1

Engineering Education and the Design of Intelligent

Mobile Robots for Real Use

François Michaud

Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer EngineeringUniversité de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke Québec/Canada, J1K 2R1

E-mail: Francois.Michaud@USherbrooke.ca

Abstract

Designing mobile robots requires the integration of physical components, sensors, actuators,

energy sources, embedded computing and decision algorithms into one system. Additional

expertise is also beneficial when the desired robotic platform must fulfill a specific purpose

in a real application. This paper describes three initiatives involving robot design projects

following different educational approaches. Because mobile robotics is still an emerging

technology with important challenges and opportunities for discoveries and applications,

designing these systems as part of initiatives in engineering education allows developing

proof-of-concept prototypes while providing a stimulating and motivating learning

environment for engineering students.

Keywords: Project-based learning, Problem-based learning, Multidisciplinary team,

Modularity, Integration, Mobile Robotic Design, Embedded Systems, Mechatronics.

1. Introduction

Engineering can be defined as the disciplines concerned with putting scientific knowledge to

practical uses. It is therefore important for engineering students not only to acquire the know-

how related to their specialty, but also learn to apply it in a creative, meaningful and realistic

fashion. Engineering systems such as mobile robots provide a rich setting for students in

developing engineering skills. Depending on the complexity of the design, interdisciplinary

teams involving mechanical, electrical, computer and software engineers, along with field

experts, are necessary. Even thought it is possible to develop student insight into robotic

systems through current events, video-conference proceedings and science-fiction films [1],

2

our strategy involves more hands-on type of work, through conventional courses or advanced

instructional methods.

This paper describes three robot design initiatives based on different types of engineering

education approaches: Problem- and Project-Based Learning (PPBL); Concurrent

Engineering Major Design Project (CEMDP); Specialized Design Project (SDP). All three

approaches are illustrated with robotic design projects conducted at the university level,

along with their learning and research outcomes. The objective of the paper is to demonstrate

how challenges in intelligent mobile robotics can become rich design experiences for

engineering students as part of their curriculum, with real social and research contributions.

2. Design of RoboToys in Problem- and Project-Based Curricula

This project started in 1999 with the goal of finding ways to improve Electrical Engineering

(EE) and Computer Engineering (CE) education early on in the curriculum. At the Université

de Sherbrooke (UdeS), we wanted to put students close to the reality of the profession by

making them work on projects involving design and analysis abilities, autonomous learning,

teamwork, communication skills and social considerations. We decided to provide them with

a mobile robotic platform named ROBUS [2]. ROBUS is given to freshmen students; they

have to assemble the robot and extend its capabilities by adding sensors, actuators, structural

elements and by programming it using the Handy Board [3] and the Handy Voice [2].

To provide a context for doing that, we were looking for an open challenge to push further

the creativity and the ingenuity of the students, technically but also with social

considerations. That is how the RoboToy Contest got started [4]. The RoboToy Contest's

goal is to design a mobile robotic toy that serves as a pedagogical tool to help children with

Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD) develop social and communication skills. From

1999 to 2001, this project served as a common topic for courses (e.g., Introduction to

Circuits and Microprocessors, Introduction to Engineering and Teamwork, Technical

Drawing, Software Design and Written and Oral Communication Skills) over the first two

semesters in the EE and the CE curricula [2,4,5,6]. ROBUS and the RoboToy Contest

allowed us to design pedagogical activities where students were exposed and had to grasp

engineering concepts in a very practical way, contributing to both robotics and autism.

3

One similar initiative was done at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in

Switzerland with Robota, a mini-humanoid doll-shaped robot used in an introductory

undergraduate robotics class [7]. Through a series of hands-on projects targeting the creation

of educational and entertaining game for normal and disabled children, the initiative aimed at

higher-level capabilities such as to use vision and speech processing and the design of

learning algorithms. Our interest was more to use robotics to introduce EE and CE to first-

year students.

