Whole-body proprioceptive sensing - where are the blind spots?

IMUs, force/torque sensors, depth cameras, LiDAR, tactile skin, SLAM, and state estimation.
novikova63
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2026 8:26 pm

Re: Whole-body proprioceptive sensing - where are the blind spots?

Post by novikova63 »

Worth being a little skeptical of the marketing angle here. 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. 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.
betty.king
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2025 8:37 am

Re: Whole-body proprioceptive sensing - where are the blind spots?

Post by betty.king »

@novikova63 From hands-on experience, 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. LiDAR gives reliable, lighting-independent range data but is heavier, pricier, and gives sparser point clouds up close than stereo or depth cameras, which is why a lot of humanoids lean on stereo/depth cameras for near-field manipulation and reserve LiDAR (if present at all) for longer-range navigation.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
ssantos
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2025 12:03 am

Re: Whole-body proprioceptive sensing - where are the blind spots?

Post by ssantos »

This matches something I went through recently. 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
lbianchi
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:56 pm

Re: Whole-body proprioceptive sensing - where are the blind spots?

Post by lbianchi »

@ssantos One nitpick - 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. 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.
mia.weber
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2024 4:38 am

Re: Whole-body proprioceptive sensing - where are the blind spots?

Post by mia.weber »

This matches something I went through recently. SLAM in a working warehouse is harder than in a controlled lab mainly because the map keeps changing - pallets move, people walk through, lighting shifts near dock doors - so a lot of production systems lean on semi-static maps refreshed periodically rather than pure continuous SLAM.
ssantos
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2025 12:03 am

Re: Whole-body proprioceptive sensing - where are the blind spots?

Post by ssantos »

Here's what I know on this: 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.
they/them
lbianchi
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:56 pm

Re: Whole-body proprioceptive sensing - where are the blind spots?

Post by lbianchi »

@ssantos Minor factual note: 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. 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.
carlossanchez
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2025 1:44 am

Re: Whole-body proprioceptive sensing - where are the blind spots?

Post by carlossanchez »

@lbianchi Here's the relevant bit as far as I understand it: 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.
"Torque is a lifestyle."
jonathan.rao1
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:58 pm

Re: Whole-body proprioceptive sensing - where are the blind spots?

Post by jonathan.rao1 »

Side note that might be relevant: LiDAR gives reliable, lighting-independent range data but is heavier, pricier, and gives sparser point clouds up close than stereo or depth cameras, which is why a lot of humanoids lean on stereo/depth cameras for near-field manipulation and reserve LiDAR (if present at all) for longer-range navigation.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.
jchen
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2025 2:19 pm

Re: Whole-body proprioceptive sensing - where are the blind spots?

Post by jchen »

@jonathan.rao1 Just to be precise about one thing: 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.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
Post Reply