4.7 Article

Musculoskeletal wing-actuation model of hummingbirds predicts diverse effects of primary flight muscles in hovering flight

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2022.2076

关键词

hummingbird; musculoskeletal system; muscle contractile behaviour; flapping flight; bioinspired robotics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that hummingbirds use their unique musculoskeletal system and wing motion ability to achieve hover and flight control, and developed a functional model to predict torque and contraction behavior of muscles. Primary muscles act as engines, not only driving wing motion but also actively deviating and pitching the wings, while secondary muscles act against primary muscles through controlled-tightening effects.
Hummingbirds have evolved to hover and manoeuvre with exceptional flight control. This is enabled by their musculoskeletal system that successfully exploits the agile motion of flapping wings. Here, we synthesize existing empirical and modelling data to generate novel hypotheses for principles of hummingbird wing actuation. These may help guide future experimental work and provide insights into the evolution and robotic emulation of hummingbird flight. We develop a functional model of the hummingbird musculoskeletal system, which predicts instantaneous, three-dimensional torque produced by primary (pectoralis and supracoracoideus) and combined secondary muscles. The model also predicts primary muscle contractile behaviour, including stress, strain, elasticity and work. Results suggest that the primary muscles (i.e. the flight 'engine') function as diverse effectors, as they do not simply power the stroke, but also actively deviate and pitch the wing with comparable actuation torque. The results also suggest that the secondary muscles produce controlled-tightening effects by acting against primary muscles in deviation and pitching. The diverse effects of the pectoralis are associated with the evolution of a comparatively enormous bicipital crest on the humerus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据