To create an optimal learning experience in engineering, sciences, design skills, teamwork

and communication, the Department of EECE of UdeS decided to go one step further by

removing the barriers between conventional courses, and proposing a new learning paradigm

built on a competency-based framework. The approach is based on problem-based and

project-based learning [8]. Instead of offering five regular classes (each of 3 credits) during

one semester, each semester is organized around a theme and includes two types of activities:

problem-based learning units, and a design project. Problem-based learning units are

conducted on average over two weeks period, each unit being organized around a problem

scenario. The design project is conducted one day a week over the entire semester. Each team

is made of 6 to 8 students in EE and in CE, creating conditions in which teamwork situations

can be realistically experienced.

Following this framework, ROBUS and the RoboToy Contest are now included in the first

semester of EE and CE curricula, under the theme Introduction to Electrical and Computer

Engineering. Table I summarizes the activities conducted during this semester. The design

process is introduced using a textbook [9] and additional notes. Note that the activities are

organized so that students gradually develop the necessary skills (technical, design,

interpersonal and intrapersonal) to successfully design their RoboToy entry, with specialized

workshops given when they are most suitable during the semester. For instance, a workshop

on feedback and conflict management is conducted when teams discuss options and concepts

for their design, providing tools to debate ideas and to help students learn to exchange instead

of either ignore conflicts or endure confrontations. Week 12, when the contest is

approaching, the workshop on stress management helps students cope more efficiently with

4

what they are experiencing. Evaluation of the engineering skills developed is done through

mid-term reports, a technical oral presentation, a design project report and a written exam.

Table I – Organization of the first semester in EE and CE at UdeS, following the PPBL

approach

Week Units Design

1 Introducing the RoboToy Design Contest

2Teamwork and design in engineering

Introduction to the design process

3 Conducting a small design project(Workshop on active listening)

4

Model and analysis of electronic

circuits Project definition

5Project planning(Workshop on team management)

6

Programming in C/C++

Brainstorming

7 Evaluating solutions and concepts(Workshop on team communication)

8

Microcontrollers and C

programming Project analysis and planning(Workshop on feedback/conflict management)

9 Hardware design

10

First- and second-order temporal

response of circuits Software design

11 Implementation

12Files and data types in C/C++

Testing(Workshop on stress management)

13 Deliverables

14Written and communication skills

RoboToy Contest

15

16Evaluation Evaluation

5

Figure 1 – Winners of the 2003 (top) and 2004 (bottom) RoboToy Contests for the Emotion

protocol (left), the Action protocol (center) and the Language protocol (right).

Each team has to its disposal two ROBUS platforms. Teams are allowed to complement their

expertise by having students from other areas (e.g., art, education) join their team for their

participation to the RoboToy Contest. Information about autism is provided to students

through seminars, literature reviews, interviews with specialized educators, and results from

trials done every year with a small set of the robots presented at the contest [10,11]. A

student committee organizes the event annually. Since 2002, our collaboration with a

Master’s student in psycho-education (who decided to conduct a research project on the

topic) sheds new light regarding human considerations in the design and the evaluation of the

robots. Three experimental scenarios were determined to improve the validation and

evaluation techniques of the specific human-robot interaction aspects. The first scenario

(Emotion) is aimed at investigating if a child can recognize emotions being portrayed by a

robot. The second scenario (Action) is to develop a robot that can help children to learn about

6

an action (e.g., teeth brushing) that is associated with objects or entities in the world (a tooth

brush). The third scenario (Language) is oriented toward developing language skills. In all

the scenarios, the robot must exhibit two different modes: (1) LEARNING mode, during

which the robot teaches the child about something, and (2) EVALUATION mode, in which

the robot is used to see if the child has learned what it was taught earlier on. Every year the

outcome of the RoboToy design initiative is always impressive and appreciated, for the

students, the professors and the participants, and the event is still in constant evolution.

Figure 1 presents the 2003 and 2004 winning robots, showing that there are many different,

clever and yet simple ways of designing robots for these scenarios. RoboToy Contest winners

are determined by a jury with three PDD experts, three technical experts, and two experts for

the presentation of the robot entries, making the evaluation more than just oriented toward

the robotics side.

