the brain of the robot. After being rescaled to
the appropriate voltage range, the motor signals are then sent to the motors.
Next, the motors return the actual torque values, which are used in the inte-
gration of the equations of motion (see the MoveRobot function). The motor
signals are generated in the function BrainStep, which for the simple exam-
ple of a circular path takes the form shown in code listing 3.1.

 Code 3.1: The BrainStep function for the first example of wandering. 
1 funct i on b = B r a i n S t e p ( robot , time ) ;
2

3 b = robot . Brain ;
4

5 b . LeftMotorSignal = 1 . 0 ;
6 b . RightM otorS igna l = 0 . 5 ;
 
Note that the variable time is included in the BrainStep function, even
though this particular behavior does not use it. Using default parameter set-
tings, the motion of the robot during the first three seconds is shown in the
left panel of Fig. 3.3. In order to achieve a slightly more complex behavior, the
robot can be made to modify its motor torques with some probability p. In this
case, the average number of time steps between motor torque updates will be
∆N = 1/p. The parameter p can be set in the CreateBrain function which,
for this example, takes the form

 Code 3.2: The CreateBrain function for the second example of wandering. 
1 funct i on b = C r e a t e B r a i n ;
2
3 s = [0.5 0.5];
4 p = 0.01;
5

6 b = s t r u c t ( ’ LeftMotorSignal ’ , s ( 1 ) , . . .
7 ’ RightM otorS igna l ’ , s ( 2 ) , . . .
8 ’ TurnProbability ’ ,p) ;
 
Note that the initial values of the motor signals are set in the CreateBrain
function. At this stage, it is important again to note that a simulated robot
may only access information that would be accessible to the corresponding real
robot. In the simple behavior considered here, no sensory input is really needed,
but could nevertheless be used. For example, in a different implementation
of wandering the robot may be required to move a certain distance between
turns. However, even though the used of the simulator has easy access to
the position and direction of the robot at all times, providing this information
directly to the robot is not permissible, since it would not be available to a real
robot. However, if an odometer is added to the simulated robot, it would be
permissible to use its (noisy) readings for measuring distance.

c 2007, Mattias Wahde, [email protected]

 CHAPTER 3. BEHAVIOR-BASED ROBOTICS 49

1 5

0.8 4

0.6 3

0.4 2

0.2 1

0 0

−0.2 −1

−0.4 −2

−0.6 −3

−0.8 −4

−1 −5
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 3.3: Motion of simulated robots, using the motor signal settings defined in code
listing 3.1 (left panel) and in code listing 3.3 (right panel). Note the different scales in the two
figures.

Anyway, since no sensory input is needed in this behavior, the BrainStep

function simply takes the form

 Code 3.3: The BrainStep function for the second example of wandering. 
1 funct i on b = B r a i n S t e p ( robot , time ) ;
2

3 b = robot . Brain ;
4
5 r = rand ;
6 i f ( r < b . TurnProbability )
7 b . LeftMotorSignal = b . LeftMotorSignal − 0 . 1 + 0 . 2 ∗ rand ;
8 b . RightM otorS igna l = b . RightM otorS igna l − 0 . 1 + 0 . 2 ∗ rand ;
9 end
10

11 i f ( b . LeftMotorSignal > 1 . 0 )
12 b . LeftMotorSignal = 1 . 0 ;
13 e l s e i f ( b . LeftMotorSignal < −1.0)
14 b . LeftMotorSignal = − 1 . 0 ;
15 end
16

17 i f ( b . RightM otorS igna l > 1 . 0 )

18 b . RightM otorS igna l = 1 . 0 ;
19 e l s e i f ( b . LeftMotorSignal < −1.0)
20 b . RightM otorS igna l = − 1 . 0 ;
21 end
 
Thus, with a given probability (TurnProbability), a small modification of
the motor signals is made. The right panel of Fig. 3.3 shows an example of a
robot trajectory, taken from a simulation lasting 30 seconds using the random-
wandering function defined in code listing 3.3. The instructions on lines 11-21

c 2007, Mattias Wahde, [email protected]

 50 CHAPTER 3. BEHAVIOR-BASED ROBOTICS

0.5

−0.5

−1

−1.5

−2

−2.5

−3

−3.5

−4
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2

Figure 3.4: Motion of a simulated robot, using the motor signal settings defined in code
listing 3.5.

keep the motor signals in the interval [-1,1].

As a final implementation of random walk, consider the following imple-
mentations of CreateBrain and BrainStep:

 Code 3.4: The CreateBrain function for the third example of wandering. 
1 funct i on b = C r e a t e B r a i n ;
2

3 s = [0.5 0.5];
4 turning = f a l s e ;
5 p1 = 0 . 0 1 ;
6 p2 = 0 . 0 3 ;
7

8 b = s t r u c t ( ’ LeftMotorSignal ’ , s ( 1 ) , . . .
9 ’ RightM otorS igna l ’ , s ( 2 ) , . . .
10 ’ Turning ’ , turning , . . .
11 ’ T u r n P r o b a b i l i t y ’ , p1 , . . .
12 ’ S t o p T u r n P r o b a b i l i t y ’ , p2 ) ;
 
As is evident from the code listing, two additional fields have been included
in the brain. The Turning variable is true if the robot is turning, and false
if it is not. The TurnProbability and StopTurnProbability variables
set the probability of starting or stopping a turn, respectively.

c 2007, Mattias Wahde, [email protected]

 CHAPTER 3. BEHAVIOR-BASED ROBOTICS 51

 Code 3.5: The BrainStep function for the third example of wandering. 
1 funct i on b = B r a i n S t e p ( robot , time ) ;
2

3 b = robot . Brain ;
4

5 i f ( b . Turning )
6 r = rand ;
7 i f ( r < b . StopTurnProbability )
8 b . LeftMotorSignal = 0 . 5 ;
9 b . RightM otorS igna l = 0 . 5 ;
10 b . Turning = f a l s e ;
11 end
12 else
13 r = rand ;
14 i f ( r < b . TurnProbability )
15 s = rand ;
16 if ( s < 0.5)
17 b . LeftMotorSignal = 0 . 5 ;
18 b . RightM otorS igna l = − 0 . 5 ;
19 else
20 b . LeftMotorSignal = −0.5;
21 b . RightM otorS igna l = 0 . 5 ;
22 end
23 b . Turning = t r u e ;
24 end
25 end
 
In each call to BrainStep, the robot checks whether or not it is currently ex-
ecuting a turn. If it is, it checks whether or not it should stop turning, and
vice versa if it is not turning. The motion of a robot using the random wan-
dering behavior implemented in code listing 3.5 is shown in Fig. 3.4. Note that
a switch between two actions (for example turning or moving forward) alter-
natively could be implemented using leaky integrators, as described in the E.
Coli example in Chapter 2.

c 2007, Mattias Wahde, [email protected]

52 CHAPTER 3. BEHAVIOR-BASED ROBOTICS

c 2007, Mattias Wahde, [email protected]