What sensor would meaningfully reduce false positives in obstacle detection?

IMUs, force/torque sensors, depth cameras, LiDAR, tactile skin, SLAM, and state estimation.
barbara_liu
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2026 7:08 am

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

Post by barbara_liu »

That's the official framing, at least - reality tends to lag a bit. 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.
they/them
jonathan.rao1
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:58 pm

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

Post by jonathan.rao1 »

@barbara_liu That's the official framing, at least - reality tends to lag a bit. 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.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.
karentaylor
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed May 27, 2026 5:10 pm

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

Post by karentaylor »

@jonathan.rao1 Appreciate the detailed answer. Force/torque sensors near the ankle give a direct read on ground reaction forces, which is valuable for balance control, but they add cost, a failure point, and routing complexity right at a joint that already takes the most mechanical abuse.
sharonschmidt
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:31 am

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

Post by sharonschmidt »

@karentaylor Here's the relevant bit as far as I understand it: 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. IMU drift over time (bias instability) is usually the real culprit behind slowly diverging state estimates, not noise - it's typically handled with sensor fusion against other references (visual odometry, joint kinematics) rather than trying to eliminate drift at the source.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
edward.nelson
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2026 2:23 pm

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

Post by edward.nelson »

@sharonschmidt Speaking from personal experience here, 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.
she/her
Post Reply