Compared to the conventional pedagogical approach, PPBL provides more opportunities to

contextualize what students have to learn. Before, students had to deal with many issues that

professors could not assist them with in a just-in-time fashion. Now all design issues are well

integrated, creating an optimal learning experience in engineering sciences, design skills,

teamwork and communication, right from the beginning of students’ engineering education.

It also give students the opportunity to confirm early on their interest in either EE or CE.

As of December 2005, all eight semesters of our PPBL reform are now completed. These last

two semesters address specialized EE and CE skills such as artificial intelligence, robotics,

software engineering, etc. One difference with the previous six semesters is that the design

project is now conducted over two semesters, and is worth 6 credits per student per semester.

Design topics are opened and can be determined by students, professors, researchers,

companies, etc., as long as the topics involve EE and CE skills. Projects do not necessarily

need to be linked with the specialized skills units. As an example of a typical project, a team

of six seniors started in May 2005 to design a microcontroller system (hardware and

software) named ARMUS [12], tailored to the specific needs of the PPBL learning approach

using ROBUS and the RoboToy Contest. Having gone through this experience three years

ago, these students are well-qualified to work on improving the robotic setup to better

7

address the need of first semester students, while at the same time perfecting their design and

project management skills.

3. Concurrent Design of a Sophisticated Mobile Robotic Platform

In 1996, the Department of Mechanical Engineering (ME) of UdeS also went through a

major curriculum reform following a competency-based approach [13], with a focus on

project-based learning. One feature of this program is that students have to conduct an open

design project assigned over the last three semesters [14].

During the winter of 2001, a team of eight undergraduate mechanical engineering students

consulted with LABORIUS, the Research Laboratory on Mobile Robotics and Intelligent

Systems of UdeS, in search of a design topic for their project. The identified challenge was to

design a robotic platform capable of operating in home environments, dealing with stairs

(even rotating ones) and tight areas, with the constraints of adopting a modular design

philosophy (to facilitate reusability of components). To succeed in this endeavor, an

interdisciplinary undergraduate team of two EE students, seven CE students and two

industrial design students joined the effort of the ME students. Students not enrolled in the

ME program received credits for their work as part of Specialized Design Project activities

(part of our regular engineering programs). LABORIUS also provided guidance and support

through one research professional, one technician, one Master’s student in EE and one

professor.

The design process followed by the ME project-based program is a Concurrent Engineering

methodology composed of six general phases [15]: 1) Requirement analysis (identify user

needs, operating conditions and project constraints); 2) Functional analysis (translation of the

requirements into functional terms for organization and analysis); 3) System design

(elaborate and analyze general concepts addressing the identified functions); 4) Preliminary

design (elaborate and analyze specific concepts for the different subsystems of the selected

general concept); 5) Detailed design (for each subsystem, calculations, drawings, schematics

and technology choices are made to produce the prototype); 6) Integration and validation

(fabrication and assemblage of all of the parts, and test according to the requirements and

functions).

8

Figure 2 – AZIMUT’s first prototype with its articulations in different positions (top left), on

stairs (top right), going through a door (bottom left) and on an inclined surface (bottom

right).

The design the team came up with, called AZIMUT, is shown in Figure 2 [16]. AZIMUT is

symmetrical and is made of four independent articulations. Each articulated part combines a

leg, a track and a wheel, and has three degrees of freedom. Overall, the robot uses 12 motors

for its locomotion. The leg can rotate 360° in the vertical plane, and 180° around its

attachment point. The robot can change direction using differential steering or by directly

changing the direction of its articulations, making the platform omnidirectional. The robot is

made of 2500 parts and is energized using two packs of 24V Ni-MH cells. Modularity is

accomplished by putting the electrical and embedded systems inside the body of the robot,

9

and by placing the actuators on the locomotion parts (i.e., Ferrite ServoDisc motors in the

leg-track-wheel articulations), minimizing the size of the robot’s body and facilitating

changes of the articulations. Low-level control of the platform is done using distributed

subsystems (for motor control, sensing, energy distribution, etc.), each equipped with its own

microcontroller (PIC, Infineon, Motorola, etc., determined according to the computing

requirements), and communicating with each other using Control Area Network protocol

(CAN 2.0B) on a 1 Mbps shared bus.

