What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?
Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?
From what I've seen:
A minimum viable sensing suite for safe bipedal walking generally includes joint encoders, an IMU for orientation/angular velocity, and either force/torque sensing or accurate current-based torque estimation at the ankles - everything else (vision, tactile, LiDAR) adds capability rather than being strictly required just to stay upright.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?
Still learning the space, so correct me if wrong -
Unitree's Dex3-1 dexterous hand packs around 33 pressure/tactile sensors per hand across the fingers and palm, capable of sensing pressure roughly in the 10g-2500g range - a useful reference point for what 'production tactile sensing' looks like right now.
Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?
@jhansen One nitpick -
Estimating joint torque from motor current draw is cheap and requires no extra sensor, but it's less accurate than a dedicated torque sensor because it doesn't capture friction losses through the gearbox - good enough for coarse control, not always for precise force-controlled tasks. Multi-camera calibration drifts over time from thermal expansion, vibration, and mechanical wear, which is why production systems typically run periodic recalibration routines rather than assuming a one-time factory calibration holds forever.
Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
-
camila.jackson0
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2024 1:27 am
Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?
@barbara50 +1 to this. Worth adding:
Proprioception (the robot's sense of its own joint angles, velocities, and forces) tends to get less attention than flashy vision systems, even though a lot of balance and manipulation failures trace back to proprioceptive noise or miscalibration rather than a vision problem. Vibration is one of the most underrated sources of noisy IMU and tactile readings - mounting matters as much as sensor quality, and a poorly isolated mount can add more noise than the sensor's own datasheet specs would suggest.
Building > buying.
Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?
That's the official framing, at least - reality tends to lag a bit.
Latency between a perceived event (like a slip) and a corrective control response matters enormously for balance - even 50-100ms of extra perception latency can be the difference between a smooth recovery and a fall, which is part of why a lot of balance-critical sensing is proprioceptive rather than vision-based. Depth sensing range and reliability both degrade outdoors in direct sunlight for most structured-light and active stereo cameras, since the ambient IR washes out the projected pattern - it's a real limitation for humanoids intended for anything beyond indoor, controlled environments.
he/him
-
amara.brown
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2026 5:53 am
Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?
Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful.
Depth sensing range and reliability both degrade outdoors in direct sunlight for most structured-light and active stereo cameras, since the ambient IR washes out the projected pattern - it's a real limitation for humanoids intended for anything beyond indoor, controlled environments. Multi-camera calibration drifts over time from thermal expansion, vibration, and mechanical wear, which is why production systems typically run periodic recalibration routines rather than assuming a one-time factory calibration holds forever.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?
Ran into exactly this myself.
Latency between a perceived event (like a slip) and a corrective control response matters enormously for balance - even 50-100ms of extra perception latency can be the difference between a smooth recovery and a fall, which is part of why a lot of balance-critical sensing is proprioceptive rather than vision-based. Proprioception (the robot's sense of its own joint angles, velocities, and forces) tends to get less attention than flashy vision systems, even though a lot of balance and manipulation failures trace back to proprioceptive noise or miscalibration rather than a vision problem.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
-
novikova63
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2026 8:26 pm
Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?
@smartinez That's the official framing, at least - reality tends to lag a bit.
Tactile skin arrays have improved a lot, but 'good enough to matter' really depends on the task - coarse contact detection across a large area is fairly mature, while fine, high-resolution force distribution sensing (like a human fingertip) is still the harder problem.
Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?
This matches something I went through recently.
Event cameras (which report per-pixel brightness changes rather than full frames) are still more of a research curiosity than a production sensor for humanoids, mainly because the software ecosystem and processing pipelines around them are far less mature than for standard frame-based cameras.
"Torque is a lifestyle."
Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?
Same conclusion I've come to. Also worth noting:
Latency between a perceived event (like a slip) and a corrective control response matters enormously for balance - even 50-100ms of extra perception latency can be the difference between a smooth recovery and a fall, which is part of why a lot of balance-critical sensing is proprioceptive rather than vision-based.
they/them