What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

IMUs, force/torque sensors, depth cameras, LiDAR, tactile skin, SLAM, and state estimation.
nicole57
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2024 1:29 am

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by nicole57 »

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
jhansen
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:27 am

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by jhansen »

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.
barbara50
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2024 12:19 pm

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by barbara50 »

@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?

Post by camila.jackson0 »

@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.
kwilliams
Posts: 309
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:57 pm

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by kwilliams »

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?

Post by amara.brown »

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.
smartinez
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2025 2:55 am

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by smartinez »

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?

Post by novikova63 »

@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.
greta78
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2026 8:34 pm

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by greta78 »

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."
young58
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2025 6:16 am

Re: What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

Post by young58 »

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
Post Reply