AZIMUT’s first prototype confirmed its ability in going up and down stairs and on an

inclined surface of 28°. However, locomotion capabilities were 80% functional, which is still

very well considering the complexity of the design and the constraints in time, budget

(around $35,000 US) and resources. Its twelve degrees of freedom and modular propulsion

components made AZIMUT a very innovative and sophisticated mobile robotic platform. In

2003, it led to the submission of a provisional patent. In 2004, the design of AZIMUT’s

second prototype was initiated with a sub-group of the initial design team, with the goals of

improving over the last design. AZIMUT now can be configured to use wheels, legs or

tracks, or combination of them, using removable parts. A motor-wheel element provides

propulsion to the robot in a wheel configuration or a track configuration, in lighter and more

powerful ways than in the first prototype. Stability and compliance have improved using a

vertical suspension and elastic actuators [17]. Improvements to the distributed embedded

system have been made to make it more robust, smaller and generic. A microcontroller

module named the PICoModul (made with MicroChip PIC18F) is used with many peripheral

modules available through CAN (DC 10 Amps brush/brushless motor drive; LCD display 32

bits 64 bits; LEDs matrix display; sonars; energy distribution and monitoring, voice

generation, wireless remote control) or I2C (GP2D12 infrared range sensor; DC 3 Amps

motor drive) buses.

In retrospect, it would have been difficult to imagine that the AZIMUT project would go this

far. Having a major design project in the engineering education is a great vehicle to realize

complex systems. Certainly, it requires important efforts in coordination, management,

orientation and commitment by all, but the returns are amazing: students got to develop

specialized skills in a real, hands-on, interdisciplinary environment; research in robotics

10

progressed from the innovations reported from this work; an expertise was developed on

integrated design of mobile robots; and the experience inspired enthusiasm. It also led to a

startup company in which the team wants to put their expertise and the tools they developed

to the service of others, creating jobs and contributing to the emergence of the mobile robotic

market. This team is currently developing AZIMUT for security applications.

4. Multidisciplinary Design of a Robotic Ambassador for UdeS

The necessary ingredients of a multidisciplinary project consist of having a challenge that

cannot be accomplished without a committed team of people covering all the expertise

required for the task. This project was initiated in 2002 from a request made by the public

relations office of UdeS. To attract people to the university stand during exhibits, they

wanted to have a tall, visible mobile robot that can interact with people and get them to

initiate discussions with university representatives about educational programs at UdeS.

Autonomous navigation, sophisticated manipulations or information providing aspects were

not of prime importance: the focus was put on ways to get the attention of the public.

The engineering team put together for this project consisted initially of five students in CE

(former RoboToy participants and organizers) supervised by one research assistant and one

professor. After having conducted a detailed analysis of the design problem with the public

relation office, the team set up multidisciplinary collaborations with other students on

campus to showcase different expertise from educational programs at UdeS. Some of these

students received credits for their work in Specialized Design Project courses or other types

of activities (art projects, writing projects, etc.), or voluntarily contributed. The results of

their work is a wheeled robotic platform named U2S with the following features:

Humanoid shape with facial expressions generated with a mouth and eyes made of

LEDs matrix. An art student made the sketch of the appearance of the robot. Robot

locomotion is done using differential steering.

Play pre-recorded music composed by a student from the Faculty of Music.

Pre-recorded voice generated messages composed by a student from the Department

of Redaction, Communication and Multimedia.

Text display using a LEDs electronic panel installed on the back of the robot.

11

Figure 3 – Front (left) and back (right) views of U2S.

A graphical interface using a touchscreen interface. A student in Marketing developed

the interaction scenarios for the menus shown on a PDA (Personal Digital Assistant).

