Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?
Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?
Genuinely curious -
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. 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.
-
mary.taylor6
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2025 10:51 pm
Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?
@emma_whit Here's what I know on this:
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.
-
jessica_faro
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2025 5:26 am
Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?
@mary.taylor6 Side note that might be relevant:
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. 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.
they/them
-
amara.brown
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2026 5:53 am
Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?
To answer this directly:
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.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
-
barbara.jones
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2025 6:12 pm
Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?
Slightly off-topic, but related:
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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?
Here's what I know on this:
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. 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.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
-
ethan_fisc
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2024 1:36 am
Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?
Just to be precise about one thing:
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.
Re: Best practices for mounting an IMU to avoid vibration noise?
@ethan_fisc Here's the relevant bit as far as I understand it:
Sensor fusion mostly earns its keep by covering for each individual sensor's weaknesses - vision struggles with occlusion and lighting, IMUs drift, force/torque sensors are noisy at low loads - fusing them gives a more robust estimate than any one source alone, independent of raw compute. 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.