CuretOM, PatankarNA, LauderGV, MacIverMA. Mechanical properties of a bio-inspired robotic knifefish with an undulatory propulsor. Bioinsp Biomim, 2011; 6:026004.
2.
EspositoCJ, TangorraJL, FlammangBE, LauderGV. A robotic fish caudal fin: effects of stiffness and motor program on locomotor performance. J Exp Biol, 2012; 215: 56–67.
3.
LauderGV, LimJ, SheltonR, WittC, AndersonEJ, TangorraJ. Robotic models for studying undulatory locomotion in fishes. Marine Tech Soc J, 2011; 45:41–55.
4.
LauderGV, FlammangBE, AlbenS. Passive robotic models of propulsion by the bodies and caudal fins of fish. Integr Comp Biol, 2012; 52:576–587.
5.
BoxerbaumAS, ShawKM, ChielHJ, QuinnRD. Continuous wave peristaltic motion in a robot. Int J Robotics Res, 2012; 31:302–318.
6.
ShawKM, LyttleDN, GillJP, CullinsMJ, McManusJM, LuH, ThomasPJ, ChielHJ. (2014) The significance of dynamical architecture for adaptive responses to mechanical loads during rhythmic behavior. J Comput Neurosci, in press.
7.
DickinsonMH, FarleyCT, FullRJ, KoehlMAR, KramR, LehmanS. How animals move: an integrative view. Science, 2000; 288:100–106.
8.
PfeiferR, BongardJ. How the Body Shapes the Way We Think: A New View of Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
9.
BahlmanJW, SwartzSM, BreuerKS. How wing kinematics affect power requirements and aerodynamic force production in a robotic bat wing. Bioinsp Biomim, 2014; 9:025008.
10.
RiskinDK, BergouAJ, BreuerKS, SwartzSM. Upstroke wing flexion and the inertial cost of bat flight. Proc R Soc B, 2012; 279:2945–2950.
11.
PadillaDK, TsukimaraB. A new organismal systems biology: how animals walk the tight rope between stability and change. Integr Comp Biol, 2014; 54:218–222.
12.
CowanNL, AnkaraliMM, DyhrJP, MadhavMS, RothE, SefatiE, SponbergS, StamperSA, FortuneES, DanielTL. Feedback control as a framework for understanding tradeoffs in biology. Integr Comp Biol, 2014; 54:223–237.