A business card dispenser. This idea emerged from the fact that the university usually

gave business-card handouts to people, providing the address of a web site answering

questions about the university. Such cards can simply be distributed using an

automatic card dispenser, and so such a device was put on the robot.

A system for recharging the robot simply by connecting it to an electric outlet, while

at the same time having its functionalities (other than motion) work. This facilitates

maintenance of the robot by having the battery charges placed onboard the robot.

12

A wireless remote controller, a short range radio system to have an operator talk to

people from a remote distance. The operation of the robot needs to be simple since

U2S is used by non-robotic experts.

The robot built is shown in Figure 3. In order to easily include all of the required

components, our design follows the same distributed embedded approach as AZIMUT. It is

made of two parts (the mobile base and the upper torso) to facilitate transportation. The robot

has been in operation since Fall 2002, and has been used frequently (almost every week from

October to May since then) in all kinds of activities, promoting the university, robotics and

science in schools and public events.

Another outcome of U2S is its impact on graduate education. A team of three Ph.D. students

in CE, two Master’s students in CE, one Master’s student in Computer Science and one

undergraduate in CE, assisted by one research professional and one professor, are working to

advance the state-of-the-art in socially interactive mobile robot by developing a fully

autonomous version of U2S [18]. This requires the integration of various intelligent

capabilities (e.g, autonomous navigation using a SICK LMS200 laser range finder, artificial

vision a Sony SNC-RZ30N 24X pan-tilt-zoom [19], sound source localization, tracking and

separation using an array of eight microphones placed in the robot's body [20,21]). In

addition, seven senior undergraduate took on the challenge of integrating electric outlet

localization, gesture recognition and natural dialogue to the robot. To integrate of all these

capabilities, we have developed a software tool named MARIE (Mobile and Autonomous

Robot Integrated Environment) [22] (http://marie.sourceforge.net). MARIE is a middleware

programming environment based on the mediator design pattern [23], allowing multiple

applications, operating on one or multiple machines/OS, to work together in an

implementation of mobile robotic nature. This environment proposes a software architecture

that avoids making a choice on particular programming tools, facilitating code and

application reusability. MARIE currently provides links between Player/Stage/Gazebo [24],

CARMEN [25] and RobotFlow/FlowDesigner [26], a modular data-flow programming

environment that facilitates visualization and understanding of what is really happening in

the robot's control loops, sensors, actuators. Overall, this illustrates well how broad and

13

advanced (tackling on vision/signal processing and software design) mobile robotic design

projects can be.

5. Perspectives and Conclusion

Designing mobile robots for specific competitions (e.g., sumo, soccer, maze) allows students

to learn and develop engineering skills associated with robotics. By providing brief

descriptions of UdeS original mobile robot design projects and their evolution, this paper

demonstrates that much more can be done by addressing real and concrete usages of robotic

technology. Nowadays, mobile robotics is more than just science fiction or gadgets: real

applications can be realized. Mobility provides a rich incentive for catching children’s

attention. Mobility is required for having machines operate and assist us in real life settings.

To make this possible, many discoveries can be made by developing prototypes and testing

them in real situations. This paper illustrates three different ways of using robotics as an

incentive for teaching and learning. In addition, they all demonstrate that mobile robotics can

serve as a rich framework to conduct sophisticated design projects with undergraduate and

graduate teams of students, creating opportunities both for education and research. Following

an iterative design process, these projects all evolved over the years from proof-of-concept

prototypes to scientific and potentially industrial contributions. Seven years ago, nobody

could have predicted the paths followed by these projects, and it is the blending of learning

incentives of students from many different fields with the challenges of making mobile

robotic usage a reality that made it possible.

Integration is surely one of the biggest issues underneath all these projects. While integration

can be addressed in conventional education programs, adopting a project-based learning

approach supports more efficiently such effort. Similar conclusions were drawn by Kitts [27],

at the Santa Clara University School of Engineering, who conducted a low-cost integrative

educational program by developing intelligent robotic systems. Robotic systems are used as

the basis for project-based learning, making their program grow both in terms of scope of the

robotic systems developed and in numbers of students involved. For the projects described in

this paper, opening up the regular frontiers of practical courses revealed greatly beneficial. It

also requires multidisciplinary teams, which is always a rich learning experience for

14

engineering students in preparation of their careers. Finally, adopting a modular design

approach reveals to be key for integration, working on solving real problems and not having

to “reinvent the wheel” over and over again. This way, while developing their skills,

engineering students can efficiently contribute at the same time to the evolution of the field

of mobile robotics.

Integration however complicates evaluation of learning outcomes. How can the impacts of

novel pedagogical approaches that radically change how engineering education is conducted,

be evaluated? The first step was to receive accreditation from the Canadian Engineering

Accreditation Board, which was granted in Fall 2005. Now that all eight semesters of our

PBPL reformed programs are completed, one avenue is to evaluate the general skills acquired

by students. Having conducted general exams with senior students would have helped in

making such comparisons, and other ways will have to be found. However, the complexity

and accomplishment levels of the design projects made by our undergraduate students clearly

demonstrate higher design, teamwork and advanced engineering skills. The described mobile

robotic projects confirm such accomplishments. Mobile robotic in education provides

students with a real sense of accomplishment, being unsure at the beginning that they will be

able to overcome the challenges along the way to finally see the system works at the end.

This feeling is enhanced and the experience even more rewarding when their efforts can

become beneficial to others (students, science or society).

Acknowledgements

F. Michaud holds the Canada Research Chair (CRC) in Mobile Robotics and Autonomous

Intelligent Systems. Projects discussed in this paper are supported by different sources such

as CRC, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the

Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and the Université de Sherbrooke. The projects

presented in this paper are made possible by the efforts of a great number of people, too long

to list in this acknowledgement. The author wants to thank everybody that were and are

involved in these projects.

15

References

[1] Piepmeier, J.A., Bishop, B.E., Knowles, K.A.., “Modern robotics engineeringinstructions,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, June 2003, pp. 33-37.

[2] Michaud, F., Lucas, M., Lachiver, G., Clavet, A., Dirand, J.-M., Boutin, N., Mabilleau,P., Descôteaux, J., "Using ROBUS in Electrical and Computer Engineering education",Proceedings American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Charlotte NorthCarolina, 1999.

[3] Martin, F., Robotic Explorations : A Hands-On Introduction to Engineering, Prentice-Hall, 2001.

[4] Michaud, F., Clavet, A., "Organization of the RoboToy Contest", Proceedings American

Society for Engineering Education Conference, Alberqueque New Mexico, 2001.

[5] Michaud, F., Lachiver, G., Lucas, M., Clavet, A., "ROBUS – A mobile robotic platformfor Electrical and Computer Engineering Education", IEEE Robotics and Automation

Magazine, Special Issue on "Robotics in Education: An Integrated Systems Approach to

Teaching", 2003, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 20-24.

[6] Michaud, F., Lachiver, G., Lucas, M., Clavet, A., "Designing robot toys to help autisticchildren - An open design project for Electrical and Computer Engineering education",Proceedings American Society for Engineering Education Conference, St-LouisMissouri, 2000.

[7] Billard, A., “Robota, clever toy and educational tool”, Robotics and Autonomous

Systems, Elsevier, vol. 42, 2003, pp. 259-269.

[8] Lachiver, G., Dalle, D., Boutin, N., Clavet, A., Michaud, F., Dirand, J.-Marie,"Competency- and project-based programs in Electrical and Computer Engineering atthe Université de Sherbrooke", IEEE Canadian Review, vol. 41, 2002, pp. 21-24.

[9] Dominick, P.G., Demel, J.T., Lawbaugh, W.M., Freuler, R.J., Kinzel, G.L. et Fromm,E., Tools and Tactics of Design, John Wiley & Sons, 221 pages, 2001.

[10] Michaud, F., Duquette, A., Nadeau, I., "Characteristics of mobile robotic toys forchildren with Pervasive Developmental Disorders", Proceedings IEEE Conference on

Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2003.

[11] Michaud, F., Théberge-Turmel, C., "Mobile robotic toys and autism", Socially

Intelligent Agents - Creating Relationships with Computers and Robots, KerstinDautenhahn, Alan Bond, Lola Canamero, Bruce Edmonds (editors), Kluwer AcademicPublishers, 2002, pp. 125-132.

[12] Bulota, M., Aubin, J.-M., Ratté-Boulianne, J.-L., Gauthier, M., Simard-Bilodeau, V.,Savard, P.-A., Marchand, J., Michaud, F., "ARMUS, an ARM robotic processing systemfor educational purposes", submitted to IEEE International Conference on Robotics and

Automation 2005.

[13] Brouillette, M., Nicolas, J., Charron, F., Proulx, D., “The integrated mechanicalengineering curriculum at the Université de Sherbrooke”, Proceedings American Society

for Engineering Education, 2002.

16

[14] Proulx, D., Charron, F., “Introducting the concurrent engineering approach at theundergraduate level through a major design project,” Proceedings 10

th Canadian

Conference on Engineering Education, 1996, pp. 275-282.

[15] Ulrich, K.T, Eppinger, S.D., Product Design and Development, Prentice Hall, 2000.

[16] Michaud, F., Létourneau, D., Paré, J.-F., Legault, M.-A., Cadrin, R., Arsenault, M.,Bergeron, Y., Tremblay, M.-C., Gagnon, F., Millette, M., Lepage, P., Morin, Y., Caron,S., "Multi-modal locomotion robotic platform using leg-track-wheel articulations",Autonomous Robots, vol. 18, no. 2, 2005.

[17] Pratt, G., Williamson, M., "Series elastic actuators", Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ

International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, vol. 1, 1995, pp. 399-406.

[18] Michaud, F., Brosseau, Y., Côté, C., Létourneau, D., Moisan, P., Ponchon, A., Raïevsky,C., Valin, J.-M., Beaudry, É., Kabanza, F. “Modularity and integration in the design of asocially interactive robot", Proceedings IEEE International Workshop on Robot and

Human Interactive Communication, 2005, pp. 172-177.

[19] Létourneau, D., Michaud, F., Valin, J.-M., "Autonomous robot that can read", EURASIP

Journal on Applied Signal Processing, Special Issue on Advances in Intelligent Vision

Systems: Methods and Applications, vol. 17, 2004, pp. 1-14.

[20] Valin, J.-M., Michaud, F., Hadjou, B., Rouat, J., "Localization of simultaneous movingsound sources for mobile robot using a frequency-domain steered beamformerapproach”, Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,vol. 1, 2004, pp. 1033-1038.

[21] Valin, J.-M., Rouat, J., Michaud, F., "Enhanced robot audition based on microphonearray source separation with post-filter", Proceedings IEEE/RSJ International

Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004, pp. 1147-1152.

[22] Côté, C., Brosseau, Y., Létourneau, D., Raïevsky, Michaud, F., "Using MARIE insoftware development and integration for autonomous mobile robotics", accepted forpublication in International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 2006.

[23] Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J., Design Patterns : Elements of Reusable

Object-Oriented Software, Addison-Wesley, 1994.

[24] Vaughan, R.T., Gerkey, B.P., Howard, A., “On device abstractions for portable, reusablerobot code,” Proceedings IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and

Systems, 2003, pp. 2421–2427.

[25] Montemerlo, M., Roy, N., Thrun, S., “Perspectives on standardization in mobile robotprogramming: The Carnegie Mellon Navigation (CARMEN) toolkit”, Proceedings

IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2003, pp.2436–2441.

[26] Côté, C., Létourneau, D., Michaud, F., Valin, J.-M., Brosseau, Y., Raïevsky, C., Lemay,M., Tran. V., "Programming mobile robots using RobotFlow and MARIE", Proceedings

IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004.

[27] Kitts, C., “Surf, turf, and above the earth,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine,Sept. 2003, pp. 30-36.